Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the seniors in Essex, who, after a lifetime of hard work, paying taxes and supporting both older and younger generations, are now struggling to make ends meet. One senior wrote to me, “With the rising cost of living in all aspects of our economy: food, gas, utilities, insurance, taxes, we are finding it increasingly difficult to afford even the basic items of necessity and comfort, let alone luxuries.” Across Essex and throughout Canada, seniors are being forced to make impossible choices. They deserve better. The Liberals are out of touch while Canadians are out of money. Conservatives have a plan to bring spending under control by cutting wasteful bureaucracy and foreign aid and to deliver relief to hard-working Canadians so seniors can keep more of their hard-earned money and enjoy the retirement that they have earned.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce petition 451‑00919. More than 3.4 billion people live in countries that spend more on debt payments than they do on health or education. The petitioners are calling on the government to initiate a review of all bilateral debts held by Canada, to advocate in multilateral fora, such as the G7, the G20, the IMF and the World Bank, and to increase the grants portion of Canada's bilateral climate finance to at least 60%.

Mr. Speaker, it is an awfully heavy day in the House today, when we are supposed to collectively be trying to bring peace and unity not only to Canada, but to the world. Hearing the heckling toward my hon. colleague is pretty darn embarrassing. Equally, though, I am darn proud of the member for standing up for what is right. What is not in the bill, or what is totally missing? What needs to be put in the bill to ensure that people are safe?

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave an impassioned and compassionate speech, and I understand the sacrifice that the gentleman has made as well. I was honoured to be with Corporal Bruce Moncur at a celebration of life at the Royal Canadian Legion earlier this year, and this past Saturday, I was honoured to be with Windsor's air force squadron for the cadets. Trying to look forward and trying to be what Corporal Moncur would want, how do we engage, without celebrating those who went before us, young adults to join our service to ensure that Canada is protected?

