Fred Davies
Niagara South, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, there is no rhetoric or bluster here, as the minister does his fancy dance over there. The price of used cars has more than doubled over the last several years as a result of the government's inflationary policies. Taxing a vehicle twice is wrong.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill S‑210 to designate September as Ukrainian heritage month in Canada, not merely as a matter of multicultural courtesy but an act of moral clarity, historical justice and national affirmation. This bill is not symbolic in the diminishing sense of the word.”
“Over 1.3 million Canadians today identify as having Ukraine heritage. Four Governors General have been of Ukrainian descent. Ukrainian Canadians have served in our military, on our supreme courts and in our legislatures, shaped by culture that prizes resilience, community and a ferocious attachment to freedom.”
“When this Parliament debates Ukrainian heritage month, we are debating it against the backdrop of Mariupol, Bucha and Kherson, while Ukrainian families in Canada carry the grief of relatives killed under Russian occupation. To pass this bill is to say the culture Russia is trying to destroy is a culture Canada honours.”
“She called it what it was, which was “political posturing”, saying, “It does not affect our way forward in any way whatsoever”. This is the Canadian answer to Russian intimidation: not retreat, not appeasement, but moving forward. Sentinel is cut from the same cloth as those prairie settlers.”
“Given the current war and Russia's documented attempts to suppress Ukrainian cultural expression, ban the Ukrainian language in occupied territories, destroy cultural monuments and abduct children, the designation of Ukrainian heritage month is an act of cultural solidarity. It says that, what they are burning, we are keeping alive.”
The complete record
Every one of 273 lines we hold for Fred Davies, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 6.
“Let me conclude by taking a moment to talk to my community about the fear and frustration that has gripped all of us in my beautiful Niagara region. This is not a partisan issue. We cannot ignore that the Liberal government created this soft-on-crime catch-and-release, mandatory parole, applying an easy path for criminal activity. Conservatives are committed to strengthening the Criminal Code and ensuring that people like Daniel Senecal would never have another chance to offend. We are here to make sure repeat offenders actually receive a sentence equal to their crime. Frankly, if it were up to me, he would rot in jail for the rest of his life. I want to thank the people of Niagara South who signed the petition that I will present to the House shortly.”
“The list of people being released only to be convicted again is staggering. Several women sat in my office in Welland and tearfully told me their stories and about the scars they have and the fears they have, living every single day looking over their shoulder. Many know their perpetrators are somewhere out there, and they are afraid. They hide. They do not engage in events where their faces can be seen. However, a few had garnered the courage to speak out this time, knowing they were making themselves visible and vulnerable. Many continue to move from place to place out of sheer fear. They pleaded with me to bring their stories to the floor of the House of Commons, and I am so proud to do that today.”
“I fully expect the minister will make good on his promise to introduce legislation, but will he actually change and reverse a decade of Liberal soft-on-crime catch-and-release and fundamentally reform our bail system? That remains to be seen. To me, people like Daniel Senecal should never see the light of day again. This is not “three strikes and you're out”. Sexually assaulting a toddler should carry a sentence commensurate with the crime, which, in my opinion, means life. When someone steals the innocence of a toddler, they forfeit their right to ever walk the streets of any neighbourhood again, let alone to ever have contact with children. The last time I spoke about this in the House, I had been visited by many survivors of sexual assault, often perpetrated by repeat offenders. They live in fear every single day.”
“This is the new expedited process, a promise to appear. An arrest can be made with the perpetrator sitting in the back seat of a cruiser and let go on a promise to appear. This is both laughable and sad, but it happens every single day. I have heard that in some cases, police simply drive by rather than waste time on useless paperwork. They know that the process is fatally flawed and that people are never going to do time for their crimes. When I asked the Minister of Justice about the case of little E, he told me that legislation is on the way. That is not good enough. It is not good enough for little E, and it certainly does not deal with the issue of early release for abhorrent predators who are sent back into our communities and neighbourhoods to offend over and over again. Here we are. We have a promise of bail reform but no action.”
