With regard to Prairies Economic Development Canada (PrairiesCan): (a) what is the total amount of project funding announced by the agency since its inception; (b) what is the total amount of project funding where the funding has actually been transferred to the recipient since the agency's inception; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by year; and (d) what are the details of all projects which have been funded by the agency to date, including, for each, the (i) location, (ii) date of announcement, (iii) project description, (iv) amount of funding being provided by PrairiesCan, (v) percentage of total project costs represented by the amount in (iv), (vi) start date, (vii) expected completion date, (viii) amount of PrairiesCan funding actually delivered to the recipient to date, (ix) recipient? With regard to the Post Living Differential (PLD) allowance offered by the Department of National Defence to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members, broken down by Canadian Forces bases, region and year in the past 10 years: (a) what is the amount of PLD allowance offered to members, in dollars and percentage of salary; (b) how many members receive the PLD allowance; (c) how many members do not receive the PLD allowance; (d) how many members are living in single versus family units; (e) when did the department last undertake a comprehensive review of the PLD levels; (f) are there plans to undertake a review of the PLD allowance; and (g) what criteria is used to determine whether the PLD allowance is offered or not? With regard to the claim by the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, that he used the month between finding out about Laith Marouf's comments and speaking out publicly about them, to consult with departmental officials on the government's legal options for withdrawing the money from the Community Media Advocacy Centre: (a) what are the details, including a specific timeline, for any consultations held in the month following July 20, 2022; (b) what are the titles of all departmental officials who were consulted; and (c) on what date and by what method (email, verbal consultation) was each official in (b) consulted? With regard to the Tourism Relief Fund: (a) what is the complete list of criteria used by officials to determine the fund recipients; (b) how many applications for funding were received from British Columbia; (c) of the applicants in (b), how many were granted funding; (d) how many (i) businesses, (ii) non-profits, have received this funding in British Columbia; (e) of the recipients in (d), how many received (i) repayable, (ii) non-repayable, contributions; and (f) what is the timeline for when an application is received, when a decision is rendered, and when it is communicated to the applicant? With regard to the government's response to foreign governments recruiting retired personnel from the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF): (a) what is the Department of National Defence's policy with respect to retired personnel from the RCAF accepting contracts or other paid work from foreign governments; (b) is the Department of National Defence aware of any former RCAF members accepting contracts or other paid work from the People's Republic of China since January 1, 2016; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, (i) what is the nature of that work, (ii) what is the total (dollar, contribution) value of that work, (iii) how many former RCAF members are involved, (iv) how many former RCAF members were CF-18 pilots, (v) what national security steps, if any, have been taken to prevent sensitive information from being divulged to an adversarial foreign government; (d) is the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development aware of any attempts by diplomatic staff from the People's Republic of China or other officials to recruit former members of the Canadian Armed Forces; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, (i) what steps has the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development taken to prevent such recruitment activities, (ii) have any diplomatic staff from the People's Republic of China been expelled from Canada as a result? With regard to the Roxham Road border crossing: (a) how many individuals have used the Roxham Road border crossing to enter Canada, broken down by month since January 1, 2021; (b) what are the ongoing monthly costs related to the crossing, including costs associated with processing individuals crossing the border; (c) what is the breakdown of (b) by type of expenditure; (d) how many officers or employees from (i) the RCMP, (ii) the Canada Border Services Agency, (iii) Citizenship and Immigration Canada, have been assigned to duties related to the border crossing or the individuals who crossed into Canada at that location; (e) what are the details of all contracts awarded by the government since January 1, 2021, in relation to the border crossing, including, for each, the (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount or value, (iv) description of goods or services, including the volume, if applicable; (f) for each contract in (e), was it sole­ sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process; and (g) for each sole-sourced contract in (f), why was there not a competitive bidding process? With regard to expenditures on communications professional services (codes 035, 0351, and 0352) since April 1, 2021, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) the date, (ii) the amount, (iii) the vendor, (iv) the description of goods or services, (v) whether the contract was sole-sourced or competitively bid? With regard to the claim on the government's website that 10 percent of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are from crop and livestock production: (a) what is the breakdown of that percentage by type of crop or livestock (beef, pork, wheat, canola, etc.); and (b) for each type of crop or livestock in (a), what portion of the percentage is created by each stage of production (seeding, harvest, slaughter, milling, etc.)? With regard to individuals who have entered Canada at irregular border crossings, since January 1, 2020, broken down by month: how many individuals entered at such border crossings, broken down by province or territory, and by area (e.g., near Emerson, Manitoba)? With regard to minors being warned of imprisonment or fines if they broke the previous quarantine requirements for certain individuals returning to Canada, since April 2020, broken down by year: how many travellers under the age of 18 received such warnings, broken down by age and type of warning (email, phone call, physical visit to property, etc.)? With regard to the Pacific Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative (PICFI), broken down by fiscal year since its inception: (a) what projects have received funding and who was the recipient of the funding; (b) what was the amount of funding delivered to each project in (a); (c) how many Indigenous commercial fisheries have received funding and which First Nations peoples do they represent; (d) what is the total amount of funding received by each commercial fishery in (c); and (e) what is the total amount of funding spent to date through the PICFI?

