Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, despite big promises from the Prime Minister to bring generational economic change and move at speeds never before seen, our small businesses, the backbone of the Canadian economy, are struggling under this high-tax, big-deficit-spending Liberal government. Over half of small businesses in this country have said they would not recommend starting a business in Canada today. This is devastating news. After a decade of Liberals, Canada has become an unwelcome place to do business, and under the Prime Minister, it is not getting any better. When will the Liberals reverse their harmful policies so that businesses can get ahead?

Mr. Speaker, “from a position of strength”, she said. According to Statistics Canada, business capital investment has declined for five quarters in a row. Entrepreneurship is at a 25-year low and we are now in a recession. These are the devastating results under the Liberal Prime Minister. This is his record, and Canadians are the ones having to suffer the consequences. When are they going to realize that it is Liberal economic policies that are sending people to food banks, causing job losses and driving this country into a recession? That is on them.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's words against gender-based violence. We all support a decrease in that, but I do want to outline something for her. As per the Criminal Code, aggravated sexual assault is defined as follows: It occurs if the person assaulted is wounded, maimed, disfigured, beaten or in danger of losing his or her life while being sexually assaulted. The provision with aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint has a mandatory minimum of four years, which is not nearly enough, in my opinion. Why does the member support clause 63 in Bill C-16, which would allow judges the discretion to provide lesser sentences than the mandatory minimum of four years for aggravated sexual assault with a firearm?

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to engage in this very important debate we are having about the Liberals' bill, Bill C-16, which comes in light of quite significant violent crime statistics in the country over the last 10 years. For example, sexual assaults have increased by 76% and violent crimes by 55%. That comes after 10 years of the Stephen Harper government, when there was a 26% decline in violent crime, but over the last 10 years of Liberal government, there has been a 55% increase in reported violent crime. Sexual violations against children in that decade as well are up by well over 100%. Human trafficking is up by over 84%, so the bill is arriving at a very dire time in violent crime against women, against children and against the most vulnerable in Canada. As such, I am very honoured to engage in this debate, and frankly, there are a number of measures in the bill that we personally support, notably things that the Conservatives on this side of the House have brought forward over recent years and have championed in recent years. While we welcome those things being adopted in this bill, we have other concerns, which I will get into shortly. For example, there is Bill C-225 from the Conservative member of Parliament for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, our public safety shadow minister. That bill is currently in the Senate and would make the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree murder. In fact, that would build on a bill from the Senate from about four years ago, which I helped champion, from former Conservative senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, who is a nationally renowned champion for fighting against violence against women. It is great to see that is part of this bill. I appreciate that. Bill C-216 from the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill aimed to ban deepfakes of intimate partners to keep Canadians safe, especially women, from non-consensual intimate images being created and shared. Bill C-16 also includes provisions from that same bill to bring in mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse material, so that has been taken up as well. There are a number of measures that we have championed and that we welcome seeing in the bill. Also, it would update mandatory reporting requirements concerning child exploitation material, but also the bill would criminalize coercive or controlling conduct within intimate partner relationships, which we support. I used to serve on the status of women committee, and we have long been hearing that this is an area that needs very early intervention, so I welcome that in this piece of legislation. However, there is a very divisive piece that we need to discuss. It is clause 63 in Bill C-16, which the Liberals have included. It makes it very difficult for us to support the bill. Despite all the good work that we have done that is reflected in it, there is a very clear red line in clause 63. It is what the justice minister has called a safety valve for mandatory minimum penalties. This really emphasizes the trend in this country of judicial activism and concessions by the Liberal government to that, and would undermine Parliament's role in setting sentencing policy. Ultimately, it would allow courts to impose sentences below mandatory minimums set by the House. It would provide discretion to a judge to determine that a sentence should be less than a mandatory minimum penalty under circumstances the judge deems cruel and unusual punishment. This sounds like quite a significant hurdle, but recent court cases make me question if we should be allowing judges the discretion to determine what exactly that is. In fact, the Liberal government has linked this provision in the bill to a recent Supreme Court decision that I think really rocked the nation. For me, when it came out, it made me feel sick to my stomach. It was the Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville decision in the fall. For those who may not be familiar with that ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a one-year mandatory minimum sentence for the offences of possessing and accessing child pornography is unconstitutional. Our Supreme Court of Canada, the supreme judicial body in this country, ruled that a one-year mandatory prison sentence may be unconstitutional in certain hypothetical extreme scenarios for possessing and accessing child pornography. In the case in particular, the two offenders had 475 and 805 files, respectively, depicting child pornography, mostly of girls between the ages of three and six years old undergoing horrific, unimaginable sexual abuse. During this case, the Supreme Court said that, maybe not in that scenario, but in another potential scenario of a 17-year-old sending an 18-year-old an intimate image, if maybe that 18-year-old shared it and that was ever charged by police, prosecuted by the Crown and then brought all the way up to the courts, an MMP could be cruel and unusual punishment in that hypothetical scenario. This is why there is no longer a one-year mandatory minimum, based on this decision. Now they are bringing this forward, saying that this helps that situation. It gives the judges what is basically an out. I guess this is what they are allowing. We would have used the notwithstanding clause on that judicial ruling and been very proud of that. There are a number of other rulings as well in recent years that have us really just questioning the morality we are seeing in this country and, again, the judicial activism. For example, two years ago, in R. v. Bertrand Marchand, the Supreme Court ruled that a one-year mandatory minimum for child luring was cruel and unusual punishment. In R. v. Hills, it struck down the four-year mandatory minimum for reckless discharge of a firearm. These are very dangerous crimes, very horrific crimes in many cases, where the mandatory minimum is being struck down by the Supreme Court. Most egregiously, in R. v. Bissonnette, involving the man who opened fire and killed six people in a mosque, the court decided it was unconstitutional to impose consecutive life sentences on murderers like that. I disagree strongly with all of those rulings. Now Bill C-16, with clause 63, is providing more opportunity for judges to decide, despite Parliament having ruled that certain offences are so egregious that they require mandatory minimum prison time, like child pornography, for example. I look at this, and it is difficult to wrap my head around it when I think about some of the worst examples we have seen. We cannot go a week in this country without seeing some ridiculous ruling by a judge who ruled that someone could be let out on bail despite 50 violent crimes, some including sexual assault, breaking and entering, violent assault. They say, “Oh, yes, you can go out on bail,” over and over and over. There are light sentences for sexual abuse. We see this all the time. Instead of doubling down and asserting our rights of Parliament, the government would allow a “safety valve”, as per the Minister of Justice, for judicial discretion with mandatory minimums. We cannot support that. I will just describe one example: aggravated sexual assault. This is how the Criminal Code defines aggravated sexual assault. It occurs if the person who is being sexually assaulted is wounded, maimed, disfigured, beaten or in danger of losing his or her life. That action at gunpoint has a current mandatory minimum of four years, which, quite frankly, I think is not nearly enough, but that is what it is. At least it is there. Why is it that the Liberals voted against our amendment at committee to ensure that provision is not part of this safety valve? They allow it for treason and murder but not aggravated sexual assault with a firearm? What about sexual abuse against children? We also put forward amendments to ensure that those offences were excused, that those were not included, that those would be in the same category as the treason and the murder, so that this would not apply. That was also voted down. We worked collaboratively in that committee to provide opportunities so that these mandatory minimums would remain, and they voted them down. I would like to hear Liberal members describe to us in what scenario they morally believe a judge should be permitted the authority to allow less than four years for an aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint. If they cannot think of a scenario, why did they not support our amendment? It is so frustrating because there is stuff in this bill that we worked hard to push forward. I have been here for almost seven years. I cannot tell the House how much we have been banging on these tables demanding more justice for women, for children, for victims of sexual abuse, tougher sentencing, jail not bail for repeat violent offenders. Now the Liberals are getting up on their high horse, pretending they have the higher ground, and they are allowing this provision to give more discretion to judges to allow lesser sentences for aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint. I cannot get on board for that, and it is very upsetting. As members can tell, I get quite animated, because there is stuff in this bill we would like to support. We gave them every opportunity to take this out of the bill to ensure that these protections, this justice for victims, remain in our Criminal Code, and they voted them down. It is very disappointing but, unfortunately, not surprising.