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is just such an honour to serve the amazing, hard-working residents of Essex who have put their trust in me to be their voice in this very uncertain time. As I always say, I will continue to give all praise to my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Without Him, nothing is possible. I want to say thanks so much to the amazing member for Prince Albert for his passion and his compassion for the residents of his area. I have not been able to visit his riding yet, although I hope to one day, but I have seen his work in action when he has come down to my riding. I want to thank him so much for his vision, his leadership and, quite frankly, his mentorship for myself. It is not often that many of us have a whole bunch of friends, but a very dear friend of mine is going through an awful tough time right now. Her name is Fran Rankin. I just want to ensure that Fran Rankin's name is put on record in the Hansard. She is the most lovely wife to one of my other best friends, Mark Rankin. I just want her to know that we love her, Essex loves her, and we are bringing all our passion and support for her. I will get into the business of the day. Really, what I am speaking about today is what I think about when I look at my children, who are 26, 25 and 23. I also have a grandchild, Levi, who just turned five. I think about the future we are leaving them. What legacy are we leaving for future generations? I always go back to this. I believe they just, quite frankly, do not have the same opportunity that we had growing up. I bought my first house for $149,900 and had zero clue how I was going to pay for it. It was a brand new house with a finished concrete driveway. I thought, how in the world is this even possible? That was some 25 years ago. Unfortunately, what I am hearing now is more of, “Why even bother anymore? I just can't get ahead.” That is wildly sad. I rise today to address a glaring disconnect between the government's rhetoric and the lived reality of Canadians. While the Liberal government has prioritized the word “affordable”, over four dozen times in budget 2025, for the people I represent, that word is losing its meaning. “Affordable” and “affordability” are good words, but they have begun to ring hollow for families because they lack concrete action. As a man of my word, I am urging the government to make good on its word and ensure that affordability actually translates into relief that Canadians can feel. I know the government has claimed that it has acted faster and more comprehensively than our global peer countries in response to the increased price in gas, but in Essex, “faster” is not how we describe the rise in the cost of living, and “comprehensive” is not how we describe a tax relief plan that ignores the reality at the pump. I know the government has offered to cut taxes on fuel, which, by the way, affects only a third of the taxes on gas for a third of the year. While the Prime Minister has said that affordability is better now than it has been in recent years, the families in my riding are telling a different story. Today, I am here to provide a reality check for the government and paint a picture of what affordability would actually look like for Essex residents by telling this House a few stories from real, everyday people who have written to me this year asking for help. Consider a female auto worker in our region who writes, “As a person living in Kingsville, who commutes to Windsor five, sometimes even six times a week for work, I am asking you to help make life more affordable for your fellow Canadians. The price of gas is at an all-time high, and [the Prime Minister] is blind to what Canadians are currently going through: the lack of affordability and the cost of living crisis.” She is not asking for more rhetoric. She said, “I am reaching out to you today to ask that you help remove the tax on gas.” Further, in Belle River, the frustration is tied to our energy independence: “We need help with gas prices, especially when our gas doesn't come from the Middle East.” These are not isolated complaints. They are cries for help from a region under immense pressure. When gas prices soar, they act as a tax on every single sector in our economy. As one father in Essex noted, “To the untrained eye there seems to be very little action to control the gas prices we are currently seeing and the resulting increase in the price of everything else a family needs to live. In my family, we have three jobs just to make ends meet. Why is the government not being more proactive in helping the current situation be more manageable for the hard-working middle- and lower-class families?” In Amherstburg, that anxiety is turning into fear: “gas prices [are] currently getting to a level that is placing a significant financial burden on families.... For many of us in Essex County, driving is a necessity for work, school, and daily life. My fear is that...these prices will continue to rise, and start affecting other commodities such as food and other necessities.” My constituents are right to be afraid. In Windsor-Essex, where our manufacturing and tool and die sectors are already facing an existential threat from foreign tariffs, high fuel costs are a weight they cannot carry. At the end of the day, the price at the pumps directly correlates with the cost of shipping food, homebuilding and the food that families can afford on the table. Affordability is not just a word for Essex residents. It is something they desperately need. This is why we are calling on the House to end all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrap the clean fuel standard. We must answer this Essex father's question: “Why is the government not being more proactive in helping the current situation be more manageable for the hard-working middle- and lower-class families?” The government cannot claim that it lacks resources. It pocketed $8 billion in revenue windfall from high global oil prices, roughly $2 billion for every $10 increase on the price of a barrel, yet the response has been nothing shy of chump change. While the Liberals claim that affordability is better than it has been in years, their recent tax cut saved only 10¢ per litre on gas and four cents per litre on diesel. In contrast, the Conservative motion to cut costs at the pump by 25¢ per litre and save a family of four $1,218 per year is a common-sense solution. I know that because Australia, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Germany and Austria, to name a few countries, have already moved to cut fuel taxes or provide direct relief at the pump. Even our neighbours to the south have a competitive advantage because of these taxes. Canadians pay nearly 20% more for fuel than Americans: 20¢ more. The burden on diesel, the fuel that powers our farmers and our supply chains, is even more nonsensical. As a resident in Amherstburg asked, “How is it possible that we are allowing the oil industry to charge more for diesel than for gasoline fuel?” The answer is clear. Diesel is more expensive because the Liberals have added more tax on diesel: a 10¢ federal excise tax, eight cents of GST and a seven-cent clean fuel standard. One Essex resident wrote me, “If diesel fuel comes down in cost, the transportation of goods will be less, which in effect should lower the cost of goods available for sale.” I could not agree more. The government needs to exit its utopian world, where we just jet-set around the world and have conversations and photo ops, and instead look at what is happening on Canadian soil. In closing, I am asking the government to let the middle class succeed by cutting all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrap the clean fuel standard. Is it too much to ask? The Liberals have already profited $8 billion from windfall tax revenues. What we are proposing will save a family of four $1,218. As the member of Parliament for Essex, I am asking the House to listen to the voices of Essex residents and hear their struggles. They are hopeful, but they cannot hold the line forever.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question was very respectful. I believe all 343 members of Parliament can probably point to local stories in their own ridings about the cost of everything these days. One of my favourite things I love to do is spend time with my sons and, when their buddies come over after a day of fishing or perhaps a day of hunting, listen to their stories. They are not talking about people who are overly privileged. They are talking about their own lives today and the very fact that they cannot afford to go somewhere or cannot afford to do something. They just want an opportunity going forward. I appreciate the question, but quite frankly, it affects all of us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gets it. He really understands exactly what people are facing. I would suggest that the $20 he is speaking about should be $40, because the price of food at the grocery store has been affected because there is so much tax on fuel. People need the extra $20 to maybe buy some food that would not cost the same as the food we bought perhaps three, four or five years ago. Yes, I completely agree with the member, and I appreciate the fact that he truthfully understands what the issue is.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member. I do have to smile a little, because at the end of the day, I cannot go back in good faith to the residents of Essex, look them in the eye and say that we are actually putting more taxes on them because it is the right thing to do. I cannot do that. None of us can do that. What we need to do is come up with common-sense solutions, such as the very one being proposed today, to ensure that future generations have the same opportunity going forward as each and every one of us to hopefully leave the world a better place than we found it. That is our job, that is why we are here and that is why we bring up these very strong suggestions.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken at length, almost ad nauseam, with young adults in Essex. Basically, it has come to a point now where they are saying it is not even worth trying to save for a home. What I really found interesting was when the member talked about what we would say to the person at the gas pump. That really resonated with me. What is the message? What is the proper message? What do I send back to these young adults who are just trying to get ahead in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, Saturday was a special day of celebration of an amazing woman, mentor and friend. Mrs. Pauline Robinet was my grade 5 teacher at St. John de Brebeuf school in Kingsville. She has been instrumental in my life journey. Stern but fair, passionate and compassionate, she strived to create best outcomes for her students. After I got a perfect report card, I wrote Mrs. Robinet a letter stating that if I did not become a priest, I wanted to marry her. I have the great honour of speaking to grade 5 and grade 10 civics classes across Essex. Our teachers today are equally special and want the very best for their students. I thank Sister Mary Denise, Mrs. Robinet, for all she has done and continues to do, and I wish a happy 85th birthday to her, Mrs. R. Our world is a better place because of her.