“They spoke to me about the absurd catch-and-release policy of the current Liberal government. Violent crime is up 55%. Crime across the board, from extortion to car theft and home invasions, is way up. The stats are clear, but the fear is palpable and real. The current Liberal approach of forcing judges to release offenders at the earliest possible opportunity, under the least onerous conditions, is an abomination. The phrase “catch-and-release”, for me, is a fishing term but is oddly reflective of the main problem in the Criminal Code. Police have told me horror stories about the utterly useless policy of catch-and-release. One officer recently told me he had arrested the same individual 30 times over a period of several months in Niagara. In some situations, the same individual was released on the same day on a simple promise to appear.”
“The problem is that he is appearing for bail in the first place when he should have been in jail serving his original sentence. If that were the case, little E would have been just another happy little girl growing up without fear of being attacked by a convicted sex offender within the confines of her own home. I started a petition in my riding, hoping to bring the voice of my community to this chamber. Little did I know how far and wide the response would be. I will present the petition after the Easter break so the government hears the voices of tens of thousands of people in Niagara. (1300) During the recent election campaign, people told me their stories and their fears about rising crime rates, violent crimes and the feeling that their community is no longer safe.”
“He is on the sex offender registry. He was released into my community early on parole, and within a few short weeks he reoffended, breaking into the home of this little girl. Little E did not deserve this. No little girl, no little boy, no human being should be subjected to this kind of vile act of sexual assault. This particular little girl did not deserve to spend three weeks in the hospital. Most critically, Daniel Senecal should have been in prison, not in the room of a three-year-old toddler. Daniel Senecal has a bail hearing on October 15. Yes, this repeat convicted offender and vile excuse for a human being has a bail hearing on October 15. Now, clearly, this is his charter right and right of due process. That is not in dispute.”
“She was attacked by a convicted and recently released registered sex offender. For me and so many in my community, this can only be described as unbelievable. This took place in a neighbourhood in which I grew up. My grandparents owned a home on this street in Welland. As a child, I never felt unsafe in this neighbourhood. I would walk with my grandfather on Sunday mornings to pick up bread down the street at Barca's Bakery, and I would often be dispatched to pick it up myself. Again, I never felt unsafe, but little E, the sweet little three-year-old, will likely never feel safe again. After more than three weeks in the hospital recovering from this unspeakable assault, little E is now back home with her family. The House knows the story of Daniel Senecal. He was released early after being convicted of sexually assaulting a young boy.”
“We respected our police, our teachers, our principals, our neighbours and our shopkeepers, and we always respected our elders. I know it sounds somewhat idyllic and even a bit like an episode of Leave It to Beaver , but this was the childhood I knew and remember with fond nostalgia. Yes, I watched Leave It to Beaver in black and white. Sadly, my nostalgic sentimentality for a safe community has evolved into fear and trepidation in navigating our streets. What went wrong? Before I look at this, I would like to update the House on the case that has captivated, mobilized and crystallized opinion about crime in my community, the case of that three-year-old little girl who was brutally and in the most reprehensible way sexually assaulted in her own home in the city of Welland.”
“Some here remember being able to roam our neighbourhoods with our friends, knowing that when the streetlights came on, we headed home, and we all made it home safely. Before cellphones, social media and algorithms, we rode our Mustang bikes with monkey handlebars and banana seats. In my community, we had a holdover from the Second World War. We called it the nine o'clock whistle. It was a curfew whistle that we heard around town, and that was our signal to go home. I grew up in a family of law enforcement. My grandfather was chief of police in my small town of Port Colborne. My father was in the RCMP before joining the navy in World War II and later had a long career as a lawyer, Crown attorney and police commissioner.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am proud to contribute to this debate and follow my leader, who has never wavered on the need for reform of the Criminal Code. As a new MP, I am proud to stand here after several troubling weeks in my riding of Niagara South. I am proud to bring the voices of so many angry and frustrated people who have gathered to protest the vicious assault of a three-year-old toddler known to all of us now as little E. There might be a few of us here who grew up in the 1960s. When I was much younger, I remember Canada as a much different place. Our community was more respectful. We had few, if any, issues with feeling safe on our streets, and certainly we felt safe in our homes. We had rules and we followed them.”