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to hear any of that coming from Liberal members. What we are fixated on is rights for women against their abusers. For example, there was my bill from a few years ago that was from the Senate, from Senator Boisvenu. In that bill, there was the opportunity for a peace bond for two years. A peace bond is something that a woman who has been abused can get as protection against her abuser. It takes a lot of courage and a lot of time to go before the courts, through the process, to get it; in essence, it is a type of restraining order. In that bill, a woman would have had two years when she could relax for a moment with that protection. Liberal members diluted that to one year. I will take no lectures, no ivory tower from these Liberal members about protecting women and what is best for them.

I thank my colleague for the question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it. Again, I outlined in my speech a number of things we like in this bill, a number of things we have put forward and advocated for. That is why it is so frustrating that there is a provision in here that allows the opportunity for more judicial activism for lesser sentencing. It is very difficult for us because, again, there is a lot of our work represented in there, but how can we in good conscience support something that is going to provide more opportunity for judicial discretion to lower sentencing for violent repeat offenders? It is very difficult. I have outlined our position on this. I appreciate the member's work, as well, on this. Again, what is most frustrating, I think, is that we gave them every opportunity to get on board for this. We brought forward concrete, clear amendments to ensure that the most egregious offences, for example, aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint, are removed from that safety valve, and the Liberals voted them down. They are not interested in working on this together. They want to play politics.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's work on the justice committee. Kerry Sun is a doctoral student at the University of Oxford and a member of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. I will just outline his words in the National Post on the purpose of the notwithstanding clause. He wrote that it “is a mechanism to prevent overreaching judicial interpretations of rights from undermining the common good.” Chief Justice Wagner said that the decision could erode public confidence. This would have been the opportunity to use it. We feel it should have been used.

Madam Chair, the Canadian auto sector is in serious crisis. We are facing thousands of job losses, and really that is a result of the U.S. tariffs and, frankly, a disastrous strategic policy by this Liberal government. If I look at 2020 to 2024, when the finance minister was, in fact, the industry minister, he signed off on up to $52 billion with Ontario for electric vehicle subsidies to artificially manufacture an electric vehicle supply chain in Canada. He made very big promises that this was going to deliver huge returns for Canada, yet many of those projects have failed to deliver. In fact, we have seen thousands of job losses because of the failure of those projects to go forward. Can the minister admit that his electric vehicle strategy has been a failure?

Madam Chair, yes I am, with the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River. I will just go through the list, because I think the finance minister may not be aware of some of the commitments that he made to Canadians that have since fallen through. At Stellantis in Brampton, the plant laid off 3,000 workers. In fact it took those jobs, sent them to the U.S. and promised 5,000 jobs in the U.S. and $13 billion of U.S. investment, despite hundreds of millions of dollars flowing from the taxpayers through the Liberal government to retool Stellantis's facility in Brampton. Northvolt in Quebec went bankrupt despite up to $3 billion of commitments from the taxpayer through the Liberal government. Ford in Oakville, despite millions of taxpayer dollars spent, cancelled its project and is now making gas-powered trucks. With Umicore for EV batteries in Loyalist Township, Ontario, millions of taxpayer dollars were spent, and the project was delayed indefinitely. GM POSCO in Quebec is an EV battery plant. Phase 2 is now delayed despite well over $126 million from the taxpayer being spent. GM's CAMI facility is in Oshawa with $244 million from the taxpayer. Their BrightDrop EV project was shelved. Of course, Honda just recently suspended indefinitely a $15-billion electric vehicle project in Ontario, citing issues with global EV demand. The Liberals' cornerstone, the NextStar Energy facility that was supposed to build and be a world leader in electric car batteries, is no longer making EV batteries. In fact, the auto company involved with that, Stellantis, has pulled out altogether. I will just ask the minister again if he feels his promises are being delivered on an electric vehicle supply chain in Canada?

Madam Chair, I do believe Volkswagen has written down $6 billion because of losses in electric vehicles. These CEOs are really showing what the market is demanding, and that is not electric vehicles. If we look at Stellantis, for example, it wrote down $26 billion on EV investments. Stellantis cited that its customers were not buying them, and that is why it just could not make a profit from EVs. Just in January, GM, which also received subsidies from the Liberal government and the taxpayer, announced $6 billion of write-downs as well on EV operations. They warned that more EV writedowns may be happening. In December, Ford announced nearly $20 billion of writedowns. It just keeps coming on EV productions. After years of trying to make them profitable, they are just not profitable. Again, how can the minister stand here and say that the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and committed billions more, yet the CEOs themselves are saying that they cannot make a profit with these EVs?

Mr. Chair, if we listen to the CEOs who are writing down up to $25 billion because of EV losses and if we look at the thousands of job losses at the Brampton facility and the CAMI facility, I think it is very clear the EV market in North America is struggling. That is despite billions of dollars of promises from the Liberal government and hundreds of millions of dollars flowing. They are still struggling to make a go of it. We see in North America that EVs do not really sell unless they are receiving huge subsidies from the taxpayers, so that is exactly what the Liberals are doing. They are doubling down on this failing strategy and have brought forward a $2.3-billion EV subsidy so that Canadian taxpayer dollars can go to those purchasing electric vehicles. However, the reality is a lot of that money is not going to benefit the Canadian auto sector, which is struggling and needs the support. No, It is going to go to foreign-made electric vehicles, because Canada, despite all these promises and all this money, makes one, maybe two, eligible vehicles. How is it that our auto sector is struggling, we are losing thousands of jobs, and the finance minister has brought forward a $2.3-billion subsidy that will largely go to benefit Donald Trump's American auto sector? How is he justifying benefiting the Trump auto sector when our auto sector needs the support?

Mr. Chair, it is not necessarily other countries creating electric vehicle subsidies that benefit the American EV auto sector. Again, I do not understand. The minister did not answer my question about why our taxpayer dollars are going to benefit the American electric vehicle market when our auto sector needs support. He did not answer that at all, but we will move on. It is very clear that the government is going to keep doubling down, but what is really shocking is that, despite all the struggles he is having in getting this electric vehicle strategy off the ground and despite billions of dollars that the government is trying to get out the door to attract this investment, the minister is bringing in 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles, which will represent a third of the electric vehicle market in this country. We cannot hope to compete with the subsidies that China provides. How can he justify this when our auto sector is struggling?

