Greg Fergus
Hull—Aylmer, Quebec · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of the world's largest food producers. However, too much of the food we produce is processed abroad, and too many Canadians still rely on high‑priced imports. Canadian farmers deserve more options for selling their products, and Canadians deserve more choices about where they buy their food.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would also like to wish the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville all the best, a woman I got to know through the National Prayer Breakfast. We have sat together. We have talked together. I wish the very best to her and her family for having served her constituents of Yorkton—Melville with great honour.”
“Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary made reference to one of the symbols noted in the amendment, which is the noose. As he knows, it is an issue of particular importance to Black Canadians. I wonder if he could discuss why it is important to list symbols such as the noose as hate symbols.”
“Mr. Speaker, as Pride season kicks off, I am pleased to stand up and celebrate the 30th anniversary of Jeunesse Idem. For 30 years, young people in the Outaouais 2SLGBTQIA+ community have had a place where they are respected, affirmed and loved.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Laval—Les Îles. Did I understand my hon. colleague correctly when he said that the official opposition had engaged in filibustering despite the serious challenges we face in Canada and in the Standing Committee on Finance?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Johanna Mizgala, chief curator of the House of Commons, who will leave the House at the end of September. A few months after she started working in the House, Ms.”
The complete record
Every one of 125 lines we hold for Greg Fergus, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“This is a tremendous opportunity to transform our country, modernize our economy and create infrastructure that will be used for decades, if not a century. By building a faster, more efficient and more reliable rail network, the high-speed rail initiative will strengthen the capacity of Canada's supply chains and stimulate long-term growth. This initiative, which has the support of provincial partners, is enthusiastically welcomed by municipalities and aligns with national priorities, reflects a shared commitment to modern infrastructure, strong domestic industries and a connected and competitive Canada. I am certain that, together, we are investing in a future in which Canadians will benefit from greater opportunities and our economy will be more resilient, more dynamic and better positioned to succeed in a rapidly changing world.”
“It is time to take action. The federal government's buy Canadian policy is essential to strengthening our national industries and supporting good jobs for Canadians. As we move forward with high-speed rail, we will prioritize the use of Canadian-made materials whenever possible. These measures will help to create an environment favourable to Canadian products and strengthen our domestic industrial capacity. As we move forward with this transformative initiative, we are encouraged by the clear signals of support from Quebeckers. This project is supported by the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal and several several chambers of commerce in the corridor between Quebec and Ontario.”
“This will be equivalent to taking more than 100,000 cars off the road. This legislation also ensures that the impact assessment process will apply to every segment of the project, placing consultation and environmental protection at the very heart of this initiative. I was involved in the launch of this project. The mayor of Ottawa was there. The mayor of Gatineau was unable to attend because she was at another event, but she wanted to be there. The City of Montreal unanimously passed a resolution to promote and support this project. This is a project that has been discussed for decades. Now that we have reached the point where we can take action, there are people who want to slow down the process. This is no longer acceptable. This project is clearly in the best interests of everyone, Quebec, Ontario and Canada as a whole.”
“For the high-speed rail project, we expect to support more than 50,000 jobs during the design and construction phases alone. This project will draw on Canadian expertise, including engineers, land surveyors, architects and rail specialists. It will also generate strong demand for Canadian materials and services. (1615) The proponent of this project, Alto, estimates that the combined effect on productivity, the labour market and tourism will result in an annual increase of $35 billion. The benefits extend far beyond the immediate impact. In the long term, high-speed rail will connect major hubs across provincial borders, creating a more resilient economy by facilitating interprovincial trade. This is a priority we all recognize in the current economic climate. This fully electric high-speed train will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
“Within the next 15 years, the population will increase to as many as 24 million Canadians living in the corridor between Quebec City and Toronto. We know full well that our highways are already operating at maximum capacity when it comes to traffic. It is very important to have a new rail system available. As I said, this train will be fast, reliable, and will truly serve Canadians. In a time of global economic uncertainty, the high-speed rail initiative represents a historic opportunity to invest in Canada's future. This is a strategic step toward building a more resilient and competitive economy, one that is better positioned to withstand external pressures, including the growing threat of tariffs. Major infrastructure projects like this one create jobs.”
“Cutting travel time in half would mean travelling from Ottawa to Montreal in less than an hour, from Ottawa to Toronto in less than two hours. This will not only change everyday travel patterns, it will expand access to jobs, talent and markets. This increased connectivity will strengthen regional supply chains, support labour mobility and create conditions conducive to stronger economic growth. It will bring communities and businesses closer together, support new investment and innovation, and provide Canadians with a modern, reliable, low-emission means of transportation that will strengthen our competitiveness. The high-speed rail initiative is necessary because the current transportation infrastructure has already reached its limits.”