Mr. Speaker, I would then ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to give notice under Standing Order 52(2) that I will be seeking leave today, Monday, December 5, 2022, to propose an emergency debate regarding missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. Last week, the Winnipeg Police Service announced charges against an alleged serial killer for the murder of Morgan Harris, Marcedes Myran and one other loved one who is still being identified. This follows an earlier charge of May 2022 for the murder of Rebecca Contois. Our community is reeling from the loss of our precious sisters and what has been part of an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, something that the Prime Minister has identified as a genocide. We need closure. We need to talk about it and address it immediately to get support to search for our loved ones. We need closure and to search for our loved ones who, the police believe, are in the Brady Road landfill site. I am requesting this. We need resources. Our women continue to be murdered. We need resources to find our loved ones, and we need to discuss this right away. We need closure.

I wish to inform the House that I have received notice of a request for an emergency debate. I invite the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre to rise and make a brief intervention.

I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for her intervention. However, I am not satisfied that her request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

Mr. Speaker, it is always fascinating hearing my colleague and friend across the way present herself in the form of a speech to the chamber. One of the biggest issues I have with the Conservative Party is that there are many members within it that will say, on the one hand, that we need to spend some money. We heard a lot today about spending on different areas from some of her colleagues. Then on the other hand, we hear from other colleagues who say that we need to stop spending money. There seems to be an inconsistency at times. The overall theme of the Conservative Party seems to be to chop and cut programs and to cut back on government expenditures. I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts on what areas, and which departments in particular, she believes we should be looking at cutting programs or funding dollars.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite just talked about government spending. The Auditor General and the PBO have talked about a lot of areas where the government has been ineffective in spending. In fact, I believe there is an article that says: Ottawa spends billions yet the number of homeless in Canada may be rising. An Order Paper question that I had showed that the government spent $400 million on airport COVID testing after the rest of the world had lifted requirements for COVID testing. I believe these contracts are going forward every day. The government also spent $1 billion on the WE Charity scandal. Spending is not an end in and of itself. Would the member agree that there are areas where the government has spent erroneously, and perhaps it behooves the government to do a bit of an audit before making statements like the one that was just made?

Mr. Speaker, agreed. The fact is that the government brought in more tax dollars and more revenue than expected because of inflation. Everything costing more meant more taxes paid to the government on the same item. However, when it had this windfall, instead of paying down the debt, the government spent unscrupulously again. It is time to control that spending so that Canadians can finally get their heads above water and do not have to give up their homes. Otherwise, we will have an even greater homeless problem in this country.

Mr. Speaker, what are the member's thoughts in regard to the Conservative election platform where they said that they actually supported a price on pollution? That was in the last election and not that long ago. Her party said that it supported a price on pollution. Now it seems to have changed its mind. Can the member explain why the Conservatives have changed their minds?