moved that Bill C-263, An Act to establish a national framework for silver alerts, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to my bill, Bill C-263, an act to establish a national framework for silver alerts. This bill is deeply personal to many in my community, especially the Moberg family of North Kildonan in Winnipeg. In December 2023, Earl Moberg, who suffered from advanced dementia, disappeared from his home. Again, this is in the middle of a Winnipeg winter. Despite extensive search efforts, he was never found and is presumed deceased. Mr. Moberg was a real person. He was a husband. He was a father. He was a grandfather. He was a teacher. He was a veteran in the Canadian air force reserve. He was a man who was deeply proud of his Swedish heritage. He was a man who spent decades serving northern Manitoba communities. He was a man who loved long walks, gardening, hiking, swimming, learning and spending time with his wife and kids. Even into his later years, he remained very physically active and intellectually curious. His daughter, Britt Moberg, described him as the person she always went to for advice, until, of course, the dementia progressed and those roles were reversed and she started to have to care for him. Like so many families that are dealing with dementia in someone they love, the Moberg family watched someone they deeply cared for slowly disappear. Then, they physically lost him as well. They were dealing with, really, two losses over a fairly short period of time, only a few years. I think that is one of the hardest realities for families living with someone they love with dementia. They lose someone in stages. It is not just overnight. At first, it is small things. There might be repeated questions, maybe some confusion, maybe getting lost very briefly. Then, over time, safety concerns grow very serious. One day, they may be fine to be left alone or even drive their car like normal, and then the next day, it is not fine anymore. Eventually, a walk around the block can be very unsafe. Earl's family, like all families that deal with dementia, tried their very best to adapt to a really impossible situation. They used trackers. They would redirect him when he wanted to do something that was no longer safe for him, like go for a walk by himself. His wife became a full-time caregiver for him. They sought medical assessment after medical assessment. They sought all the supports that were available to them. However, for many families that are dealing with this, it can be incredibly overwhelming. It can be scary. It can be tremendously exhausting, emotionally, physically and mentally. While they are dealing with all these changes, their heart is breaking because they are losing someone they love, someone they used to go to for advice. Then, in the Moberg household, one winter evening, unbeknownst to his family, Mr. Moberg walked out the front door and never came home. I think what made this tragedy really difficult for me to stomach, personally, was that someone may have seen him but just did not know he was missing. One woman later reported that the day after he went missing, she saw a confused, older gentleman in a local lab clinic, one that he happened to frequent. He appeared a bit disoriented. He was able to say that his phone was dead, but she did not know that he was missing. She did not find out that there was a person missing until she saw, days later, a public alert online. It was only online in Manitoba. That man happened to match the description of Mr. Moberg. In fact, she went to help in the search to find him, but of course, by the time she put two and two together on this, it was far too late. She later shared with the family, as well, that she had this gut feeling that something was just off, that maybe this man needed help. We all often get these gut feelings, but we often also ignore them. We do not really have the confidence or enough information to act on that gut feeling. That is the precise moment this bill is looking to deal with, to solve. I keep imagining that if she had received a silver alert on her phone that morning, with a description of a man who was missing, and then she also had a gut feeling when she saw a man of a similar description, maybe she would have acted. Maybe she would have called someone. Maybe she would have called emergency services. Something may have happened. Mr. Moberg, if that was him, might still be alive today if this had been in place. That is really the core motivation for this bill, for those moments when we see someone and we also have that alert. That is when there is action. It is when those stars align that we need all the technologies, all the supports in place, to ensure that we are bringing people home safely. Missing person cases involving seniors living with dementia are unique because of the specific vulnerability they have. They may appear normal, just a senior going for a walk. They may not even know they are in danger. They may not know they are missing. They may not be able to verbalize it. They may not remember where they live or whom to call in an emergency. They may not even know that they are dying of dehydration and hypothermia, just that they are in pain, but they cannot verbalize it. These are uniquely time-sensitive scenarios. Public Safety Canada has stated that if a person living with Alzheimer's disease goes missing and is not found within 12 hours, they have a 50% chance of being found deceased or severely injured, notably with hypothermia and dehydration, or having drowned. Therefore, every minute matters and every hour matters. Every moment matters when we are searching for seniors with dementia who have gone missing. However, in Canada today, whether the public is rapidly notified or not really depends on geography. Some provinces have explored silver alerts. Some have pilot programs. Some have legislation on paper, such as Manitoba, or online alerts, such as Manitoba. Some really have no operation at all. Meanwhile, Canada already possesses the technological infrastructure capable of delivering rapid geo-targeted alerts directly to mobile devices, to televisions and to radios. We already use this infrastructure for Amber Alerts and other emergency notifications such as weather alerts and tornado warnings. I have gotten a few of those over the years. Therefore, this is not an issue of technological capability limitations. It is an issue of coordination, standards and consistent implementation across Canada. That is why the bill was intentionally drafted as a framework bill. It would not create a federally controlled emergency alert regime, just to be very clear. We already have one of those with provinces. Instead it would recognize the constitutional reality that provinces and territories oversee policing and emergency management, while asking the federal government to provide a real national leadership role and coordination. Specifically, the bill would require the federal government to work with provinces and territories, police, emergency management officials, care providers and other experts to develop a national framework for silver alerts. The framework would include things like harmonizing risk thresholds, improving interprovincial coordination, establishing privacy guidelines, supporting geo-targeted notifications and ensuring that alerts are issued responsibly. I want to really emphasize that last point, because the bill is not proposing an alert for every missing person. Every missing person does matter, but it is the specific vulnerability of a senior with dementia who goes missing that is critical. The window to find them is so short. Families understand the sensitivities with issuing these alerts, and the importance of dignity and respect for the individuals. Ms. Britt Moberg spoke very movingly about this tension to me, saying that for people living with dementia, it is difficult. Things such as “You cannot drive anymore, Dad” are difficult discussions that need respect and dignity, and that needs to be a core frame for establishing the silver alerts. We put a lot of thought into that when drafting the legislation. In fact, Canada's existing alert infrastructure already allows alerts to be targeted with quite remarkable precision. They can be targeted to within a few city blocks, so that just the cellphones in a specific area would get an alert. That matters, because it would help reduce unnecessary disruption and reduce alert fatigue, while still mobilizing public support when someone is truly vulnerable and at imminent risk of peril. Those are really some of the key principles here: proportionate, targeted, responsible public notification for time-sensitive cases involving vulnerable people. Importantly, this issue is becoming more urgent. By 2030, nearly one million Canadians are expected to be living with dementia. By 2050, that number is going to hit 1.7 million. People are more likely to get dementia as they age, so as our population ages, more Canadian families will, unfortunately, face what the Mobergs have faced. In the past few years, there have been some very tragic cases, including Mr. Moberg's. In British Columbia, for example, there was a news headline the other day that said that search and rescue teams are warning that missing seniors with cognitive impairments are becoming a growing trend. In Saskatchewan, an 86-year-old man with Alzheimer's wandered out of a care home unnoticed and was later found deceased. Also in Saskatchewan, just a few weeks ago, an 82-year-old grandmother living with only mild dementia, which is difficult to deal with, vanished and was found deceased nearly two weeks later. In Nova Scotia, a 79-year-old woman with dementia disappeared from a seniors residence. Luckily, the alert went out in some way and helped find her in time. Another Nova Scotia senior living with dementia disappeared and was unfortunately later found deceased. In Alberta, a missing 79-year-old woman with dementia was fortunately found again within the 12-hour window. Particularly tragic, in January, Quebec's coroner was investigating the death of a 90-year-old woman found outside her seniors residence after wandering out in the cold. It was reportedly the fourth similar death involving a Quebec senior in roughly one month. These stories are happening across Canada, in every neighbourhood and in rural and remote areas. It does not matter where. There is no discrimination with this issue. It is everywhere. It is in care homes, in hospitals and in our own backyards. As our population ages, we have the responsibility to do something about this effectively and efficiently. I want to make clear that this is not a partisan bill, not a political bill and not a left-wing or right-wing issue. This is a human issue. We have the technology to make a difference. It is in the palm of our hand every day, all day. We have it right there. We just need to mobilize it. I want to acknowledge members from different parties, including the Liberal Party, who have reached out to me, including the Minister of Emergency Management. They have engaged in thoughtful and constructive dialogue with me on this. I am very encouraged by that. I also want to recognize there may be amendments at committee talking about provincial jurisdictions, certain operational thresholds and various implementation details. I welcome that conversation very much, because ultimately the goal here is to save lives, and this is a tool that we can use. If this legislation helps push Canada forward toward a more coordinated, medically informed and operationally workable system that allows communities to respond faster when vulnerable seniors disappear, then this bill would have accomplished something very meaningful. At its core, this legislation is asking a simple question: When a vulnerable senior with dementia disappears and we already possess the technology capable of notifying nearby Canadians immediately, should we use it more effectively? The Conservatives believe that the answer is resolutely, yes, we should. I do want to dedicate this bill to the Moberg family for their courage, resilience and resolve in turning an unimaginable tragedy into meaningful action. It has been an honour to work with them and to get to know them, and we hope, together, today will be one more step toward saving lives of vulnerable seniors in Canada. Today, the House of Commons will debate at second reading my private member's bill, Bill C‑263, an act to establish a national framework for silver alerts. This legislation is rooted in the tragic disappearance of Earl Moberg, a Winnipeg man with advanced dementia who left his home in December 2023 and never returned. His daughter, Britt Moberg, is with me here in Ottawa today. Like so many Canadian families grappling with dementia, the Mobergs went through the extremely painful experience of watching a loved one slowly slip away even before their physical passing. The purpose of this bill is to save other families from having to experience the same tragedy. Canada's population is aging rapidly. By 2030, nearly one million Canadians are expected to suffer from dementia. According to Public Safety Canada, about 60% of people with dementia will go missing at some point. If they are not found within 12 hours, there is a 50% chance that they will be found injured or dead from hypothermia, dehydration or drowning. This problem affects every region of the country, including Quebec. Over the past few months, Quebec coroners have investigated a number of tragic deaths involving vulnerable seniors who wandered outside in winter. This story reminds us that people with dementia can appear to be fine, like any other senior taking a walk alone, when they are actually confused, lost and in imminent danger. Quebec has already recognized the importance of silver alerts and has an alert system. However, the bill seeks to work in collaboration with the provinces, including Quebec, to improve national coordination, the criteria for issuing alerts, privacy protection and the responsible use of existing alert technologies. The bill also seeks to fully respect provincial jurisdictions and not to create and impose a federal system on the provinces. Rather, it calls on the federal government to collaborate with the provinces, police, emergency preparedness officials and medical experts on establishing a flexible, coordinated national framework. Canada already has the technological infrastructure needed to quickly issue geotargeted alerts to cellphones over the same system used for amber alerts and weather alerts. The problem is not technological. The problem is a lack of coordinated, common standards across the country. I would ask all parties from every corner of this country to seriously consider supporting this bill to go to committee for further study, and ultimately getting it over the finish line so that, as a country and as a House of Commons, we can ensure we are using the power in the palm of our hand to save lives of vulnerable seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the question from the hon. member. We work very well together on the industry committee, and it has been a pleasure to get to know him over the years. I am not proposing any amendments, as I think the bill is great as it is, but I am very open to amendments if other parties would like to propose them. My one concern is that I do not want to see the bill watered down to where it is just symbolic. Our goal, mine and the Moberg family's, with the advocacy they have done, is to make a real difference. I believe, given the alert structure that exists, there is a serious federal role to be played, in the sense that it can lead. The Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience can call a federal-provincial-territorial meeting, for example, on silver alerts. Let us get to the table. Let us discuss a framework. Let us have some coordination across the country. There can be a real leadership role. I just want to point out as well that right at the beginning, subsection 3(2) specifies working with provinces and territories as paramount, so it is in there.

