Connie Cody
Cambridge, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“It has ignored organizations of all stripes and the tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of Canadians from communities like mine who took the time to write, call and petition. This is not how we stop hatred. This is how we build resentment. This bill would amend the Criminal Code. It is not a minor administrative matter.”
“In my community of Cambridge, whether it is at events or just in the parking lot of a grocery store, I have had people come up to me to say that I should not let this one pass without a fight. It is no secret that religious freedom across this nation is under threat.”
“I did not have a reassuring answer for her, and that is precisely the problem. When a law aimed at combatting hate creates fear in the hearts of law-abiding, community-minded, faithful Canadians, when it drives them to petition their MP and write letters by hand, something has gone wrong in the drafting, in the process and in the governme…”
“The Muslim imams deserve a full debate. Even the rabbis and civil liberty advocates who raised the alarm bells deserve a full debate. The pastors, teachers and parents who contacted my office deserve a full debate. I want to close by bringing this back to the people who sent me here.”
“I have heard from all of them, people who picked up the phone or sat down to write to me because they genuinely do not know what the bill would mean for their lives. The government itself has mused about this.”
“Madam Speaker, today I rise on a topic of great concern to people in my community and to many Canadians from coast to coast. Perhaps no piece of legislation in this place has drawn as much public interest as Bill C-9 . Combined, our offices have received tens of thousands of emails from concerned citizens opposed to the bill.”
The complete record
Every one of 334 lines we hold for Connie Cody, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 7.
“When those signs are present, they should influence how the case is treated, particularly when it reaches sentencing, because that is the point where the court is deciding how the offence is recognized and how it is addressed. This bill would ensure that those patterns are not overlooked or treated as secondary, but instead are recognized as part of the offence itself when the sentence is determined. There is also another part of this that is important to understand, and that is how situations can shift once the justice system becomes involved. There is often an assumption that once charges are laid, things are under control, but that is not how it works in practice.”
“By the time the situation reaches its most serious point, there has often been a long progression of behaviour leading up to it. When that progression is not clearly reflected in how the system responds, it leaves a gap between what is known about the situation and how it is ultimately treated. That is a gap this bill is addressing. (1145) One of the problems lies in how we look at violence in the law. An assault is largely treated the same, no matter the circumstances. Whether someone attacks a stranger on the street or harms the person they live with, trust, depend on and share their life with, the charge is often the same, but those situations are not the same. In Bailey's case, what stands out is not only the outcome, but the fact that there were visible signs that the situation was becoming more serious.”
“This bill would ensure that the law reflects what people already understand about how violence develops in relationships, and that this understanding is reflected at the point of sentencing. When there is a pattern of abuse, coercive conduct or controlling behaviour toward an intimate partner, that pattern must be treated as an aggravating factor. This is a very important step, because when people who work in policing, in shelters and in community services talk about these situations, they describe something very consistent, which is that violence within relationships rarely begins at its most extreme point, but instead develops over time, often starting with controlling behaviour, such as decisions about where someone can go, who they can see and how they can spend money, before moving into intimidation and eventually physical harm.”
“The bill would amend the Criminal Code to ensure that when an intimate partner is killed in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour, that homicide is treated as first-degree murder. The same applies when the killing occurs while that coercion or control is taking place. In these cases, the law would no longer look only at the final act, but would recognize the pattern that led to it. Bill C-225 also speaks to cases of manslaughter involving an intimate partner. Where manslaughter occurs in the context of coercive or controlling behaviour, the bill would require the court to consider whether a sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed. It would not dictate the outcome, but it would ensure that sentencing fully reflects the seriousness of the circumstances.”
“Hours later, Bailey was murdered in broad daylight. This shows that the system failed to treat intimate partner violence as the ongoing and escalating threat that it was. We heard from the families of victims of intimate partner violence during the committee study for this bill. These women were daughters, sisters and mothers, and died at the hands of someone they knew and trusted. These families expressed how the patterns of coercive control went unrecognized all the way through the process, even when it came to sentencing. Bailey's death shows us where our laws fall short. Bill C-225 is about closing that gap. It is about making sure that when violence happens with an intimate relationship, the law responds with the seriousness it deserves.”