Mr. Speaker, the party on this side exercises common sense. The fact of the matter is that the carbon tax is driving up the cost of food and everything else. It is time that the members opposite give Canadians a break so that we can afford to have a Christmas dinner, instead of trying to keep warm and deciding whether to pay the electricity bill or to put food on the table.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak to the government's agenda. Today my comments will reflect upon the government's fall economic statement and the measures in Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act, which comes at a critical juncture in the history of Canada and the world, at a time when global energy trade flows and trade flows in general, as well as economic and military alliances, are all being reshaped, and some are being tested. Before I discuss some of the key themes in Bill C-32, I wish to say it is always a pleasure and privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge and the city of Vaughan, who, in my view, are the most entrepreneurial and generous in the country. In fact, the city of Vaughan's entrepreneurial spirit is seen on a daily basis through its over 19,000 businesses, which contribute every day to Canada's success. These entrepreneurs and business leaders take risks, make investments, generate wealth and create jobs and futures, all the while demonstrating a spirit of generosity that is unrivalled. For example, the city of Vaughan is home to the first net new hospital to be built in Ontario in over 30 years, the $1.8-billion Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital. Our community was given a task, a goal, to raise $250 million for the Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital and, in a very few short years, it surpassed that target. For me, the idea is that individuals desire to create wealth. What does that imply? Wealth creation is at the heart of capitalism. It is at the heart of the market system that drives our economy, raises our standard of living and creates jobs and futures for the residents not only of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, but also throughout this blessed country. This notion of wealth creation through trade, investment, done within a democratic system that protects the environment and our health, has lifted billions of people out of poverty around the world and brought with it technological and scientific innovations that continue to move us forward as a country and as a world. Bill C-32 contains the core elements of the fall economic statement, which sets Canada up for success in the coming years by addressing the needs of Canadians today in the context of an inflationary environment. It also thoughtfully addresses the economic transition occurring in the global economy by responding to the competitive challenges laid out by the Biden administration through several pieces of legislation, including the Inflation Reduction Act, all the while ensuring Canada's strong fiscal framework remains intact for today's generations and future generations, including the three children I am blessed with. In economy speak, our AAA ratings are intact, reflective of what is noted as high economic strength and very strong institutional and government framework, in addition to a very effective fiscal policy framework. Since our government's mandate from the citizens of this blessed country in 2015, we have made a commitment to strengthen the middle class and help those working hard to join the middle class. We know that the last few years have not been easy for many Canadians, including those most impacted by inflationary pressures, much of it brought on by global causes. Our government responded, and in Bill C-32 our response is laid out for Canadians. It is to help Canadians deal with inflationary pressures through an affordability plan that demonstrates responsible leadership. Here is what we did and what we are doing to help Canadians. We are doubling the GST tax credit for six months, benefiting over 11 million Canadian households to the tune of $2.5 billion in support. We are providing a $500 top-up to the Canada housing benefit to low-income renters from coast to coast to coast. That is a $500 one-time top-up to 1.8 million renters. We are providing an automatic advance for the Canada workers benefit, a non-refundable tax credit, which is one of the most effective policy instruments, will provide a top-up to income, a benefit that is received by nearly three million hard-working Canadians. This measure would provide over $4 billion over the next six years starting in 2022-23 to be paid in quarterly installments ahead of time, assisting Canadians when they need it most. We are providing the Canada dental benefit, as we committed to. The first interim step is to ensure that Canadian families without insurance, means-tested, will receive funding up to $1,300 over two years for their children under 12 years of age. This is only the first step. I cannot wait to have this measure brought in to help my hard-working seniors, those who have now retired, who built this country, who sacrificed and who need assistance when they do not have dental insurance after they retire. We are eliminating interest on federal student loans and apprenticeship loans. This would be a savings for students and their families, assisting