Mr. Speaker, I believe Manitoba has a similar silver alert framework to Quebec. Unless there has been a new development that I am not aware of, Quebec's silver alert, like Manitoba's, will go on police websites and social media. It notifies through a paper or electronic route, but not on our phones like an Amber alert or a tornado warning. Unless there has been a change in Quebec, I believe that is the case. It does not currently alert to our phones that there is a missing senior. There is a legislative framework that exists in Manitoba, but it has not been actioned to the level of cellular devices. It is just online. As I mentioned in my remarks, a silver alert technically went out for Mr. Moberg, but it was just the online alert. That is what Manitoba is calling its silver alert. What I am calling a silver alert in the bill is more about the cellular device capabilities that we see with Amber alerts, tornado warnings and things like that. I think Manitoba and Quebec have similar things. The problem is that they are not alerting people who are not necessarily paying attention to those notification boards. That is the problem.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. has quite an extensive alert system. It depends on the region, but it is quite efficient. It has public billboards, sort of, across its infamous interstate system. Someone can be driving down there, going on a road trip with their family, and they will see an alert for the missing person. It can use cellular devices as well for these various alerts. The U.S. is the best example of this, and there has been some success. I want to mention that the purpose of the national coordination is so we can get research and testimony from experts across the country, which would make it easier for the will of the provinces to get moving and do this. It is to help make this happen, because the legislation is often there, but it has not happened. This bill aims to fix that.

Mr. Speaker, more than two years ago, Earl Moberg, a beloved husband, father and grandfather from my community in Winnipeg, went missing in the middle of winter. He was living with dementia and, despite extensive search efforts, he was never found. He is presumed deceased. Unfortunately this tragic story is not unique. By 2030, nearly one million Canadians are expected to be living with dementia. Many will go missing, and when they do, every minute matters. The risk of serious injury or death rises dramatically the longer they are not found. Canada already has the infrastructure to issue rapid, geotargeted emergency alerts. What we lack is a coordinated national framework to use it for missing vulnerable seniors. My private member's bill, the silver alert national framework act, would fix that and require the federal government to work with provinces and police to ensure that alerts can be issued quickly and consistently across Canada. This is about giving families a better chance to bring their loved ones home safe and alive. I urge all members to support the bill. Canadians who agree should contact their local MP and ask them to support Bill C-263.

Mr. Speaker, I will share a quote: “In the upside-down land of Liberals, a spending spree is a spending cut, blowing a windfall of billions of dollars is prudent and failing to prepare for a fiscal storm is, well, just good [fiscal] management.” That is the scathing review from the Globe and Mail editorial board, because yesterday the Liberals promised Canadians that they would continue their decade of massive deficit spending, which means a rising cost of living for Canadians will also continue, with no end in sight. When will the Liberal Prime Minister finally show some responsibility and some fiscal restraint so Canadians can afford to live?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals can dress this up however they like, but there is a glaring omission in the fiscal update, which is urgency. They have no urgency in resolving the U.S. tariff dispute, which is costing thousands of Canadian manufacturing jobs. What is worse, according to the Financial Times, “Canada’s leading industry groups say [the Prime Minister’s] effort to cut red tape is floundering, costing the country billions more in trade losses than...Donald Trump’s tariffs.” Liberals have no urgency to resolve that issue either, despite it being 100% in their control. Rather than massive deficits, why do they not cut red tape so our workers and industries can survive?

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-263, An Act to establish a national framework for silver alerts. Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce my first private member's bill, the silver alert national framework bill. The bill is inspired by a tragedy in my community. Over two years ago, Earl Moberg, a beloved husband, father and grandfather living with dementia, went missing from his Winnipeg home in the winter of 2023. Despite extensive search efforts, he was never found and is presumed deceased. When a vulnerable senior goes missing, every minute matters. By 2030, nearly one million Canadians are expected to be living with dementia, and the risk of serious injury or death rises dramatically if someone is not found quickly. Canada already has the infrastructure to issue rapid geotargeted emergency alerts, but we lack a coordinated national framework for silver alerts. The bill would require the federal government to work with provinces and police to establish that framework so communities can be alerted quickly and more families would have the chance to bring their loved ones home safely. I hope that all members of the House will support this important bill, and I encourage all Canadians who do to contact their local MP and urge them to support it. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

