Raquel Dancho
Kildonan—St. Paul, Manitoba · Conservative · Canada
“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.”
“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 .”
“(1610) 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.”
“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.”
“I thank my colleague for the question, Mr. Speaker. [ English ] 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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 180 lines we hold for Raquel Dancho, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. Bill C-263. Second reading She said: 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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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, 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.”
“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)”
“Bill C-263. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-263, An Act to establish a national framework for silver alerts . She said: 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.”
“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, 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?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to give the hon. member an opportunity to outline some of the things that Conservatives would do. He touched on this in his speech. I know we have a number of things we would do for workers to support the entire auto industry in Canada. Perhaps he could outline some of the things we would do if we were in government.”
“Madam Speaker, yes, I would like to see the auto sector here return to its former glory of 10 years ago, when we were producing 2.3 million cars. This is what our auto sector workers need. They are not going to get it from the Liberal subsidies.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1015) 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.”
“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”.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“She said: 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.”
“moved: Motion 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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. 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?”
“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.”
“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, 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”