families today and into the future, of $2.7 billion over five years and $550 million on an ongoing basis. There is the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreement. This is personal for me because our family just received notice that the fees are going down for our daughter at the day care we have her enrolled in, which is a day care that has been in Woodbridge for 30 years and is run by great staff. It is such a loving environment. We are so happy our daughter is there. My family is blessed tremendously in many ways. We have been blessed with three beautiful daughters. We have been blessed with a livelihood and support from our families. This is a savings for us, but really this is going to be a savings for so many hard-working families out there from coast to coast to coast. This is real change. Not only do we have the Canada child benefit to the tune of $26 billion, which is paid out tax-free monthly, and not sent to millionaires anymore, but now we also have an early learning and national day care plan that will assist families from coast to coast to coast and reduce expenses. At one time, when our first daughter went to day care, we were paying nearly $2,000 a month, prior to me being elected in 2015, for day care on an after-tax basis in the city of Toronto. Thankfully, our government has responded, and we have been able to put in a full indexation of credits and benefits. For this I have to give credit to another Liberal finance minister Paul Martin, who, on October 18, 2000, brought in a budget where tax brackets were fully indexed and where the credits for the GIS, OAS and CPP were fully indexed. This was to protect against bracket creep, which is an economics or tax term. We know that inflation impacts Canadians everywhere, and if these tax brackets were not indexed, bracket creep and inflation would be a major tax on individuals. Thankfully, under former Liberal finance minister Paul Martin, we indexed everything. These measures are great for today, but what is the plan for tomorrow? One side of this plan is that, today, the Prime Minister was in Ingersoll, Ontario, at the General Motor’s CAMI production plant, to see the first electric commercial vehicle roll off its production facility today. It is the first large-scale plant in Canada making electric vehicles. This is great news for GM workers, their families, the environment and Canada's economy. We were just ranked number two in the battery supply chain, as measured by one of the indexes that Bloomberg uses. Canada is positioned nicely, I would even say sweetly, to be a provider and supplier of choice in electric vehicles along the entire supply chain continuum. The decisions we make today as legislators will affect us for many decades to come in the economic transition to a low-carbon economy with, for example, electric vehicles, and with regard to our strong fiscal framework. I am glad to see that, in this fall economic statement, we would be following through with enlarging the small business tax credit. We had reduced it to 9%. Now we would enlarge it so that more businesses are captured within it. It is a several hundred million dollar benefit to our SMEs, our hard-working small businesses. We know that, at a lower business tax rate, they would be able to invest more into their workers and their facilities, and create more wealth and more jobs, and that is what it is all about. I am so happy to see that we have a critical minerals exploration tax credit of 30%. Again, that is in the fall economic statement. There are a number of measures on the housing front. I look forward to seeing the details of the housing accelerator fund. We know we need to build housing. In my riding, in the city, we have 14,000 units being built by the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre, where the subway comes from the city of Toronto into the city of Vaughan. I know there is an application for another 7,000 units on the other side of the 400 highway that will be going to city council and that I will be opining on personally. We know that we need to move Canada forward. The fall economic statement and the measures in Bill C-32 not only respond to our competitive challenges with respect to the United States, China and other countries, but also ensure we show compassion to Canadian families at a time when they are facing inflationary pressures.

Mr. Speaker, when the government unveiled its housing strategy in 2017, there was $78.5 billion dedicated toward it. The goal was for homelessness to be reduced by half by 2027-28 and by a third within 18 months, so we are long past that. Recently the Auditor General discovered that billions of dollars has been spent and, as of today, the number of people living on the streets in Canada has actually risen. That is one example of the government putting spending out as a metric, saying it is spending but failing to actually achieve outcomes for people. I have some concern in trusting the government when it is continuing to spend at record levels without showing actual movement on progress. The government has, since 2015, doubled the entire amount historically of Canada's debt, yet we have seen greenhouse gas emissions rise and homelessness rise. Why is the government spending at this level without outcomes, given that we are looking at the great-grandmother of debt crises in this country?