moved: That, given that, (i) over 5,000 auto sector jobs have been lost since the Prime Minister came to office, (ii) the number of cars produced in Canada since 2016 has fallen by half, from 2.3 million in 2016 to 1.2 million in 2025, (iii) the Prime Minister has introduced an auto strategy that subsidizes electric vehicles made in foreign countries, (iv) the Prime Minister’s plan now requires Canadian workers to pay taxes that subsidize foreign-made vehicles they can't afford, the House call on the government to fix their auto strategy by: (a) scrapping the subsidies for foreign-made electric vehicles entering Canada that forces Canadian workers to subsidize $50,000 new cars; (b) removing the GST on Canadian-made vehicles; and (c) using their existing authority to reduce the amount of tax withheld on severance payments issued to workers at the GM CAMI facility in Ingersoll. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2)(a), I hereby divide each of the future Conservative caucus slots into two. Before I get started on our important opposition day motion, I ask members to allow me to put a few words on the record concerning Tumbler Ridge and the devastating tragedy that happened just two days ago in that beautiful, peaceful community in British Columbia. I know all of our hearts are breaking for the families impacted by this. What has happened there is a parent's worst nightmare. I wanted to extend my condolences on behalf of Kildonan—St. Paul and Winnipeg to that community. We grieve with them. May God be with them all at the darkest of times. Members of Parliament are sent to Ottawa to represent their communities, to represent Canadians, and the official opposition is tasked with the responsibility of holding the government accountable for its promises and actions. Shadow ministers have the additional responsibility of holding ministers and the decisions in their departments accountable. Last week, the Minister of Industry, along with the Prime Minister, announced what they have told Canadians is their strategy for what is transpiring in our auto sector. It is very serious what is happening in our auto sector, and I will go through a few of the issues I have with the announcement and with the approach. This is very serious. There are 5,000 families already out of work as a result of the Trump tariffs and the impact they are having on the Canadian auto sector. In 5,000 families, one of the income earners has lost their job. This is in addition to tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs lost, along with other offshoot jobs from the auto sector and other manufacturing sectors. This comes after a decade of decline in our auto sector. Members may recall that in 2016, 2.3 million cars were manufactured in Canada. Less than 10 years later, that number is down to 1.2 million. In a decade, our output in the auto sector, the cars we are manufacturing, has declined almost by half, and now we are being hit with 5,000 job losses in just the first year of the Trump trade war and its impact on our auto sector in Canada. The Liberal government has been in power for the last decade. How has it approached this? Just a few years ago, and I believe it was in 2022, the government, in partnership with Ontario, announced the largest subsidies in Canadian history for electric vehicles. It was not for gas-powered vehicles, where we were seeing the decline in manufacturing and the hits that were starting over the last decade, and it was not for where it is experiencing the most losses today. Just a few years ago, $52 billion in subsidies were announced for the manufacture of an electric vehicle supply chain for electric vehicle batteries and electric vehicles themselves. Unfortunately, in recent months, the wheels have been coming off the bus on a lot of those commitments. For example, the keystone of that $52-billion commitment was the NextStar Energy manufacturing plant in Windsor, which was supposed to make electric vehicle batteries for Stellantis, one of the major car auto manufacturers in Canada. Just recently, Stellantis announced that it would be selling off its 49% stake in that to LG Energy, so now it may be making some car batteries, but it will also be making battery cells. It is no longer going to be the keystone of electric vehicle battery production that it was supposed to be when these massive commitments from the taxpayer were made. If we look further, there are additional losses in this sector. For example, last month GM, which was also subsidized by these subsidies, announced a $6-billion writedown on its EV operations, warning it may post additional EV-related losses later this year. Meanwhile, of course, the Quebec government is attempting to recover nearly one-quarter of a billion dollars from the Northvolt facility there from a Swedish EV manufacturer that has gone bankrupt. Also, Ford announced a $19.5-billion writedown on EV production lines after years of trying and failing to make electric vehicles profitable in the North American market. In fact, Ford's chief executive said, “It didn't make sense to keep plowing billions into products that we knew would not make money”. That is in line with what Stellantis just recently said: “The charges announced today largely reflect the cost of over-estimating the pace of the energy transition that distanced us from many car buyers’ real-world needs, means and desires.” Really, he was citing customer preference as the struggles in the electric vehicle market, so it is struggling. What was promised to Canadians, with the largest subsidies in Canadian history, has the companies severely struggling. The companies have said that despite these massive commitments from the taxpayer, organized by the Liberal government and the Ontario government, this is simply not profitable. It is really unbelievable given, for example, that the NorthStar battery plant was a 100% subsidy for those batteries, and still the car company said it was not good for its bottom line and that it was bailing out. What that speaks to is that this does not seem to be working in the North American market. There are a number of reasons. Electric vehicles are popular elsewhere, but they do not face, for example, the same weather Canada faces; we are a very cold country. We are also the second-largest country on earth. People travel long, long distances. To get from one city to another, people would have to charge their car multiple times, especially in winter. There are some serious problems with electric vehicles. As well, affordability is a big issue; they are quite expensive vehicles. Last week, the Liberal government tried to do something about that, which I am now going to go into. It announced an EV subsidy of $2.3 billion for Canadians to purchase electric vehicles, so billions more are being poured into the electric vehicle sector from the Liberal government. Despite all of the losses, failures and delays, it is continuing to double down on this. It is a front-loaded program. The minister has explicitly said that the purpose of this is to make it most generous in the first year of the five years it will be available. Her rationale was that the government wants to encourage people to quickly, and in a great volume, buy electric vehicles. It is fine if that is its policy, but our auto sector is struggling and losing thousands of jobs in this tariff war. One could think, “Great, people can buy electric vehicles manufactured in Canada,” except that we only make one electric vehicle, the Dodge Charger, which is an electric vehicle muscle car, in essence. Though it may be a great car, I am not sure if it is the first choice for many families. Still, I am sure it is a very good car, and I am glad Canadians make it. However, that limits the opportunity for Canadians to support Canadian jobs with this over-$2-billion, taxpayer-funded subsidy that is subsidized by working Canadians. The auto sector workers themselves are now subsidizing the purchase of electric vehicles. Where are Canadians going to buy electric vehicles from? It will be from foreign countries. The last time the Liberals had a similar subsidy, 99% of it went to foreign auto sectors because Canada is not manufacturing the electric vehicles, so people are choosing to buy foreign ones. That is fine; Canadians can buy whatever car they want. If they want an electric vehicle, good for them. That is great. They can buy all kinds of cars. The problem is that if we are going to spend taxpayer dollars, the very dollars taken from the workers in the auto sector losing their jobs, should that money not be focused on the Canadian auto sector? Why is the Liberal government sending money to subsidize the auto sectors of foreign countries? Again, we are talking about quite generous supports, $5,000 in the first year. Again, this is going to be front loaded, so the biggest sales are likely to be made this year, according to what the minister has said. That leads me to my last point. We are seeing 5,000 job losses from the Trump administration's actions. The tariffs the U.S. is putting on the Canadian auto sector are costing us thousands of jobs, and many more to come are unfortunately likely. Now the Liberal government has introduced an electric vehicle subsidy, and electric vehicles made in the United States are eligible for this subsidy. The tax dollars of Canadian taxpayers, including the workers in the auto sector, are going to go to subsidize the purchase of electric vehicles manufactured in the United States. Why on earth are Canadian tax dollars and the hard-earned dollars from the auto sector workers themselves going to benefit the American auto sector? For us, it is unconscionable. What we would do is introduce a tax cut: the federal sales tax off of all new cars made in Canada. That is what we would introduce so that the auto market in Canada is supported and there are more sales generated across the board in Canada. That is what Conservatives are proposing. It is a more fair approach, and it supports the Canadian hands that make Canadian-made cars, not the American electric vehicle sector. We should not be supporting that. It is unconscionable that the tax dollars of auto workers losing their jobs are going to subsidize the purchase of electric vehicles made in Trump's America.

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed working with the member on the industry committee, and I am glad he brought this up because this is an interesting thing. The Liberal government positioned its announcement last week as an end to its EV mandates as well, which Conservatives, of course, have been leading the charge against, given the impossible-to-meet standards previously of 100% electric new vehicle sales in Canada by 2035. We heard loud and clear from the auto sector that that would literally decimate the auto sector. However, if we look closely at the Liberals' announcement, they have now lowered that to 75%. It is still a decimating number. They expect only electric vehicle sales of about 75% in Canada with these standards. This means the standard for those tailpipe emissions reductions is going to be so stringent that it is going to force the auto sector to do this. Our concern is that this is basically the EV mandate by another name. I can go on to my next response. I have a lot to say about this. In fact, I could do a 10-minute—

Madam Speaker, I do wonder if the member's constituents are comfortable with their tax dollars going to benefit the electric vehicle sector in Trump's America. I would say likely not. I know there is a big disagreement in the House about supporting Canada's oil and gas sector, which of course supports a lot of money coming to all provinces, including Quebec, from the GDP generated from the oil and gas sector. Conservatives are very grateful that we have this natural resource that has brought so much wealth and opportunity to Canada. Again, our auto sector as well brings a lot of wealth, over $16 billion annually, and 600,000 direct and indirect jobs. Our tax dollars should be focused on supporting this sector, not the American EV market.

Madam Speaker, I find the question from the NDP quite perplexing. Is he suggesting we should not be supporting our auto workers in the gas-powered sector of our economy? The vast majority of auto workers in this country, well over 100,000, are directly employed by gas-powered cars. Despite $52 billion in taxpayer commitments from the Liberal and Ontario governments, the EV sector is failing in this country. Writedowns are in the billions from companies saying that despite all the generous subsidies from the taxpayer on behalf of the Liberal government, the wheels are falling off the bus. I find it odd that the member is not standing up for the gas-powered auto workers in this country and instead only perhaps for one plant that is building electric vehicles. I find it odd that the NDP would take that position.