Madam Speaker, I rise again to share what a resident in Essex wrote to me: “Just want to express my deep concerns with...the direction that Canada is heading. I did not think it could get worse than Trudeau”. My response is this. This costly credit card budget means more debt. The Liberal Prime Minister doubled Trudeau's deficit. There is more spending and there are more taxes. He is just another Liberal. When will the government end its costly spending so Canadians can afford to live?

Mr. Speaker, I received an email from a resident of Essex who said, “...the Prime Minister stated that life is becoming more affordable.... For many [Essex] residents, it does not feel like affordability has improved.” Instead, this Prime Minister has added $90 billion in new spending, driving up debt, costs and taxes for Canadians. He is just another Liberal. When will the Prime Minister rein in reckless spending of our taxpayer dollars and take real action to reduce the deficit?

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the hard-working auto workers of Essex-Windsor, who build vehicles that keep North America moving. Living on Canada's busiest border crossing, I understand first-hand how deeply connected Canada and the U.S. are and how vital it is to strengthen the auto sector on both sides of the border. After 10 years of the Liberals in power, Canadian auto production has fallen by half, from over two million vehicles to just over 1.2 million. The Prime Minister promised to get tariffs removed by July 21, 2025, yet has allowed Donald Trump to collect $2 billion in tariffs from auto manufacturers. I am here today to say no more: no more job losses, no more empty promises and no more sacrifices from our auto workers. That is why I support the Conservative plan for a tariff-free auto pact. Essex-Windsor auto workers are among the best in the world and their jobs deserve to be protected.