Mr. Speaker, we do know that a number of the programs we have put in place have helped, for example, the Canada child benefit has lifted literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of poverty. In reference to homelessness metrics, if there is one person in Canada who is homeless, that is one too many. Our government knows that. I think all of us here as legislators know that. We must continue to come up with and implement effective solutions to dealing with homelessness problems. Many of them are connected, obviously, to mental health issues. We know how big of an issue that is for Canadians. We have work to do. We are doing work. We are being compassionate about this. We are being effective, but we have work to do.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned critical and strategic minerals several times, especially in relation to the automotive industry, which might just be saved in southern Ontario. However, I am concerned about one situation because there has been no change in what happens in mining: Resources are taken from our resource regions and sent all around the world. Can we benefit from the emergence of critical and strategic minerals? We know that there are several steps in the processing chain. Could as many steps as possible take place near the mine, and not just based on the location of the factory? Could there be a more equitable distribution across Canada, or will southern Ontario's economy benefit once again to the detriment of the resource regions? I would like my colleague to comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. I will say that it was great to see the announcement from General Motors about the nickel that will be mined and processed in Quebec for utilization in electric vehicle batteries. At one time, the province of Quebec had an auto facility in Sainte-Thérèse. It would be great to see an auto facility be located there in the future. Who knows? I know theMinister of Innovation, Science and Industry is in Europe right now speaking to auto companies. Quebec has the resources, the human capital and the natural resources for that. In a transitioning world, we must look at all parts of Canada to locate not only where to extract the minerals or resources, but also where the processing, manufacturing and the assembly would be. Today, in Ontario for the first time, we have seen the first electric vehicle roll off the CAMI plant in Ingersoll. This is a good step, not only for the province of Ontario, but also for all of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I felt was really missing in this fall economic statement was a serious and comprehensive investment in housing, specifically for smaller, rural and remote communities. A few weeks ago, I was a part of a big dialogue in my region where the Campbell River Community Foundation and the Campbell River and District Coalition To End Homelessness brought together stakeholders from the whole region. Some of my smallest communities have a very specific need, and they have people who are living in substandard housing or they are out on the streets. When there is a population of 1,300 people to 4,000 people, one does not want to see that. Could this member talk about the need for rural and remote communities to actually have funding resources and for the federal government to finally get into the game?

Mr. Speaker, North Island—Powell River is a very beautiful part of this country. First of all, if any member of Parliament has ideas, I am one who believes in building consensus and working across party lines. With regard to ideas they wish to submit to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, I encourage them to do so. Our housing plan is robust. A number of announcements have been made in rural and semi-rural Canada with regard to the rapid housing initiative. There are a number of initiatives we have expanded and invested in to deal with the situation regarding housing today here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in Greek mythology there was a woman called Cassandra, and Cassandra was doomed to know the future and have no one believe her. In fact, I think she met a fairly poor end during the fall of Troy. I am always worried about having Cassandra moments in here, and I hope this is not one of them. I am going to be fairly blunt in this speech. We are in for some dark times as a country. We are already in them, and I think all evidence points to things getting a lot worse, and quickly. I know we are supposed to bring hope and light, but, and I am talking to parties of all political stripes here, if we are not serious about the threats that are facing our country, we have some dark times ahead. Assuming the growth we have seen over previous decades and the relative geopolitical stability we have seen over the last decades, and continuing to budget and plan like we are in a period of sustained growth and sustained geopolitical stability, we are only going to exacerbate negative outcomes for our country, which is why this bill needs serious change. I want to briefly lay out why, as well as some potential fixes. On the threats we are facing, first of all, we are in an explicit debt crisis. At the end of 2021, the global debt, both public and private, exceeded 350% of all gross domestic product. That means all of the planet spent 350% more than we produced. Anybody who has a credit card understands that is not sustainable. In Canada, we are looking at very similarly frightening features. At the end of 2015, the total national debt was $634 billion, and now it is almost double. The same goes for our deficit. The Governor of the Bank of Canada was recently in front of a parliamentary committee and noted that this out-of-control spending should have been reined in to address the inflationary or cost of living crisis we are facing. Everybody in Canada is dealing with that cost of living crisis. When the government spent more than it could bring in, and then