“I am very grateful to Louise, as well as to Martin, Nicolas, Rania, Mamadou, Elsa and Valérie for all of their help. I also want to say that, next week, after several months of working with the hon. member for Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata , Shane Atienza will be moving to my office for the coming months. He is a parliamentary intern. This is an extraordinary program, and I encourage all members to submit a request for an intern at the next available opportunity. High-speed rail will fundamentally change the way people travel between Quebec City and Toronto. It is going to provide faster, more reliable and more sustainable service in the busiest corridor not only in Canada but, frankly, in North America.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in today's debate. Before I get into my speech, I would like say two things. First, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville . Second, I, too, would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of one of my staffers. MPs are nothing without their teams to do the day-to-day work. They support us and assist us. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending an awards ceremony where Louise Goulet received a certificate of recognition. Louise has been working with me for 10 years and she helped me with my first election campaign in 2015. She is always there faithfully serving the extraordinary interests of the people of Hull—Aylmer.”
“The petitioners are calling on the “Government of Canada to introduce a bill to protect our Canadian flag from any action that would destroy or desecrate the national flag without lawful excuse”.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in the 45th Parliament that I have risen to present a petition. I am presenting petition e-6685, signed by nearly 600 Canadians. This petition stems from the efforts of a great Canadian, a veteran, retired captain Jocelyn Démétré. I know I am not supposed to recognize any individual in the gallery, so I will not recognize the former captain in the gallery. However, I can say that he is a veteran, that he has written a book and that he works on behalf of veterans. The petitioners are pointing out that “Canada does not have any laws prohibiting contempt of the flag, as many countries do, such as France, the United Kingdom and Switzerland”.”
“Mr. Speaker, my mother-in-law has Alzheimer's. I know how devastating this disease can be. She is far from alone. Every day, 300 Canadians are diagnosed with dementia. Although there is no cure, we know that community initiatives can make a big difference for people with dementia and their families, friends and caregivers. Could the Minister of Health tell us what steps the government is taking to ensure that Canadians with dementia have access to the health care they deserve?”
“Mr. Speaker, December 6 marks 36 years since the murder of 14 women at École Polytechnique in Montreal. This was a horrific event that shook the entire country. We have a collective duty to fight gender-based violence. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House what measures have been taken to honour the memory of these young students and ensure that such a tragedy never happens again in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, last week Canadians watched in horror as hurricane Melissa, which was the strongest hurricane in the Caribbean's history, tore through the region, leaving widespread destruction in its wake. Hundreds of thousands of people were affected, lives were lost, homes and infrastructure were damaged and destroyed, and families were affected by the flooding and landslides. As the people of Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti and across the region begin the difficult work of reconstruction and recovery, can the Secretary of State for International Development talk about what Canada is doing?”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair and to take part in these debates. I listened very carefully to my friend from the Bloc Québécois, a very experienced member. All through his speech, however, I asked myself one question. What could have changed in a process that was previously considered perfectly acceptable until the day this new Prime Minister arrived? Is anything substantially different? It seems to me that the process is the same one that all members used to consider acceptable, until today.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are many elements to the premise of that question that I have some difficulty with, but there are two things that should give the hon. member some confidence. First of all, this legislation reflects directly the recommendations by former Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Morris Fish. Second, the member can take confidence in the fact that the person responsible for making sure the recommendations are being followed going forward, Madame Jocelyne Therrien, is following through on them. She can assure parliamentarians and, most importantly, members of our Canadian Armed Forces that these recommendations are being followed through on.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a very important point the member for Winnipeg North raises in the House. Because the system has been in place and there has been action already on some of the reports that have been brought forward, which understand the scope and severity of the situation, these things have been acted on. Now we are codifying this. Now we are making sure that the resources are put in place. Now we are making sure that training is provided and that our folks in the armed forces understand better how to transfer files to the civilian courts and provide support to the victims of sexual misconduct and harassment in our system. These are very welcome changes, and it is wonderful to hear in the questions from different colleagues that there seems to be general support among members to make sure the bill gets to committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have come to know my hon. colleague very well, and I know he takes these issues very seriously. It is not a guarantee that the culture will change, but it is clear that we must take every step possible. One of the first things to do is assure victims of sexual harassment or misbehaviour that the system is not stacked against them. The way to do that, as we saw in the report by Madam Justice Arbour, is to take them out of the system where they could be seeking justice from their superiors or where those working on a file could be trying to pursue a case against a military superior. That does not lend confidence to the system, so it is important for victims to have an independent system, which is what they would be guaranteed by criminal courts outside of the military service.”
