Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here today. These conversations are quite interesting and timely, with the economic statement coming out on Thursday.
I'd like to get into the questions.
Like some of my colleagues here, I come from an area that has an auto manufacturing facility. It's in St. Catharines, just next door. I spent four summers working at the General Motors powertrain facility. My new vehicle has an engine that was manufactured in St. Catharines. I also have, just across the river, a powertrain facility in North Tonawanda.
As we see these movements towards investments being made in battery cells and modules and new powertrains, from a selfish standpoint, I'd like to see investments being made in St. Catharines and continuing there. At one time, when I was going to university, we had three plants going with three shifts and 10,000 workers. Now we're down to one plant and 1,200 workers. We'd like to get back to that notion. I'm not sure whether it was Mr. Volpe or one of the other panellists who talked about how Canada needs to lead and not simply respond.
You made an interesting comment, Ms. Cobden. You mentioned that the IRA takes an enabling approach, particularly on the manufacturing side with driving investment and pulling in investment, whereas on the Canadian side, we're almost seeing more roadblocks. With some of these vehicle tax credits for having critical minerals, we're looking at 40% content in 2023, 50% content in 2024 and 60% content in 2025. Are we almost too late? I don't think we even have the ability to supply the kinds of critical minerals to meet these kinds of deadlines.
How can we get to that process, to Ms. Cobden's point, and that enabling approach? You said this may be an opportunity for us to re-establish or reimagine our relationship with our largest trading partner. Can you tell us a bit more and maybe provide some comments on that?