Mr. Speaker, despite the Liberals signing on to $52 billion to create an EV supply chain in Canada, the vast majority of EVs bought here are not made here. Now, despite the massive government subsidies, the auto companies are recording multi-billion dollar losses on EVs and abandoning or delaying EV projects. The Liberals are now doubling down with their new $2.3-billion EV subsidy, where Canadian workers will be forced to subsidize the purchase of foreign-made EVs, including EVs made in the United States. At a time like this, it is unconscionable. Will the Liberals reverse course and stop Canadian tax dollars from funding American-made EVs?

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the American tariffs have cost 5,000 jobs in Canada's auto sector and tens of thousands more jobs in the manufacturing sector across the board. Meanwhile, the Liberals created a $2.3-billion, taxpayer-funded program that will subsidize the purchase of American-made EVs to the direct benefit of the American auto sector, when the Americans are trying to destroy our auto sector. This is wrong, and the minister could easily rectify this. Will she do it?

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Liberal member's question. It is just very ironic, given that Bill C-5 removed mandatory prison time for people who have done extortion, who have committed this horrible crime and changed the life of an innocent individual, to hear the Liberals be up on their high horse about this, when they themselves, that member in particular, the member for Winnipeg North, voted in favour of removing mandatory prison time for people convicted of extortion. I know the member and the Conservative caucus have done significant work to raise awareness about the Liberal soft-on-crime laws that have led to this extortion explosion in Canada. Could the member comment on our good work on that, and on what we would do if we were in government?

Mr. Speaker, despite the Liberal government signing on to up to $52 billion to build an electric vehicle supply chain in Canada, the wheels are falling off most of those deals, and the vast majority of EVs are built elsewhere. Now, the Liberals are expecting liberal Canadians to buy into this $2.3-billion subsidy program for foreign-made EVs. Why is the Liberal government expecting working Canadians to subsidize their $2.3-billion subsidy for foreign-made EVs, including in the U.S.?

Mr. Speaker, the minister is not addressing the issue, so allow me to be clear: Under the Conservatives, not a single taxpayer dollar would go to subsidizing the American EV market, yet that is precisely what the $2.3-billion subsidy the Liberals have just introduced will do. There are not a lot of EVs made in this country. They are made elsewhere, including in the U.S., which is eligible for this $2.3-billion subsidy. Will the minister change course, or will working Canadians be expected to fund the American auto market?

Mr. Speaker, last week the Liberal government announced $2.3 billion in subsidies to buy electric vehicles. Electric vehicles manufactured in the United States will be eligible for this subsidy. It is inconceivable that the Liberal government would launch a multi-billion dollar, taxpayer-funded program that will directly benefit the American auto sector at a time when Trump's tariff war has cost Canada 5,000 jobs and counting in our auto sector. Will the Liberal government reverse course and stop American access to the $2.3-billion subsidy, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, do members also know who is in favour of this? It is Donald Trump, because $2.3 billion is now accessible to his auto market, when his tariff war is costing our economy thousands of jobs. It is, again, inconceivable that the Liberals would manufacture a program that gives the American market access to billions of taxpayer dollars. Why would we subsidize the American auto sector at a time like this? Will the Liberals reverse course, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, “Canada’s economy is on life support and [the] country is in recession watch”. That is the international headline in Bloomberg. GDP per capita was essentially flat in 2025, and the Bank of Canada expects just 1.1% growth next year. Businesses are postponing expansion, investment is forecast to be weak, and this is very bad news for Canada's jobs. We need a significant transformational plan, but none appears in this legislative agenda from the government. When will the Liberals introduce a plan to keep Canadians out of a recession?

The bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, the threat of a recession is real, and nothing the government has done is going to address the economic issues we are facing. Statistics Canada reports manufacturing is being deeply impacted. In November alone, GDP fell 12.6% in the auto sector. That is thousands of layoffs already. Without significant action to grow the economy and protect Canadian jobs, Canada could very well fall into a recession. Conservatives have proposed lowering taxes, removing barriers so we can grow faster than ever and cutting red tape. When will Canadians see a real plan to ward off recession and protect Canadian jobs from the government?

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga. In the coming months, the world will be watching a mission to space called Artemis II, the first crewed flight of NASA's Artemis program, that will fly around the moon. It is an incredible time to be alive, that we can witness this iconic moment of human innovation in real time. For Canada, this is not just another launch. It is a national moment. For the first time, a Canadian astronaut, Jeremy Hansen, will fly as part of the crew. Canadian space robotics will be part of this visionary pursuit, and Canada's role will, once again, prove something we already know: When this country sets a clear objective and aligns its talent, capital, innovation and institutions behind it, we can compete with anyone. We have done this before. Canada became, in fact, the third spacefaring nation in world history in 1962 with the Alouette-1. We became a world leader in space robotics with the Canadarm in the 1980s, so trusted that this innovation in robotics became indispensable to our allies. Today, through our contributions to the Artemis program, particularly Canadarm3 for the lunar Gateway, Canada has secured astronaut flights and meaningful roles in the next era of space exploration. Let me say this clearly at the outset of this debate today on our important opposition motion on sovereignty, and economic sovereignty therein. Canada can build, we can invest, and we can lead. However, there is a hard truth in this. Too often, we are not translating our capability into lasting national strength. That is why I want to focus my remarks today on a critical part of our motion: protecting Canadian innovation and requiring the Minister of Industry to present plans to Parliament to keep Canada's inventions, discoveries and innovations from being sold off to other countries. Right now, Canada is not building enough national champions. We are too often building sales listings, for example, that other countries come and take their pick of. Canadian taxpayers fund the research that trains the talent and creates highly valuable ideas and inventions. In other words, that is Canada's intellectual property. At the most important stage, when firms need to scale, when they should be growing into companies with hundreds, if not thousands, of employees with good-paying jobs, Canada's business environment too often nudges them toward selling, relocating or being absorbed by larger foreign competitors. We fund the discovery here, but the long-term prosperity goes elsewhere. Time and time again, this is happening. This is not an accident. It is a predictable outcome of a policy environment that is fragmented, slow and largely indifferent to the results that it funds. The Business Council of Alberta has noted the problem with high taxes on capital combined with regulatory friction. We hear this all the time from our business leaders: High taxes and high regulation are the biggest problem in Canada. They reduce incentives for firms to reinvest and grow domestically here at home. For many Canadian start-ups, the problem is not that they want to leave Canada, but the gravitational pull of a faster, larger American economy, one that actively attracts talent, capital, and intellectual property and jobs, is just too inviting. With government inertia in this country, it is just too tempting to go down there, where it is more rewarding in many ways. Keeping innovation in Canada is not just an academic exercise for discussion. Our Canadian innovation is our economic power. It determines whether Canadians earn high wages. It determines whether our communities grow or are hollowed out, and whether this country controls the industries that underpin its security and prosperity. When we talk about sovereignty in 2026, it is not just about our borders or our territory. Innovation sovereignty comes down to three things: who owns the patents, who controls the data and who builds the capabilities here at home. Whoever owns those things owns the future tax base, owns the high-skilled jobs and leverages that in our trade negotiations, for example. That all goes together. Without sovereignty and innovation, we cannot be sovereign in our economy. I have spent the last eight months as Canada's industry critic meeting innovators across this country: builders in aerospace, advanced manufacturing, AI, robotics, defence and advancing technologies. Their message is remarkably consistent regarding the problems that Canada is facing. They want to scale in Canada, and they want to hire more Canadian workers, but our system is working against them. In fact, Canada has well over 100 federal innovation programs spread across various departments and agencies. Of course, each was created with good intentions by some minister, but together they form a system that is busy without being very strategic. They are not aligned. They seem very generous, but in fact, they are not disciplined at all toward a strategic goal. Governments measure success by announcements and spending, by how many press releases they do, not by whether Canadians can pay their bills, afford their mortgages or have confidence that their children will have more opportunities and a better life than they do. The link between innovation policy and everyday life is, of course, productivity, which we hear a lot about these days from economists. The Bank of Canada, for example, has been clear that Canada's productivity problem has reached emergency levels. Governor Tiff Macklem warned that unless we change course, Canada's standard of living will be lower than it otherwise would have been. We will be poorer if we do not change course, which is a pretty drastic message from the Bank of Canada governor. The deputy governor, Nicolas Vincent, reminded us that Canada's affordability problem is fundamentally a productivity problem, because the only sustainable way to raise incomes in this country is to raise our productivity. However, productivity is not about working harder, which I think is what a lot of people think when they hear that word. It is in fact about whether workers have the capital and the advanced technologies to produce more and work less to create more value more easily. Right now Canada's productivity is trailing that of the U.S. by 30%, and the gap is widening. Canadians can work just as hard and be just as educated, and still fall behind because our system does not support investment and scale, and that is where innovation policy becomes central. It is not because Canada is lacking ideas; we have so many ideas and much talent, but we are lacking focus and ownership over those ideas, especially in the long term. Governments announce many programs, launch consultations and publish frameworks, but our outcomes have not improved. For example, Canada ranks last in the G7 for turning innovation inputs into economic outputs. More than half of industry-directed intellectual property generated at Canadian universities is owned abroad, for example, which is pretty shocking. Once intellectual property leaves, it rarely comes back, which means other countries are being enriched by our talented idea creators. This problem is especially clear in strategic industries like space and aerospace. These are not “nice to have” science projects; they are critical in the domestic and international terrain that we are seeing changing at a geopolitical level today. They underpin communications, navigation, wildfire monitoring, Arctic domain awareness, disaster response and national defence, and they are central to NORAD modernization and allied security. If Canada cannot build, own and control these capabilities, we become dependent on other countries for functions essential to our sovereignty, which is something Canadians have become acutely aware of in recent months. That is why space, for example, is a powerful indicator of what Canada must and can in fact do better. As shadow minister for industry, I have seen these capabilities first-hand. I have toured Magellan Aerospace in Winnipeg, where skilled Manitobans build critical components for the world's best fighter jet, the F-35. Here in Ottawa I visited Mission Control, a Canadian company developing lunar rover capability. It is quite amazing. These are the kinds of innovations that strengthen Arctic research and security, and they secure maritime safety and really the role of Canada in the emerging space domain, which is critical for our national security. We have the talent, we have the capability and we have the ambition, but what is missing is a federal innovative program and framework that really treats sovereignty as the objective, not an afterthought. This brings me to part c of our Conservative motion today. It would require the Minister of Industry to present plans to Parliament to keep Canadian innovation in Canadians' hands, which is really not a radical concept. In fact, I would argue it is the responsible thing that the Liberals should be doing right now. It asks essential questions: What technologies must we be controlling? What supply chains must be anchored here? What capabilities are critical to economic resilience and national security? Importantly, how do we keep these innovations here in Canada now and in the long term? Without any answers, innovation from the government becomes a scattershot plan such that we are working harder but not together. The motion also recognizes that innovation cannot scale without capital: without more money, so to speak. That is why part b proposes a Canada first reinvestment tax credit, which would defer capital gains when the money is reinvested in Canadian businesses and productive assets. If capital stays in Canada, innovation has a better chance to scale here rather than leave to the U.S., and it creates more good jobs, higher wages and more opportunities for our kids. This matters, because investment per worker right now in Canada is half that of the United States. William Robson of the C.D. Howe Institute told the industry committee that U.S. firms invest roughly three times as much per worker. This needs to change if we are going to secure our economic sovereignty. To be clear, the tax measure must support a larger strategy. Tax policy alone cannot fix a system that lacks focus. The central point of the motion is that Canada needs an economic sovereignty strategy that prioritizes keeping Canadian innovation in this country. We cannot keep funding innovation and exporting our values. When Artemis II launches, Canadians, especially young Canadians, will be watching and inspired. These are the future innovators of our country. We need to make sure that they can produce amazing jobs and innovation for today and into the future, and our motion is a central part of making that happen.