“It is imperative to ensure that victims and survivors receive the support and justice they deserve. In conclusion, Canadian Armed Forces members are always there to ensure Canada's security and it is our duty to protect them from harassment and misconduct. The 48 recommendations made by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour clearly showed us the path to follow to change the culture of our institution, and the external auditor, Jocelyne Therrien, is ensuring that we respect this commitment, this new path. In closing, I want to thank the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the veterans for their service to Canada. I hope that all my colleagues in the House will support this bill so that we can ensure justice for victims of harassment and sexual misconduct.”
“In response to recommendation 14 of Justice Arbour's report, the sexual misconduct support and resource centre has expanded its services to include a full-time legal resource responsible for providing information and assistance to victims of sexual misconduct in a military context. The next step will involve providing access to civilian lawyers able to contribute their assistance in different parts of the country at no cost to victims. Bill C‑11 takes another step forward by improving support for victims and assigning exclusive jurisdiction to civilian authorities for investigating and prosecuting Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Our government remains steadfast in its ongoing commitment to addressing all forms of misconduct and unprofessional behaviour within the Canadian Armed Forces.”
“This resulted in a unified workplace harassment and violence prevention policy that applies to both National Defence public service employees and members of the Canadian Armed Forces. This change also addressed recommendation 3 of Justice Louise Arbour's report. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces who experience or witness harassment or violence in the workplace now have a simplified incident reporting system, informal resolution mechanisms and a simplified investigation process. We have also made progress in providing a range of relevant services and supports to victims.”
“(1755) Indeed, in our efforts to follow up on recommendations 1 and 2, we have made significant progress in clarifying definitions and terminology. In June of last year, the defence team announced that policies using the term “sexual misconduct” would be updated to replace it with “harassment of a sexual nature”, “conduct deficiencies of a sexual nature” and “crimes of a sexual nature”. In addition, “sexual assault” will be separately defined in the relevant policies. In March of this year, CAF adopted the Canada Labour Code definitions of harassment and violence, aligning its harassment and violence prevention program with the public service workplace harassment and violence prevention program.”
“This report, entitled “Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces”, contains 48 recommendations that focused on reforming the “institutional shortcomings and structural impediments” that allowed the problem to persist. In recommendation 48 of her report, Justice Arbour called for the Minister of National Defence to appoint an external monitor to oversee the implementation of the recommendations in the report and other external recommendations that she accepts. The external monitor, Jocelyne Therrien, shared her fifth report in July. Ms. Therrien emphasized that we are making progress and are on track to meet the intent of the 48 recommendations by the end of 2025.”
“Finally, the bill ensures that the military justice system remains aligned with the Criminal Code and the civilian justice system. Our government takes the well-being of Canadian Armed Forces members very seriously. That is why we have worked hard in recent years to implement all 48 recommendations from former Justice Louise Arbour's report. More than 30 of those recommendations have already been implemented. By the end of the year, with the passage of this bill, I hope we will be able to say that not just 47 recommendations, but all 48 recommendations made by former Justice Arbour have been implemented. I would like to provide an overview of Justice Arbour's recommendations. Three years ago now, Justice Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the Minister of National Defence.”
“I will give a brief overview of all these amendments. First, it will enshrine in law the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces no longer has jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Second, it will enshrine in law that civilian authorities have exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Third, it establishes a victim's liaison officer, who will be available to victims throughout the transfer of cases, regardless of jurisdiction. Fourth, the bill seeks to strengthen the role of key positions in the justice system to make them more independent. Fifth, it seeks to address the historical discrimination faced by under-represented groups in how cases have been processed and transferred.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate a bill that is very important for the military community and for Canadians, that is, Bill C‑11 , the military justice system modernization act. This bill will have a significant impact on members of the Canadian Armed Forces as well as veterans. Indeed, Bill C‑11 address the concerns that victims and survivors within Canada's military community have shared with us over the past few years. It includes a series of targeted amendments that aim to modernize the military justice system and strengthen support for victims and survivors. The bill responds to recommendation 5 of the report from former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour and the eight recommendations of the report from former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish. More specifically, the bill proposes to make six amendments.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his service in the Canadian Armed Forces. I am very grateful to him. I am also very pleased to know that he and his colleagues are going to support this bill. He asked a very sincere question. I have a question for him too. Does he believe that the current military court system serves the interests of Canadian Armed Forces members who are victims of sexual misconduct, or does he believe that using civilian courts instead is a better option for those individuals?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his personal testimony on this bill. I would like to confirm whether I understand correctly that the official opposition intends to support this bill at second reading so that it can be sent to committee for study. I would also like him to explain what he expects from this study in committee. Can he tell us about one or two amendments that he would like to see made to the bill in committee so that he and his colleagues can support it at third reading?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am deeply grateful for the support of my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle . She listed the reasons why these sexual offence complaints need to be handled by civilian courts. She talked about the importance of implementing policies that support military members and veterans who intend to file complaints. Would she be able to elaborate on the type of policy she would like to see proposed when the bill is studied in committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford for her very informed speech. She is always very well prepared for all the debates she takes part in. I am pleased that she mentioned in her speech that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle. As I said, my colleague always backs up what she says in her speeches with facts and figures. Beyond supporting this bill in principle, does my colleague have any specific proposals for improving it?”