“Worse yet, when victims do seek help, like in Bailey McCourt's case, the risks to them are still not addressed. Bailey was a young mother of two living in Cloverdale. She was trying to protect herself and her children. The relationship she was in had become violent and threatening. This was not even a single incident. The harm happened more than once, and the danger continued to escalate. On the morning of July 4, Bailey's former partner appeared in court and was convicted of assaulting her. By then, the justice system had a clear picture. There was a history of violence, there was a pattern of behaviour and there was a woman who had already been harmed and had made her fear known. Even so, after the conviction, he was released without a requirement for a full assessment of whether Bailey's life was still at risk.”
“It should come as no surprise to hear that crime is on the rise across Canada. We can see it in our daily lives. More and more Canadians are living in fear, and unfortunately, this trend extends to intimate partner violence. An increasing number of women are dying at the hands of their partners. Intimate partners are connected through trust, proximity and often financial or emotional dependence. The person causing harm is not a stranger. It is someone with access, knowledge and control. When the law ignores that context, it ignores the heightened risk that comes with it. When these relationships become violent, it is all the more isolating, and it is that much more difficult for victims to seek help. Further, when the numbers on intimate partner violence keep rising, it is a sign that the system is failing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola . Bringing forward legislation like this requires a willingness to engage directly with painful realities and to carry the weight of a story that no family should ever have to live through. The care and seriousness with which this bill has been developed shows a genuine commitment to protecting women and ensuring that intimate partner violence is finally recognized in law for the danger it presents, because a crime unpunished is a crime unrecognized and encouraged. I also want to thank all the members of the House for recognizing the importance of this bill and allowing it to progress this far. I sincerely hope that sentiment continues and that we are able to make this critical bill into law.”
“Mr. Speaker, just one year ago, the Prime Minister was telling everybody who would listen that he would get a trade deal with the Americans by last July. He set the deadline. He made that commitment. Now, the Prime Minister has surrendered as tariffs on steel have doubled, tariffs on lumber have tripled, and the tariffs on manufacturers got bigger. The workers and job creators in my community now know that the Prime Minister's promises were more empty words from just another Liberal politician. He says our relationship with the U.S. is a weakness, but is the real weakness not the Prime Minister 's constant over-promising and underdelivering when it comes to U.S.-Canada trade?”
“Especially in the centennial year of the Galt Legion, his commitment helps connect past generations to the present, reminding our community why we honour those who served. Remembrance is strengthened by people like Bill Albers, who ensure that the stories of war continue to be shared, understood and respected. Let us also remember that even the smallest wings carried the weight of great responsibility, saving thousands of lives.”
“Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the Galt Legion, a milestone that reminds us that remembrance does not happen on its own. It endures because individuals choose to carry it forward. In my community of Cambridge, Bill Albers is one of those individuals. Bill has devoted his time and energy to ensuring that important but often overlooked aspects of our wartime history are not lost. Through his work, he highlights the role of carrier pigeons and the pigeoneers who served during the First World War and Second World War. It was a vital form of service relied upon when other communication failed. More than the history itself, Bill's efforts reflected deep respect for service, sacrifice and remembrance.”
“Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal policy, Canadians are not just stretched; they are falling behind. New data shows that 61% of Canadians feel financial whiplash from economic instability, 74% say rising costs for essentials are straining their finances, and 43% are just $200 away from insolvency each month. One senior told me she needs just $100 more a month to avoid the food bank, but even that is now out of reach. Families are cutting back, worried about job security, and in too many cases still not earning enough to cover their bills. Is this the unaffordability reality that these Liberals are deciding for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, this bill has a lot in it to support, but how can Canadians have confidence in the assurances within this bill when the government is actively using committee procedures to block the finance minister from appearing for transparency and accountability?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will keep it short and quick. There have been a lot of concerns about government interfering with personal information and data, and it is losing a lot of confidence. My colleague highlighted the heightened impact on rural communities. I am wondering what the member believes is needed to ensure that Canadians in those communities have confidence in how these powers of government are used.”
“Mr. Speaker, every G7 country faces global headwinds, yet only one is choosing to make inflation worse through domestic policy. Canada now leads the G7 in food price inflation, carries the only shrinking G7 economy and faces fuel costs nearly 20% higher than the United States, because the Liberal government is adding an industrial carbon tax and a fuel standard tax that will reach 17¢ per litre. If the Prime Minister cannot name a single G7 country that is following this declining trend, what justification does this one have for doubling down on this failed path?”