Madam Speaker, I am a bit perplexed by the question. The member is talking about something that came out five years ago in a platform, under much different circumstances than today. I find it interesting that she is not interested in talking about Canadian innovation and how to safeguard jobs today and into the future and that she is not asking about what the Conservative ideas are; there are many more than the ones I have talked about, which would support the government's efforts, really improve them and deliver actual results to secure Canada's future. It is just interesting that the member is looking back several leaders ago and several elections ago, five years ago in fact. I find it perplexing that she has nothing to say about improving Canada's jobs, wages and innovation today.

Madam Speaker, we hear some of these questions, and frankly I have been hearing them for years: “Make polluters pay.” It is veiled language for making families pay more for food, transportation and home heating. That is what people need to understand. When folks in this place talk about making polluters pay, they are talking about us and about our constituents. They are talking about the seniors who are struggling to afford food, because our main fuel, oil and gas, is what heats most of our homes in Canada. It is what the farmers use to produce food. It is what the truckers use to ship the food to the manufacturing facility. It is the fuel the manufacturing facility uses to make goods that we buy at the grocery store. It is the fuel that fuels the grocery store to keep it heated and cooled. The main source of our energy, the pollution that they are talking about, is the reason that we can heat our homes and eat the good food that we have. I encourage people not to be fooled when they say, “Make polluters pay.” They are talking about everyday families' paying more for transportation, heating and food.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's feedback and his question. It is very critical when we are talking about innovation policy and keeping our ideas, which the taxpayer often funds to the tune of up to $15 billion in this country. We are funding innovation through our SR&ED tax credit and through university funding, yet over half of university funding for innovation goes to enrich American and other countries' economies. When we talk about patents, Canada has in fact some of the slowest patent approval times in the western world, and there has really been no progress on this from the Liberal government in the last decade. Therefore, if we are going to improve safeguarding of our own innovations, it starts with investing in improving our patent speeds. We have to safeguard these if we are going to have an innovative future in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last eight months. Those are the cold, hard facts for thousands of Canadian families under the Prime Minister's leadership. Our party supported Bill C-5 because the Liberals promised growth and development, but despite the sweeping powers the Prime Minister has, no new projects have been approved, and not a single barrier has been taken down. Meanwhile Canada is losing investment, innovation and jobs to the U.S., driving down incomes and making life less affordable for Canadian families. Conservatives have made a real proposal with a Canadian sovereignty act to remove federal barriers to development, reward Canadians who build and invest here, and protect and raise our incomes here at home. Will the Liberals support it?

Mr. Speaker, innovators and investors do not make decisions based on government rhetoric; they make them based on predictability, incentives and whether a country is serious about supporting growth in this country. Right now the government's lack of innovation strategy is pushing capital south, taking jobs, research and opportunities with it. This weakens Canada's economic sovereignty and makes life more expensive for Canadians. Since the government has no innovation plan of its own, will it support a Canada sovereignty act to stop the bleeding of innovation and jobs to the U.S. and support real growth for Canadian workers?

Mr. Chair, the member mentioned waving a magic wand. There is no easy solution to this trade war, but the government could wave a magic wand, in a sense, and throw the EV mandate into the dustbin of history. We have heard loud and clear at committee from the auto sector that the ZEV, the zero-emission vehicle mandate, or the EV mandate, as we have been calling it, from the Liberals, is extremely detrimental to the auto sector and will cost upward of perhaps 100,000 auto jobs. It will cost the auto sector about $3 billion in compliance credits that will go to Tesla and companies like Tesla. They are pleading with the government to please throw out this mandate, because it is hurting their prospects of success in Canada. Is the member prepared to do so, for the auto sector?