“Mr. Speaker, for many years, Canada has opened the doors for women to be part of the Canadian Armed Forces, but unfortunately, they have not had justice when they faced sexual discrimination or sexual misconduct. Bill C-11 offers an opportunity to take these particular issues out of the military justice system and into the civilian courts. Can the member talk about why that is an important development and how it would make sure that victims of sexual assault and sexual misconduct have an opportunity to have their case heard fairly?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us about the importance of supporting our soldiers overseas on missions outside Canada and, more importantly, of ensuring that our female soldiers can have confidence in the system that determines when there has been a breach of the rules against sexual misconduct in the CAF.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. We work together in committee, and because he is a lawyer, I greatly appreciate his thoughts on this bill. I am very pleased to learn that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill so that we can pass it quickly. I think that is very important. Toward the end of his speech, my colleague talked about the importance of giving military personnel, especially women, confidence that the system in which they can file a complaint will be neutral and independent of the military process. I would like my colleague to elaborate on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, every October is Cybersecurity Awareness Month in Canada. This initiative aims to educate us all about the importance of good cybersecurity practices. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us about the steps our government has taken to strengthen the cybersecurity of individuals and businesses in the face of increasingly sophisticated threats?”
“My reflection would be that, no, effectively it is a backdoor constitutional change that is eliminating rights that people should enjoy. There are opportunities for provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament to take a look at these laws, take a look at the decisions from the courts and try to come up with a compromise that can work this thing out.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the official opposition has, for once, asked a question relevant to the debate that we are having today and not backing it on other issues. I thank the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for asking this question. It goes right back to my speech, which said that the use of the notwithstanding clause is legitimate. The adoption of various laws in different provinces is also very legitimate. We are not contesting that. What we are contesting is whether one should use it in a preventative fashion and keep renewing the use of section 33. The question we are then left with is this: Do those rights exist anymore that were supposed to be guaranteed by the charter?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, but I cannot provide a specific answer. I can say that, in theory, the pre-emptive use and constant re-invocation of the notwithstanding clause raises a problem: It basically denies the fundamental rights of people who need them. We cannot do that, because that would permanently infringe on rights, which amounts to a constitutional amendment through the back door.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague for his question. I do not want to raise the temperature on this any further, so I will just answer his question. I do not think that the premise of his question is valid. The Canadian government firmly believes that the Government of Quebec has the right and the responsibility, as does the federal government, to protect the French language. However, when we see some provinces, such as Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan, using this notwithstanding clause to undo and adjust constitutional rights guaranteed by the charter, that is a problem, because it once again raises the question of whether rights exist if the notwithstanding clause is invoked.”
“In sum, I think that the response to two of the three parts of the motion moved by the Bloc québécois is that they clearly do not apply. For the third, we want to prevent back-door constitutional changes through the continual use of the notwithstanding clause. I think that is very important in a democracy. It is often said that we use this word somewhat reluctantly, but we have to look for compromises. That is important. That is what we do every day here in the House of Commons. We try to find compromises in order to bring in legislation that makes sense and that protects everyone. (1225)”
“That is why I think Quebeckers and Canadians feel it is perfectly legitimate and reasonable to re-examine this issue, and that is the essence of the factum that was submitted. I hope that the Supreme Court justices will take note and give Canadians and the government a road map on how to limit the use of this clause. I think that the rights that have been conferred on all Canadians by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are very important, fundamental rights. These rights ensure that we can live in a constitutional democracy, where decisions can be made and the majority can bring in legislation and, to a certain extent, protect minorities from laws that are harmful to their interests. I think that is the most important thing and that is why I completely understand why the Attorney General of Canada proposed this path.”