“market. They only show up with empty words instead of working with Conservatives to support common-sense policies. Canadian auto workers were watching that vote yesterday, and they see that only Canada's Conservatives are serious about protecting Canadian jobs and Canadian sovereignty.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada's auto industry is in crisis. Since the Liberal government took office, production is down 50%, exports are down 50%, and thousands of jobs are gone. The Liberal Prime Minister thinks we should surrender, but Conservatives say we should act. We put forward a new auto pact, with real solutions to make it easier to build and buy Canadian, restore free trade and protect blue-collar paycheques. It is about more than the jobs of today. It is also about the jobs of tomorrow and the next generation of workers who are dreaming of a future in the skilled trades. It is about the good-paying jobs that have formed the foundations of our communities for generations. Instead of supporting our plan to protect Canada's auto industry, the Liberal government voted against it. They have no plan to secure tariff-free access to the U.S.”
“Mr. Speaker, Unifor has been approaching a lot of members of Parliament, and its theme has been, “Buy Canadian, sell here and build here.” That is our policy. Why does my colleague think the Liberals are fighting it?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the citizens of Cambridge. I am still getting numerous calls and emails from hundreds of people. They are calling on the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-9 and to protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government intrusion into their faith.”
“The time for us to act to protect our communities is now. I look forward to working with colleagues from all parties to ensure that this common-sense proposal becomes law. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Bill C-271. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (scrap metal trafficking and essential infrastructure protection) . She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce my private member's bill, the protecting Canada's essential infrastructure metals act. This legislation would take concrete steps to crack down on out-of-control metal theft and vandalism in communities across the country. The bill would strengthen penalties, target repeat offenders, protect critical services and disrupt the illegal resale of stolen metal. The theft of metals, like copper, has skyrocketed by more than 200%, according to some estimates, putting at risk essential services that Canadians rely on in emergencies, including 911 services, electricity infrastructure and cellular networks.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response from the member opposite, but there is more we can be doing. With Bell Canada designating Cambridge as a hot spot for copper theft, it is a real and ongoing risk for people in my community who depend on reliable power and cell service, especially during emergencies. The experts are clear: We need tougher penalties for thieves and vandals, deterrence for repeat offenders and concrete steps to stop stolen metals from being sold on the black market. Do the Liberals agree that these are common-sense measures to stop copper theft, and will they commit to working with Conservatives to put these priorities into law?”
“Mr. Speaker, copper theft is not an innocent crime. When vandals target essential infrastructure such as cell towers and power transformers, they are not just breaking the law; they are also putting human lives at risk. Copper theft literally leaves people in the dark and stranded when they need help the most. Last year in the Cambridge area alone, there were at least 15 cell service outages linked to these crimes, leaving residents unable to call 911 in an emergency. Do the Liberals realize that copper theft poses a significant threat to public safety, and do they agree that the House of Commons should take action now to protect our communities?”
“To the people who commit these crimes, it would send another message: Each act of sexual violence carries consequences, and each offence will be answered in full. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Lethbridge , for bringing forward this important legislation. I encourage members on all sides of the House to consider what the bill seeks to correct, and to work together to ensure that our sentencing laws reflect both the seriousness of these crimes and the dignity of the people who survive them. Justice should never be reduced, bundled or discounted.”
“Consecutive sentencing affirms that each act of sexual violence stands on its own and that each survivor's experience is acknowledged fully, not absorbed into a legal calculation. This is not about retribution. It is about responsibility. It is about affirming that every survivor is a whole person, not a fraction of a case filed, and that sentencing should reflect the full scope of the harm inflicted. This is about the standards we set for our justice system. This should not be a partisan issue. It speaks to dignity, respect and restoring confidence in a justice system that too many Canadians feel has fallen short when it comes to sexual violence. To survivors, the bill would send a clear message that they are seen, that their experience will not be minimized and that the law will recognize the full reality of what they endured.”
“The bill would extend that same principle to adult survivors, recognizing something fundamental, which is that sexual violence causes profound harm regardless of age. Age should not be the discerning factor, as everyone deserves the same clarity and protection from the law, whether the abuse occurs in childhood or adulthood, whether it happens once or repeatedly and whether it takes place in a home, a workplace or a community setting. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that our laws reflect the lived realities survivors face, not just the technical structure of the Criminal Code. The bill would not change definitions or create new offences. It would simply ensure that when harm occurs more than once, the response of the law reflects that reality.”