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is such an honour to be in the House to serve the amazing residents of Essex, and quite frankly, the region and the country. I have a couple of quick notes before I get into this very important conversation. I just want to thank the people who put on the National Prayer Breakfast today. In my speeches, I always thank my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. This morning, everybody at the breakfast came together and truly gave all grace and glory back to him. I want to say happy birthday to my daughter, Faith. It is coming up here very shortly, but we will not be here next week, so it is important that I say happy birthday, sweetheart. She is daddy's little girl who is not so little anymore. My heart is with the two pilots, their family at Air Canada, and all the victims. It is ironic that the very people who get so many of us back and forth to Ottawa to do the people's work are the ones who were injured. My heart is equally with the firefighters. Lastly, I just want to say hello to the students who got a virtual tour of the House of Commons. Thanks so much for coming on a virtual tour. There is a reason that we have a great big windshield on a vehicle and a small rearview mirror. The small rearview mirror is so we never forget where we came from. It is vitally important to know where we came from. The reason for the big windshield in the front is not just to clean bugs off it. It is to know where we are going, and that is the plan. When people jump in their vehicles, they have a plan. They are going to the hockey rink, to the grocery store or perhaps to an Easter party. I am so thankful to be able to stand in this place today. I will not yell, scream or get really crazy about this, because it is somewhat of a sombre moment. When I think about the assembly plant workers at Stellantis in Windsor, I also think about the tool and die makers, the mould makers, the tier twos and tier threes, and all of those who deserve nothing less than complete support and a plan to ensure that food is on their table. I do not want to speak only about the workers. I want to talk about the businesses: the blood, sweat and tears, all the money invested, all the risks that they have taken, and all the chances to ensure that there is food on the table for those workers. It is why I am very proud to stand here, in the people's chair of Essex, to speak about the Conservatives' opposition motion to introduce a tariff-free auto pact. I will be splitting my time, whatever is remaining, with the great member for Cambridge. I had the great opportunity to be with the Leader of the Opposition last Friday. We started out in Windsor with an announcement, and then we crossed the border. It is the busiest international border crossing in North America. Quite frankly, it is a border that sees a vehicle's parts cross it six to seven times before the vehicle is actually assembled. When we went across the border, our first stop was at General Motors' headquarters in Detroit. We had a great discussion, a very in-depth discussion. Basically, all the managers could say was they absolutely adored our plan, they think it is bang on, and they are dead against tariffs as well. This was from the very senior managers of General Motors in downtown Detroit, right in the middle of the big three, in the heart of the big three. That is what they said. We then went a bit outside of Detroit to Dearborn, Michigan, to a brand new, beautiful, gorgeous Ford Motor Company facility. They basically gave us the exact same message, in that they need our plan and they like our plan. They are going to invest in Canada, and they hope that our plan helps invest even more into Canada. It truly was an honour. I am a co-chair of the Conservative auto caucus and have been for about six years now. I have had numerous opportunities, in the past and again this year, to visit the auto show in Toronto. It is an amazing auto show, by the way. I met with so many industry leaders about the beginning of our plan and what our thoughts were, to get their feedback and to understand more about what industry needs and what we can do communally to ensure that our auto sector is absolutely strong like it used to be, so that we are not down to 1.2 million vehicles built in Canada from the two million we used to build. Let us double that. I have built some pretty strong relationships over six years. I will even go as far as to say that, and I am going to preempt the strike during questions, I have spent a lot of time speaking to labour as well, specifically with Unifor. As a matter of fact, I had them in my office this afternoon. I want to point out a couple of folks here. Somebody who has become a great friend of mine is Brian Kingston, and I also admire him because he works so tirelessly. He is the President of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, and he said, “North American integration has underpinned Canada's auto industry for over 60 years. Diversification is not an option.” Mr. Kingston goes on to say, “The policies outlined in the Conservative...plan recognize this reality and aim to make it more attractive to build cars in Canada.” Further, Mr. Jeff Gray from Unifor Local 222 came out and said, “Finally, a common sense plan to protect the livelihood of thousands of Ontario Auto sector workers. A plan that restores past production levels and secures a long-term future”. Those are not my words. They are from industry and labour. I touched on tier twos and tier threes, and I will say that they truly are the backbone of the assembly plants. Without them, quite frankly, nothing gets assembled. I have visited so many mould shops and tool and die shops throughout the Windsor-Essex region, each with their own story and each with their own fastball that they can throw. Equally, I was down in Mexico about six weeks ago on a trade with other members of the House from both sides of the aisle. We had the opportunity to meet with the Senate of Mexico, with the senators, and in a private meeting I asked what we can do to support them, but equally, how they can support us. A senator said that it is ironic that we have what they need and they have what we need. I said that what is really ironic is that when I fly from Windsor to Ottawa, there is a Mexican plane sitting on the tarmac with parts from Mexico. My point is that it is so wildly integrated that all of us must jointly work together. I know that my time is running short. I could talk for hours on this, but obviously I do not have the time. We have a plan to make it more affordable to buy Canadian by removing the GST on all Canadian-made vehicles, to bring home production through performance by implementing a rule that for every car produced in Canada, the same manufacturer would get to sell a car in Canada duty-free, to protect North American supply chains by maintaining the minimum 75% North American content and existing CUSMA rules of origin, and to develop automotive security and technology by creating a harmonized North American cybersecurity and data standard. It is an honour to stand on behalf of the hard-working folks from Essex and Windsor, and I will close with this: I am here today to say no more job losses, empty promises or sacrifices from our auto workers. That is why I support the Conservative plan for a tariff-free auto pact. Essex-Windsor auto workers are among the best in the world, and their jobs deserve to be protected.