“Sooner or later, the shovel-ready work also needs to get done. Conservatives will continue to hold Liberals to their commitments. My community is ready to build.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Welland Canal is the lifeblood of the community in Niagara South. Connecting Lake Ontario to Lake Erie, the Welland Canal is a major economic driver for southern Ontario, creating thousands of jobs by enabling grain, steel, critical minerals and other aggregates to be transported across our Great Lakes. Every year, my hometown of Port Colborne celebrates its marine heritage, rich history and the economic importance of the canal. Unfortunately, several of the wharves along the canal have fallen into disrepair, restricting economic growth and new development. Transport Canada earmarked $20 million for repair, but the project remains dormant, with no work having been completed in over two years. It is not enough for the government to simply make announcements and table press releases.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, I have spoken to many first responders, from the fire services and the police in the community to people in the medical community. People who are involved in health care have to deal with a lot of the issues of people who are being brought to hospital who have been victims of violence. It is widespread and pervasive, and it has to stop. In my community we used to be able to leave the doors open. We felt safe. The street that I have talked about with this individual is the street I grew up on, and it is not safe today. It is not safe in my community. My colleague is absolutely right. The first responders are fed up, and they want to see change. I hope to God that we can see it very soon.”
“Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am not well informed enough to actually talk intelligently about that. Hopefully, the hon. member will be able to spend some time with me to give me his views on that. However, my comments today are on the intention of the motion that is before the House, which is to talk about serious crimes and the need for serious reforms in the Criminal Code. I look forward to being engaged, whether in the House or in committee, on the legislation that must come forward, because it is desperately and sorely needed in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is not a word of that I can fundamentally disagree with, although I would like to see the legislation. It is not good enough to just say the Liberals are going to bring in bail reform. Fundamentally, I am not just talking about bail reform. I am talking about people who are being released after violent sexual assaults and beating children within an inch of their lives. That is the problem, letting these vile human beings out before they have served their sentence, a sentence that is not nearly long enough. This individual should never have seen the light of day. It is his second conviction for violently assaulting a child. What more do we need in this country to show that a person like that does not deserve bail, but deserves jail?”
“That is my message today, and I am grateful to my community members for sending me here. I will be presenting a petition on their behalf. They are going door to door now. That is how many people have stepped up. This is not a partisan thing. People have shown up at my constituency office for this petition asking the federal government to change the Criminal Code. Right now, my guess is that we are going to hit about 100,000 signatures. That is an amazing demonstration of democracy in action. People in my community want to see change, and I am hoping to present that petition to the floor of the House of Commons in the next week.”
“These violent criminals need to stay in jail and, as my leader said, we should throw away the key. That is what the public is asking us to do. We have a responsibility in the House to represent the interests of our constituents. I would urge the government to not wait until the fall, but to introduce this legislation. I agree with the Minister of Justice . We do not have to make this a partisan issue. We need to put these criminals behind bars, not let them on the street and not let them reoffend for the sake of little E., the three-year-old toddler in the city of Welland. Give her some hope. Give her family some hope. Give my community some hope. Give our country some hope that vile, abhorrent, despicable human beings like Daniel Senecal will never see the light of day again.”