“Canadians expect that when serious crimes occur repeatedly, the law responds in a way that reflects that reality. When sentences appear compressed or reduced, it can erode trust and raise questions about whether the system is equipped to deal with repeat sexual offending. Clear, proportionate sentencing helps reinforce the idea that the justice system recognizes patterns of harm and responds accordingly. It supports deterrence, not through harshness but through certainty and accountability. Bill C-246 would require consecutive sentencing for sexual offences, ensuring that each offence carries its own penalty and that each survivor's experience is treated individually. This approach already applies when sexual offences are committed against children.”
“It can create a perverse kind of discount, where additional crimes do not meaningfully increase accountability for each offence or each person harmed. For people carrying the impact of sexual violence, this can feel as though the law is counting time rather than harm. It leaves the impression that additional violations are absorbed into the process rather than recognized as separate acts of violence. When the law treats multiple sexual offences as one, survivors are left feeling that only part of what happened to them truly counted. Consecutive sentencing corrects that imbalance by ensuring that each offence is treated separately, because each act caused its own harm. This approach also speaks to public confidence in the justice system.”
“When convictions establish multiple sexual offences, the sentence should reflect that multiplicity. (1750) Bill C-246 would align sentencing outcomes with judicial findings, ensuring that repeated criminal conduct would be treated as such. Bill C-246 would address a loophole in the Criminal Code that allows concurrent sentencing, meaning that sentences for multiple sexual offences can be served at the same time. In practice, concurrent sentencing can result in offenders' serving nearly the same amount of time whether they commit one sexual offence or several, even when the number of offences and victims is greater. The law recognizes the convictions as separate, but the sentence often does not meaningfully distinguish between them.”
“For survivors and their families, the journey through the justice system already requires extraordinary courage: reporting the assault; reliving it in court, often multiple times; and facing scrutiny and disbelief. What is sometimes less visible is how long that process can last and how much it demands. Court proceedings stretch over months or years. Survivors are asked to recount the most painful moments of their lives over and over again in unfamiliar, intimidating settings. They are cross-examined and wait for decisions that will shape their sense of justice and closure. When that process ends with a sentence that appears disconnected from the number or seriousness of the offences, it can undermine faith not only in the outcome but also in the system itself. Sentencing should reflect what the court has found to be true.”
“In my own community, I have spoken with families, advocates and frontline workers who support women and girls as they rebuild after sexual violence. These are not distant stories. They involve real people who were harmed by someone they knew, someone in a position of trust or someone they were supposed to feel safe with. What I hear repeatedly is not a call for vengeance; it is a call to be fully seen and understood by the justice system. When survivors see that offenders convicted of multiple sexual offences serve sentences nearly identical to those imposed for a single offence, despite multiple convictions involving multiple acts of harm, it can feel as though their individual experience disappears into the process. The perception of being reduced or overlooked can deepen the harm long after the courtroom doors close.”
“Doctors swear an oath to do no harm. Instead, his patients were betrayed and victimized by someone who held a position of authority and trust. What was the penalty for this doctor? Despite the number and seriousness of the offences, this total sentence was just three and a half years. In British Columbia, young women were deceived by a man posing as a talent agent and were assaulted after being lured to so-called auditions. Even with multiple survivors, the sentence amounted to just 18 months. Unfortunately, these are not isolated examples. Sexual offences are increasing across the country. Since 2015, reported sexual assaults have risen significantly, and women account for the vast majority of people harmed. Offences against children have also increased sharply over the same period. So many lives have been permanently changed.”
“This principle exists not only to hold offenders accountable but also to ensure that the harm done is fully acknowledged. No sentence can undo what happened, and no verdict can erase trauma, but sentencing sends a signal to survivors and to society that these crimes are unacceptable and will not be tolerated, and that perpetrators will be punished accordingly. Tragically, this is often not the reality. We have seen cases where individuals are convicted of multiple sexual offences, sometimes against multiple victims, yet are given sentences that do not reflect the scope of what they have done. In Toronto, a physician was convicted of nine counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual exploitation, taking place over nearly a decade. His patients came to his practice with the expectation of professionalism and care.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-246 , the ending sentence reductions for sexual predators act, which is legislation rooted in dignity, accountability and respect for people who have survived sexual violence. Sexual crimes are among the most serious violations a person can experience. The harm reaches far beyond the moment of the offence. The effect goes beyond the physical. It can affect a person's sense of safety, trust and self-worth. For survivors, the impact does not end when the assault ends. It can follow them for years and often for a lifetime. It shapes how they move through the world, how they relate to others and whether they feel safe in their day-to-day life. In our justice system, sentencing is meant to reflect the gravity of an offence.”