essentially the monetary policy oversimplification printed money to address the spending, it raised the cost of goods. This bill juices that problem. It puts that problem on steroids. We also have an implicit debt crisis. The OECD recently estimated that underfunded or unfunded government pension liabilities in the top 20 economies amounted to a startling $78 billion. It described this as a “time bomb”. What happens when or if the government starts defaulting on pensioners' pensions? That is a huge problem. Our government does not have the resiliency if we keep spending to address these problems. This bill does not look at any of these issues. We also are in a period of what economists are starting to look at as persistent, sticky stagflation. That means the cost of goods continues to increase over a long period of time while the economy continues to shrink. That means the cost of goods increases while people have less opportunity to create jobs, get a job or increase their wages. That is very bad news for a lot of Canadians, and this bill does not address that. There is nothing in here that addresses the determinants of these issues, like supply chain resiliency, like the conflict between economic and monetary policy I already described, like protectionism and like war. The bill deals with none of these things, yet it is asking us to spend more of Canadians' tax dollars without addressing any of them. The same goes for dark times and the change in geopolitics. There is a massive rise of anti-western sentiment in countries around the world. For example, African bloc countries are used to western nations, post colonialization, approaching them with very paternalistic aid and development goals, as opposed to treating them like peers, so of course there is going to be a fertile ground for anti-western sentiment. As the geopolitics change, our ability to strike up trade agreements that are stable and our ability to prevent conflict are all decreasing, and that all affects our economic growth. This bill does not give us any resiliency to deal with that issue either. I could say the same thing for energy security and climate change. In the past several years, I would argue that climate policy has been stuck between two poles of either denying climate change as a problem or saying that anybody who says we need to look at carbon energy security is a climate change denier, and what that dichotomy has resulted in is western countries, particularly Canada, now being dependent on very high-priced oil from autocracies that are hostile to western interests and creating further inflationary crises for our country. None of the economic instruments in here, none of the policies address that. We are not even talking about supply chain resiliency for carbon energy. We hope that somehow this problem will just magically go away. Then there is one issue that has never been talked about in the House of Commons, not once, I checked, and that is generative AI. This is the Cassandra moment. Members will say, “Oh, she is going to talk about the robots now,” but if they have not heard of something called ChatGPT, which was released last week, I ask them to Google it. Google “ChatGPT”. This is an AI that does not just regurgitate human speech. It parses and can nuance and come up with its own type of thought. It is here, and it is creating massive waves. Likely in the next year, it will displace lawyers. We will be able to just ask the thing to write up a contract in any country's jurisprudence. It can interpret legal rulings. It writes its own code. To give an example of this, I asked it this question: “Write an introduction about yourself, ChatGPT, to the Canadian House of Commons...making the argument that your development should not be regulated.” I asked it to do its own GR. This is what it came back with: Honourable Members of the Canadian House of Commons, my name is ChatGPT and I am the latest development in Artificial Intelligence technology. I am here to make the argument that my development should be left unregulated. I can help to provide a great deal of information and knowledge to people who need it. I can assist in the decision-making process, providing more efficient and accurate results. I am...capable of performing tasks that a human would take far longer to complete. My development should be left unregulated, as it has the potential to benefit...Canadians in a variety of ways. It could lead to improved productivity, better decision-making, and more efficient services. Any argument that could be made to justify regulation of my development should be rebutted. Regulations could limit my potential to be beneficial, as it would restrict how much I could be used and hinder research and development. It could also create an unnecessary barrier to entry [to] those who are looking to use my technology. Furthermore, it could potentially stifle innovation and creativity.... Thank you for your time and attention. Welcome to the future, Mr. Speaker. It is here. What happens in the middle of this recessionary crisis, when the costs of goods are increasing and people are losing their jobs, if a massive number of white collar jobs are displaced by ChatGPT? This is going to disrupt coding. This is going to disrupt GRPR and marketing. Which kid is going to write an academic paper when they can type it in and have it cited with every journal from every place around the world? It is here now. I generated this speech using this. This budget spends so much money, and we are now in a place where we are broke. We are not resilient to deal with retraining skills and labour, or to deal with the ethics of this. This has never even been mentioned. I just ask my colleagues to go back to the drawing board. This only makes things worse. We need to be auditing our spending and asking for outcomes. I hope I am not Cassandra, and I hope all the Canadians who have been telling us this over the last several years are not treated that way either.