“There is no reason this individual, Daniel Senecal, should have been released six months early on a year-and-a-half sentence after violently sexually assaulting a young boy and then, within months, violently beating a little girl in Welland within an inch of her life. Our communities are under siege, and I am not exaggerating about this. My leader pointed out the changes in our country, the statistics and how things have changed in Canada over the last number of years. It is not a slogan to say that the government has been soft on crime. Much of the changes that we have seen and many of the criminals being released have been released through changes over the last 10 years. The Conservatives are advocating for serious changes to the Criminal Code so we do not have catch and release.”
“I asked him what he is finding on the streets, if there are a lot of repeat offenders and if he is arresting the same person over and over again, as we have been hearing across the country. He said that I have no idea how many times he has arrested the same person over and over again. (1300) The officer said within a two-month period, one person who had been arrested and released on a promise to appear was arrested 30 times for car theft, break and enter, and assault. This guy had been charged with everything. On a promise to appear, he was released back into the public. The officer also said that oftentimes, they do not even bother arresting people anymore because they know it is simply catch-and-release. That has got to stop in this country. We are better than that. The violent criminals play the system.”
“The firefighters who came to Ottawa really appreciated the opportunity to stand on the floor of the House of Commons, where we pass laws. All of them asked that I urge the government to introduce changes immediately. The Minister of Justice said the government is going to be introducing changes some time in the fall. Why do we have to wait until the fall? It is not like we do not know what needs to happen right now. Someone came to my constituency office a couple of weeks ago. One of the responding officers from the Niagara Regional Police Service, whom I had known as a customer of one of my businesses, came to my office. He is a relatively new constable with the NRP.”
“The chief, deputy chief and a number of people from the Welland Fire and Emergency Services came to Ottawa for that ceremony. Among them was my son, who is a firefighter in Welland, and the two first firefighters to be on scene of that horrific crime. I brought all of them to the floor of the House of Commons, and we stood in front of the mace for at least an hour. They all told me about their experiences, including the two who were first on scene of this horrific crime. It is hard to describe the emotions they felt, but after coming to this place, they talked about the need to change the Criminal Code to keep repeat violent sex offenders in jail. I should mention that I am splitting my time with the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South .”
“The street on which this crime happened is the street I practically grew up on. My grandparents lived on that street. Within hours, the community stepped up. There was a vigil in downtown Welland and hundreds and hundreds of people showed up within hours of this person being arrested. Victims told me their stories about how they had been abused during childhood, or how relatives had been abducted, and about the pain, anguish and scars they have carried with them all their lives. They pleaded with me to come to this place, stand on this floor and talk about this issue. Municipal leaders also stepped up by asking the federal government to change the Criminal Code for violent offenders. A few days later, the annual firefighter memorial was held in Ottawa.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say I am happy to participate in this debate today, so I will rephrase it. I am grateful to have the opportunity to participate in this debate today because there have been a lot of incredibly horrendous things happening in my community over the last couple of weeks. Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Justice when legislation would be brought in to stop repeat sex offenders from being released into the community. I made reference to the case of Daniel Senecal, who currently lives in the city I live in. He sexually assaulted a three-year-old toddler in the most vile way. He had recently been released after being sentenced to prison for the assault on a 12-year-old boy. I would ask members to forgive me if I get a little emotional because it is tearing my community apart.”
“Mr. Speaker, Daniel Senecal raped and choked a 12-year-old boy in my riding. He was sentenced to 18 months but was released six months early. While on parole, this monster attacked and sexually abused his next victim, little E, a three-year-old little girl, almost killing her and leaving her fighting for her life before the firefighters arrived on the scene. Failed Liberal justice policies have allowed repeat child sex offenders to be let out early. Will the Liberals introduce changes to the Criminal Code today and bring home justice for victims like little E?”
“Mr. Speaker, I participated in the debate today, and I am reminded, after listening to a number of my colleagues speak, that in my circumstance, three of my four grandparents were born in the U.K. As a first-generation Canadian, I am not entitled to British citizenship. My grandfather was born in Italy and came to Canada, but he did not become a Canadian until after my mother was born, which would have entitled her to Italian citizenship. I am not. Italy has changed their citizenship regulations over the last number of years. The trend seems to be going in the opposite direction. I am wondering if my colleague can comment on what he sees as a trend toward postnationalism here and the trend in the other direction in other jurisdictions.”