“That applies whether we are Quebeckers or Canadians, should it happen in another province, as it did in Saskatchewan or Ontario, where bills that included the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause were introduced. I think it is perfectly normal for people to do that. Some Quebeckers will disagree with certain bills. That is their right. The government decided to shield itself from that challenge and to use the notwithstanding clause. I applaud that; I get it. However, if governments do this a lot, that raises a very legitimate question: What is the point of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? What is the point if rights guaranteed in the charter can be nullified? What is happening here is that continual use of section 33 every five years will eventually result in no rights at all.”
“Now we are getting to the heart of the factum filed with the Supreme Court. This is a situation that affects several provinces. It does not only affect my beautiful province of Quebec, which I care deeply about. Quebec is my home, my homeland, the place where I chose to raise my family, my children and my grandchildren. As members may guess from my accent, my first language is English. However, I chose to integrate into Quebec society, particularly by learning to speak French fluently. I am a proud francophile, and I would like to emphasize that because Quebec is a place I care deeply about. (1220) When basic rights conflict with a bill, we the people have the right to challenge it in court.”
“This clause is still useful, particularly when a bill passed by the Quebec National Assembly, another provincial legislature or even this Parliament conflicts with certain fundamental rights. The genius of this is that it leaves open the possibility of using the notwithstanding clause in certain circumstances where it is necessary. Some people dispute this idea, while others believe that the notwithstanding clause should not even exist. I personally consider it a useful safety mechanism. When a Supreme Court ruling finds that a law violates fundamental rights, this provision allows legislators to find a solution. They can either amend their law to comply with the decision or seek a temporary compromise that allows them to pursue their objective without it becoming a permanent solution.”
“Second, the Bloc Québécois “calls on the government to withdraw its factum filed on September 17, 2025, with the Supreme Court contesting Quebec’s right to invoke the notwithstanding clause”. Once again, we see in the factum that was filed that the government is not even challenging the right of a province to invoke the notwithstanding clause. Third, the Bloc Québécois asks the House to “denounce the government’s willingness to use the Supreme Court to take constitutional powers away from Quebec and the provinces”. On this third point, the answer is no. However, some nuances are worth noting. The federal government is actually taking the opposite approach: It is not seeking to prevent the provinces from using the notwithstanding clause.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to take part in this debate. Let me begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Mount Royal . In this debate, it is very important to remember how we got here. We are here to discuss a motion presented by my hon. colleagues from the Bloc Québécois. There are three parts to this motion, the first of which “calls on the government to fully withdraw from the legal challenge of Quebec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State before the Supreme Court”. After reading the document submitted to the Supreme Court by the Attorney General of Canada, I can say that the government is not challenging the validity of Bill 21.”
“Mr. Speaker, as a Quebecker, I found it very interesting to listen to my colleague. I am a very proud Quebecker, and I listened carefully to his speech. I would like to ask him a question that relates to the debate we are having, but it is a little more theoretical. Is it important to ensure that rights remain rights, not only in Quebec but across Canada?”
“However, his children are not a threat to the national security of Canadians; they are four and six years old. I would like to know why the hon. member believes that this issue should not be resolved for people who want to contribute to Canadian society.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I am glad that he came to Canada and exercised his Canadian citizenship rights. However, I think it is very important that we avoid creating a bogeyman or criticizing something that is not true. I am going to share a little story. I am hoping my colleague can give me some advice about one of my constituents, born to Canadian development workers in Africa. He was born outside Canada and wanted to work internationally, which he did in several countries. At one point, he moved to the United States and married an American woman. Now that his parents are ill, he has returned to Canada to take care of them. Unfortunately, the problem is that his children cannot obtain Canadian citizenship.”
“Mr. Speaker, this week, we are celebrating National Public Service Week. This is a perfect opportunity to acknowledge the outstanding work of those who keep our country running smoothly every day. The public service of 2025 needs to take advantage of new technologies and AI, which can help us build a more agile and efficient public service. Our government will give public servants the tools they need to keep up their excellent work in serving Canadians. New technologies can make it easier to complete routine tasks so that public servants can focus on what matters: creativity, judgment and problem solving. To keep Canada strong, we need a strong public service. I wish everyone a happy National Public Service Week.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on the quality of his French. There is a strong trend around the world right now. Will the future lead to electric vehicles or not? If we know that the trend is going in that direction, would it not be better for the Canadian economy to have policies in place that can support this transition?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Humber River—Black Creek, not only for her very interesting speech, but also for her perspective. In her long career here in Parliament, I imagine she has seen trends evolve. Could she tell the House about the current trend toward electric vehicles? Can she tell us about the opportunity Canada has to become a leader not only in electric car production, but also in parts manufacturing? We have an opportunity to become a world leader in the production of electric vehicles and related products.”