Mr. Chair, again, on the EV mandates, last year in Canada only 14% of the two million vehicles bought new in Canada were EVs. That actually saw a drop of 43% year-over-year this past September, so I would like to ask the member about the logistics of hitting his targets. From what we understand, in order to hit just the government's 2027 target of 23% required EV sales for new vehicles, EV sales would need to rise over 250% within just 13 months from now. Ultimately, out of all the cars that Canada's auto manufacturing plants make, 95% of the vehicles built in Canada today would not be able to be sold under the Liberal EV mandate. I am drawing attention to this question: How are they planning to ensure the survival of our auto sector when people are not buying EVs anywhere close to what the Liberals are demanding with their EV mandate? I would like to hear from the member on this.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the historical context of this important trade discussion we are having in the House of Commons concerning the impact on the auto sector. I want to ask the member a logistical question about the implementation of the government's electric vehicle mandate. By 2030, it wants 100% of new vehicle sales to be electric vehicles. From what we know, Canada currently has about 37,000 public charging ports, but in order to accommodate that EV mandate by 2030, we need 373,000 new chargers, which means we have to build 98 per day for the next 10 years straight. Each one costs approximately $300,000, or more if it is in rural and northern regions. We are talking about 98 per day for 10 years straight at a $112-billion price tag. I was not familiar if that was anywhere in the budget or had been discussed. Can the member enlighten us on that?

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time. Canada has an incredible history in the auto sector. For over 100 years, we have been building world-class automobiles. We have had generations of families working in the auto sector. In fact, it has built incredible communities of longevity like Windsor, Brampton, Ingersoll, Oshawa, Sainte-Thérèse and many others in Quebec and Ontario. It has gotten to the point where it produces over $14 billion worth of GDP. It is incredible what the auto sector provides for the Canadian economy and for opportunities. Over 600,000 Canadians work in direct and indirect jobs from the auto sector. We produce about 1.3 million vehicles annually. Well over a million vehicles are built by Canadian hands in Canada. We export 70% to 90% of them, most notably to the United States. Access, of course, to the American market is critical to the lifeblood of the Canadian auto sector. It is very reciprocal. We know some cars go back and forth about nine times before they are fully completed. It is a very important relationship that really adds to our proud history of production in this sector in Canada that Conservatives are very proud to support. Unfortunately, we know, under the Trump administration 2.0, there has been some tougher enforcement, we could say, around some of the trade rules and tariff measures between the two countries, so much so that it is costing the Canadian economy dearly. It is costing us hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs in several towns and cities that are protecting and producing these cars for Canada and for world consumption. Again, Trump 2.0 came in. He tightened a lot of these rules, and that is having such an impact that week after week, we are seeing layoffs and shift reductions. These are not just numbers. These are people. These are entire communities that are built on an ecosystem of the auto sector. We are talking about mechanics and car dealerships. The whole universe that works around this is being shaken to its core because of the ongoing trade war. It is important to know that we have been hearing about this from Mr. Trump for nearly a year. It is coming up on a year since he was sworn in; I believe it is January. Of course, the new Liberal leader and Prime Minister will be coming up on his one-year anniversary in a few months as well. We have been battling this trade war for quite some time. Time is ticking by, job loss after job loss, yet we have not seen the results we were promised by the Liberals in the last election. They ran on the fact that they felt they were the best to take on Mr. Trump, that they would be elbows up and that they would get a good deal for Canada, yet we have seen no such trade deal. In fact, something that is deeply concerning to me as the industry critic is that I have not heard a whisper that there is an auto sector deal on the horizon. The Liberals are not talking to the public and they are not telling us in committee that they are even close to getting an auto sector deal. I think that is very concerning and it should give no confidence to anyone that they are going to be able to deliver. Otherwise, they would be talking about progress that they are making; they are not. For the foreseeable future, arguably, it would seem that we are going to be in this situation. We are just starting to see the job losses and the impacts on our communities. I am very concerned about where we are going to be a year from now if we are not delivered a deal that we were promised as Canadians. I think it begs the question, what can we do? What is within our sovereign control, within our own domestic economy that we can control? Obviously, we cannot control the U.S. President. That seems clear. At least the Prime Minister cannot and he cannot deliver a deal. We have to look at what we can control. At committee, we have heard loud and clear, from every part of the auto sector, that one of the top things we can give them is some relief by throwing, into the dustbins of history, the electric vehicle mandate from the Liberal government. The damage that it will do to the Canadian economy, to the auto sector, is extensive. We are predicting 100,000 job losses and up to $3 billion being drained from the Canadian auto sector to companies like Tesla to reach compliance credits. It is really just an insurmountable barrier in the sense that the Liberals want 100% of new vehicle sales by 2030 to be electric, when right now we are looking at only 14%. This fails to acknowledge all the diverse needs of the Canadian economy, whether it is rural or urban needs, or whether someone needs a work truck. None of this is recognizing the limitations of the electric vehicle sector and it is not helping the auto sector. We have heard this loud and clear. If we, as Conservatives, were in charge right now, one of the first things we would do to give the auto sector some relief is end the electric vehicle mandate. I hope the government hears our pleas today and follows through on that.

Mr. Chair, we do not have time in the night to say why we are opposed to this. I appreciate electric vehicles. I hope to own one one day, but I do not want to be forced to have one if it does not meet the needs and the budget of my family. I also do not want the auto sector being put out of business because it is being forced to make something no one is buying, and that if it makes what people want to buy, it is going to have to pay a $20,000-compliance credit that is going to go to enrich companies like Tesla. I have nothing against Tesla, which is a great company, but I would rather that money stay in Canada. I can go at length, if the Chair will let me, about some of the logistical problems. I did ask the member earlier about the plan to meet the logistical needs of this electric vehicle mandate. Again, we need well over 373,000 new charging ports in 10 years, which means 98 a day to the cost of over $100 billion. That is nowhere in the budget. The government is not even committing to that. It is unrealistic.

Mr. Chair, I do not think anyone on the Conservative side is opposed to electric vehicles. Again, we are opposed to being forced to buy something that may not work for our families. We very much, as the member has outlined quite clearly, to give him credit, have been the enthusiastic and most passionate supporters in this House of our oil and gas sector. I do not see how those two things do not go together. One of them in particular has ensured we have an incredible quality of life in Canada. In fact, I will note that for the gas sector, if only we could export more of our liquefied natural gas to countries that use coal and other means that have far more emissions, it would be amazing to help lower world emissions with Canadian gas. I do not know why the member does not support that. We can really help meet world emissions reduction targets with Canadian gas. I am very proud of the tax revenue it provides, including to Quebec, for our hospitals, our schools and our infrastructure. I think we all should be proud of oil and gas. I have nothing against electric vehicles, but I just do not want to be forced to buy one.

Mr. Chair, I am not experienced enough to be able to answer that because I just cannot figure it out. The auto sector is asking, please, for the love of God, to give up this EV mandate and to stop forcing it to make something no one will buy that is going to cost the industry billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs, if not 100,000 jobs, as some estimates show. I do not know why the Liberals are not letting this go. It does not make sense. I appreciate seeing an organic increase of use in electric vehicles. I will just close with this in my remaining minute: The energy use required to power an entire light-duty fleet in Canada is enormous. When we talk about being forced to buy electric vehicles, we also have to talk about the lack of energy infrastructure investments in this budget. If the Liberals really meant it, there would be multi-billion dollar investments for energy in order to fuel the energy pull millions of electric vehicles are going to need. Again, we are talking about 23.6 million light-duty vehicles on the road today. If each one of them required a plug-in every night, that is 27 kilowatt hours per car per year. We are talking about 64 terawatt hours of energy, new energy that is going to be needed, which is really equivalent to 6.4 million Canadian homes or the electricity consumption of the entire province of Alberta. No one is telling us how that is going to happen. It is unrealistic.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Algoma Steel laid off 1,000 workers, and those workers remember when the Liberal Prime Minister stood on their shop floor in Sault Ste. Marie just days before the last election and promised to protect their jobs. Today, those same workers face U.S. tariffs, no deal and now no job. To add insult to injury, the Liberal government just gave Algoma Steel $400 million with no jobs guarantees, apparently, because now there are 1,000 Canadian workers out of a job before Christmas. When will the steelworkers get the promised protection for their jobs from the Liberal government?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to protect Canadian jobs, yet the reality is that thousands of Canadian families are now going without their primary source of income because the Liberals have not delivered on their promises. Softwood lumber mills are closing, auto companies are cancelling projects in Canada and moving them to the United States, and now in Sault Ste. Marie, 1,000 people have just lost their jobs at the steel mill. Workers do not need more Liberal platitudes, corporate handouts or broken promises. They need their jobs back. They need results. When are Canadians going to get the trade deal they were promised?