“Madam Speaker, the provision of 1,095 days is very strange to me. Canadian citizenship is a valuable asset for anybody who wants to be part of this country. I just cannot connect the dots between that number of days and being able to qualify—”
“Niagara Falls is not the next Roxham Road, but I can tell the member that there are serious issues affecting that community now because we cannot get a handle on our immigration cases.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague's reference to Niagara Falls is quite timely. I was in Niagara Falls the other day with the mayor of the community. We were walking down Fallsview Boulevard, and he was pointing out all the hotels that are full of people waiting to have their refugee applications dealt with, at hundreds of millions of dollars in cost to the taxpayer. This goes to the heart of part of the reason we have an issue with this bill. The backlog at IRCC to have files dealt with, in some cases, is up to two years. That is one of the issues that could be created with this bill if it were to pass in its current form. The backlog and the burden on IRCC and CBSA is going to be overwhelming, and it is going to be very costly to the taxpayer.”
“I look forward to having this sent to committee, as well as reviewing it and the improvements from this side of the House.”
“Madam Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there. Let me say this: We have concerns about the legislation. There are two or three components that we agree with, and we are quite happy to dive into this at committee. What I am not in favour of, and what our party is not in favour of, is citizenship in perpetuity being given to people who may not have ever set foot in Canada to become Canadian citizens. To me, that is absurd. We will debate this, diving into the legislation at committee, and we will put forward amendments to improve it. I do not see what is wrong with that. The member suggests that we are talking endlessly, but this is what we do in this place when legislation is presented at second reading. We debate it, and we present our opinions, on the record.”
“Some of these individuals may have spent their entire life abroad except for three short nonconsecutive years; this is not substantial enough and is like counting vacation days to qualify for citizenship. Citizenship is the most valuable asset one can enjoy in Canada. Citizens should know and learn about our values, our history and the very fabric of our nation. These are things that should not be simply discarded or replaced over an 1,100-day stay in Canada. To that end, I look forward to working with other members of the committee to dive deeper into these issues in good faith so that we can move forward with what otherwise would have been a very good piece of legislation.”
“This opens the door to yet another enormous bureaucratic burden and cost. The staff in my constituency office have been flooded with requests and complaints this past summer regarding IRCC's poor handling of immigration casework and the backlogs it faces. Members will pardon me for not having faith in the Liberal government, which cannot even seem to deliver passports on time, let alone track the movement of millions of citizens abroad. Lastly, I would like to comment on the view that the Conservatives were obstructionist with the legislation at committee in the last Parliament. First, the concerns regarding fundamental changes to multi-generational citizenship are quite legitimate, and debating the issue of whether individuals with few ties to Canada should receive citizenship is indeed a valid concern worth significant discussion.”
“If members opposite took the time to speak to some of the permanent residents in their riding who pay taxes, contribute to our communities and are building lives here with their families, I believe they would find that they too agree with the Conservative position and are frustrated with how people with such inconsequential connections to Canada could obtain citizenship. Most importantly, the legislation assumes the government would be able to properly manage it. The success and implementation of these changes are based on whether IRCC or CBSA would in fact verify when Canadians arrive and when they leave to determine whether they are eligible to meet the substantial connection test of 1,095 days. This is a monumental task when one considers that over four million Canadian citizens currently live abroad, according to Stats Canada.”
“To allow individuals who have never truly lived here to enjoy all the benefits that come with being a Canadian citizen, including health care, government pensions, voting, protection from our government while abroad or even the privilege of running as an elected official, seems wrong to me. Frankly, in my opinion and that of many of my Conservative colleagues, these amendments diminish the value of our citizenship and turn what otherwise would have been a very good piece of legislation into a piece of bad legislation.”