“Mr. Speaker, a community member wrote to me about what they are seeing every day. They are seeing frail seniors standing outside grocery stores begging for help and Canadians lining up at food banks after a lifetime of work. The National Institute on Ageing states that one in five Canadians over 50 is now living at the poverty line. Many cannot afford groceries, heating their homes, essential goods and services or even a $500 emergency. Rising costs are not driven by events abroad. They are the result of policies imposed here at home, which continue to make life more expensive. Are the Liberals really telling Canadian families and seniors that they should just lower their standards and accept that life is permanently unaffordable?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have received petitions from thousands of people in my community of Cambridge who are deeply concerned about Bill C-9 . It is not misinformation when Canadians took the time to write, call and sign petitions because they want their voices heard in this place, yet today the government is not only advancing legislation that many believe threatens freedom of expression and religious freedom, but also moving to shut down debate on that very bill. To my constituents, that feels like double censorship, as the government is limiting their freedoms and then limiting Parliament's ability to even debate it. Why is the government so determined to silence debate on Bill C-9 instead of allowing Parliament the time to fully examine legislation that Canadians believe threatens their fundamental freedoms?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today on behalf of the citizens of Cambridge, who are asking that Bill C-9 be withdrawn to protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts and prevent government intrusion into their faith.”
“I think of the girls growing up now, including my granddaughters, who deserve to grow up knowing they are valued, respected and capable of shaping their own future. International Women's Day is about recognizing the women who shape our lives, our communities and our country every single day. My thanks go to women everywhere.”
“Mr. Speaker, in recognition of International Women's Day, I rise to speak not only as a member of Parliament but as a mother to two daughters and a grandmother to five granddaughters. Watching the women in my family grow has taught me that strength does not look the same in every season of life. Sometimes it is bold and confident. At other times, it is quiet, steady and carried through long days and hard moments. I think of the women who came before us, who pushed through barriers, so often without recognition, and built the foundation that allows so many of us to stand here today. I also think of the women around us now, raising families, leading workplaces, caring for loved ones, volunteering in communities and holding everything together in ways that are rarely seen but always felt.”
“Mr. Speaker, after months of pressure from Conservatives, the government is finally slamming the brakes on its ideological electric vehicle mandate, but the new EV rebate scheme will not protect Canadian auto workers. It is just going to subsidize Tesla and send taxpayer money straight across the border. The government has gone from saying “elbows up” to selling out. It is driving other countries' economies forward while leaving Canadian workers in the dust. The Liberal government's policies are eroding our domestic vehicle manufacturing sector and the livelihoods of Canadian workers. When will the Liberals finally get behind the wheel for Canada instead of selling out to Donald Trump and Elon Musk?”
“It starts with fighting for every single one of our Canadian manufacturing jobs. Let us unite and fight to support Canada.”
“Most importantly, we have the skilled, capable labour to make it all possible. What we need is a government that will finally step up here at home instead of selling out to Donald Trump and Elon Musk. We need a government that finally puts Canadian workers first, a government that strengthens, rather than sidelines, the manufacturing jobs we rely on. We carry our future, Canada's future, in our hands by the decisions that are made in the House. However, it is up to the government as to how it will choose to vote on policies that can make this all happen, even if those policies are Conservative policies, policies to support cars built at Ingersoll, built in Woodstock or built in Cambridge, the place I am proud to call home. It starts with supporting this motion. It starts with taking a stand for fairness and for dignity.”
“The very least the government could do is ensure that those families, who are now wondering where their next meal is coming from, are treated with fairness and dignity during one of the most difficult times of their lives. None of this should be controversial. Supporting Canadian workers should not be controversial. Keeping Canadian tax dollars here at home to support Canadian jobs should never be controversial. Standing up for communities built on manufacturing should not be controversial. The government has the opportunity to stand with us today to support the auto workers in my community and across the country, and to finally get to work doing what it promised to do so long ago. We have everything we need to succeed right here in Canada. We have the resources. We have the supply chains. We have the manufacturing capability.”