“That is akin to generational citizenship in perpetuity. The only requirement is the three-year stay in Canada. I am proud to be Canadian. I ran for public office to better the lives of the people in my community, bring investments to the Niagara region and advocate for the issues that the people in my community care deeply about. (1220) Individuals who were born abroad and who have spent their entire adult lives there, do not pay taxes here and do not have any real connection to the sense of community that makes us Canadian should not be eligible for citizenship, in my opinion.”
“This can translate into having a family permanently living abroad, with multiple generations born outside Canada, gaining citizenship. To assist those watching, imagine this scenario: A second-generation Canadian parent who has been living abroad for nearly their entire life could, in theory, send their kids to school in Canada for three years, at a discounted rate, and that would make those children eligible for Canadian citizenship. That person would never have to file a T1 in Canada or be required to speak either of our two official languages, yet they would be eligible for citizenship, given the simple fact that at one point in their life they spent three non-consecutive years visiting Canada. Their child could, in fact, repeat the process for their children and pass on citizenship onto yet another generation.”
“The first-generation limit states that only the first generation of children born abroad can automatically claim and obtain Canadian citizenship. A Canadian citizen can pass on their citizenship to their child born outside of Canada, but the next generation also born abroad would not automatically receive it. This new bill would change that by creating a substantial connection test. Specifically, if a parent wants to pass citizenship to their child, they must prove that they have spent at least 1,095 non-consecutive days physically present in Canada at one point in their lives before the birth of their child abroad, subject to some conditions. This means that citizenship now is multi-generational, as parents no longer have to be born in Canada.”
“Ultimately, because of this last-minute change, which sought to fundamentally alter the way citizenship is passed on in Canada for citizens living abroad, this bill got bogged down in committee and died on the Order Paper. The government proceeded to reintroduce the bill as a government bill, Bill C-71 , which also failed to pass. Today, the government is trying again, for a third time, introducing what is effectively the same bill with the same controversies and somehow expecting it to have a different result. Let us take a moment to look at what multi-generational citizenship is and the issues we have with it. Currently, passing on Canadian citizenship to children born abroad is subject to the first-generation limit introduced by the Harper government in 2009 through Bill C-37 .”
“This deals with restoring citizenship to a group of people born between 1977 and 1981 who had lost their citizenship as a result of a glitch in our immigration system. Again, Conservatives supported this provision. What is the issue that our side has with this bill? The problem lies with the third component of this bill, which did not exist until the Liberal-NDP coalition hijacked the original bill at committee stage in the last Parliament. During clause-by-clause review, and by way of last-minute changes, the Liberals inserted a controversial clause creating multi-generational citizenship, which went far beyond the original intent of the bill.”
“Currently, if parents adopt a child from abroad, once the adoption is completed they are required to file a permanent residency application on behalf of the child. The financial cost associated with this can be quite high, often requiring the services of an immigration consultant or lawyer, and the process can be incredibly stressful and time-consuming for the family seeking to adopt. That bill and Bill C-3 would do away with that process entirely and instead allow for the adopted child to obtain citizenship as if they were born in Canada, the moment the adoption itself is finalized. This is a positive change and one that Conservatives support. The second component of the original bill dealt with the issue of lost Canadians, a topic with which I was unfamiliar prior to arriving here.”
“Madam Speaker, it is good to be back in this place after a very eventful summer. It is nice to see my colleagues. Welcome back to you, Madam Speaker. It is always a pleasure to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the constituents of Niagara South. Today we are debating an important piece of legislation that seeks to make amendments to the Citizenship Act and that for a third time is up for debate in this chamber. For those who have not been following Bill C-3 , it is the third iteration, which started as Bill S-245 in the other place, introduced in the last Parliament. The original iteration of the bill was commendable and received bipartisan support from this chamber. In it, the bill sought to achieve two key changes, with the first relating to adoption.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am trying to formulate a coherent response to what I just heard across the way, but I appreciated the member's speech. Triggered by this comment about EVs, I wonder if the member might give us some perspective on his view of what Chinese EVs mean in our marketplace and why the government raised the tariff on Chinese EVs. What does that mean to us in our marketplace, particularly in our domestic market, where a lot of these plants are not even opening?”
“Madam Speaker, I absolutely do. I have to repeat that there is a beautiful, brand new plant in my riding in the city of Welland, where I live. It is a 300,000-square-foot facility. The only reason it was built was because of the subsidies given to it. The plant is never opening. It is on the market for rent or for sale. This is an incredible example of what happens when the government interferes with the private sector. Consumers will drive the market. We will make a transition to electric vehicles, but we cannot force it by saying that, in the next 10 years, thou shalt not produce another gas-powered vehicle in this country. It is not going to work. This is going to be the new carbon tax, and I guarantee that the government is going to back down on this in a few years.”
“Madam Speaker, that is some interesting gaslighting going on there. Nobody then was forcing anyone to completely redesign how they travel in this country. The hon. member is comparing a light bulb to an EV, while fundamentally changing the entire business model of a multi-billion-dollar industry. It is not a light bulb. Let us not confuse apples and oranges here.”
“Madam Speaker, I am not here to say that there is no market at all for EVs. What I am saying is that the government cannot impose its will on a private sector business without continuing to invest massive amounts of dollars to incentivize production and capital investment. That is the only reason why we are here today with the motion. We have been responding to a business case with a false narrative. The private sector will respond if the market is there, but let us let the private sector do the work and invest the money to make it work.”
“My colleague for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke was correct when she said that this could devastate the auto sector. I want to repeat this. This is the new carbon tax. If the government forces this on the economy, be prepared for a lot of pain and no gain. The only thing that this policy does is rehabilitate Elon Musk's reputation. Yes, let us put Elon in charge and see what happens. Canadians cannot afford another lost Liberal decade driven by bad Liberal policies. This is government interference extraordinaire. I hope the members opposite will support our common-sense motion to repeal this mandate. I will not hold my breath.”
“Kristian Aquilina, president of General Motors Canada, urged the Liberals to scrap the EV mandate and said, “It's unrealistic to believe that the country is going to go from 5 or 6 per cent to 20 per cent by model year '26, which starts now.” (1240) Brian Kingston, president and CEO of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association said, “The federal EV mandate needs to be repealed before serious damage is done to the auto industry at the worst possible time.” A study in the Canadian Journal of Economics estimates that the mandate will eliminate 38,000 jobs in the auto sector and cost upward of $138 billion, assuming that the sector never shuts down as a result of this policy. Let us talk about tariffs. This is the worst possible time to be imposing a new business model on a private sector industry.”
“The punitive measures in the legislation are also interesting. To enforce the mandate, the program would put on a harsh penalty structure that implements a $20,000 tax per vehicle on any auto manufacturer that is unable to meet the quota. Put another way, if a company is supposed to sell 1,000 vehicles in 2026 and 200 of those must be EVs, but it ends up selling only 150 EVs, the company is therefore 50 EVs short of its quota and subject to fines.”
“The federal government in Ottawa committed $170 million to this plant. Described as a highly integrated casting, machining and coating operation with the first-of-its-kind gigatonnage high-pressure-die-casting capabilities by an auto supplier in North America or Europe, this plant is beautiful, but it never opened. It is now listed for sale on Realtor.ca. Where do we go from here? Is the infrastructure available in the country? It is not even close. A member opposite asked a question earlier about whether the Conservatives would support investment in the infrastructure. Does that just mean more tax dollars? I think perhaps that is what she meant: Were the Conservatives supporting the government's paying the bill for infrastructure after paying the bill to build these plants just to see them shut down?”