“At the same time, it would boost demand for trucks and cars to be assembled in Woodstock, Cambridge and other communities across Canada. More demand means more production. More production means more jobs. More jobs is what makes a stronger community for everyone. (1355) Third, we are calling on the government to treat laid-off workers fairly. They should not have to pay the price for the government's failures by providing tax relief on severance payments. This is something the government has the authority to do, and it should use that authority without hesitation. The government has left the workers at CAMI in Ingersoll out in the cold.”
“When I went door to door during the last election, I made a promise to the people in my community. I promised to stand up for local jobs and the dream of Canada. That is why I am standing here in the House today, to defend our workers, our families and our community, all of whom rely on the auto industry. I am proud to serve on a Conservative team that is putting forward practical, straightforward solutions. First, we believe that no Canadian taxpayer dollars should ever subsidize the purchase of a vehicle that is not made in Canada, built with Canadian labour, Canadian parts and Canadian ingenuity. Second, we propose removing federal tax from all vehicles built here in Canada. Imagine the impact of this policy. This could save families more than $2,000 on a Canadian-made vehicle.”
“Most people in my community, after 10 years of skyrocketing housing costs, which doubled in price, youth and unemployment at double the national average and grocery bills surging, can barely afford a tank of gas, let alone a brand new vehicle. However, this policy asks everyone to give just a little bit more. A single mom who works in a minimum wage service job and a senior who has to return to the workforce part time just to keep up are now obligated to subsidize the purchase of a $50,000 electric vehicle, one they themselves may never be able to afford. It is asking laid-off parts workers and auto workers who have had their shifts cut to subsidize a policy that actively undermines their own economic security. That is not fairness; that is cruelty disguised as environmental policy.”
“Families will wonder how they will buy the higher-priced groceries, keep a roof over their head or provide the same opportunities to their children that they grew up with. Right here in Canada, our own government is using Canadian tax dollars to encourage people to buy cars made in the very country we are locked in a trade war with. A real auto strategy begins with a simple principle: Public money should support Canadian jobs first. (1350) Let us be clear about all of this. It is not about opposing electric vehicles; it is about strengthening Canadian manufacturing capacity, instead of undermining it. There is another serious issue with this EV rebate scheme that we need to talk about. It comes down to who benefits from this policy. Today, a new EV can cost nearly $50,000.”
“Its new electric vehicle rebate, offering up to $5,000 per purchase of an EV, might sound great in a press release, but when we look closely and allow the smoke and mirrors to disappear, a very different scenario begins to emerge, one of reality and not rhetoric. Approximately 95% of the vehicles eligible for this rebate are not made in Canada; they are imported. The government will not be supporting the manufacturing of Hondas made in Alliston, Chevy trucks made in Oshawa or the RAV4s made in Cambridge. Instead, it is giving away taxpayer dollars to entice people to buy Volkswagens made in Tennessee, Fords built in Kentucky and, yes, even Teslas. We are now at a time when our auto industry is fighting for its life. Tens of thousands of jobs are hanging in the balance.”
“Vehicle production has fallen off a cliff, from 2.3 million vehicles in 2016 to just 1.2 million last year, a nearly 50% collapse. Yes, these are the facts. There was a nearly 50% collapse under the current government. Our government has failed to get a deal in time with the United States, and workers are paying the price for trade instability and tariffs that have continued on long after the Prime Minister promised they would be gone. What the government is doing in response to this crisis, and it is a crisis, is not supporting jobs here at home. Instead, it is subsidizing vehicles produced outside of Canada.”
“Just a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of joining the workers at Toyota as they unveiled the sixth-generation RAV4 hybrid, which will be built in both Woodstock and Cambridge. I saw first-hand the pride in the eyes of the people who built these vehicles, the pride that comes with knowing that cars they had a hand in making are being driven on roads across North America. This is another remarkable Canadian success story, and is not unique to Cambridge. We will find the same pride in Ingersoll, Windsor, Oshawa, Oakville and auto communities across Ontario and across the country. Recently, however, that pride has been overshadowed by fear and anxiety, because the truth is undeniable: Canada's auto sector is under serious threat. Since the Prime Minister took office, Canada has lost more than 5,000 jobs in the auto sector alone.”