Mr. Speaker, what I have seen is the escalation of 49,000 Chinese vehicles being brought onto Canadian soil, 49,000 more vehicles that are not being built in Windsor. We can bring $3 billion in for sure, but at the end of the day, why do we have 49,000 Chinese vehicles on our soil when we have the capacity, the know-how, the knowledge and the greatest skilled trades in the world to build them right here on Canadian soil?

Mr. Speaker, when the official opposition leader came to Windsor and made the announcement, I guess a week ago on Sunday, on the shop floor of a plant that actually produces the parts and the moulds for the auto industry, members of Unifor proudly stood behind him. We are going to continue to do the talks with the union reps and with the workers themselves on the shop floor. The conversation is not over. It has only just begun.

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in this place to represent the amazing folks of Essex. As always, I want to thank my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, without whom this is not possible. On behalf of the folks of Essex, yesterday was a really touching day here in the House, a moment of solidarity and thoughts and prayers for the Tumbler Ridge families, victims, survivors and the ones that probably hit me the most, the first responders and the thought of what they are waking up to today and tomorrow and the weeks, months and years ahead. As a first responder myself, I know it is a long journey, and I hope they know there is always somebody to talk to. There is always support. I am thinking of and praying for them. I want to, first and foremost, thank my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon. He really did encapsulate so much of what my speech is about. I have had the opportunity to live right next to the busiest international border crossing in North America, which will be opened, the Gordie Howe International Bridge. For six and a half years, I have had the opportunity to be a co-chair of the Conservative auto caucus. I have met with dozens and dozens of manufacturers across the country, but specifically in the Windsor-Essex region. These manufacturers have invested enormous amounts of money to create jobs and to create a good, strong tax base for our region. The part that frustrates me the most, probably, is that these are the folks who invest the money and what they end up with is that the goalposts move. A decade ago, Canada was building about 2.3 million vehicles per year. We are now at about 1.2 million per year. These folks put all the investment into their EVs. I am talking about the mould-makers and the tool shops, the ones that had to retool because the government, the Liberal government, told them that this will be the mandate. Now they have done all that investment, and what do they have? They are told that we are going to go back to fuel engines because the government realized that the consumer is not ready, that the vast majority of consumers are not ready to purchase these EVs. At the same time, it is going to move the goalposts again, so that even though they have made all the investments, the government has given them no support to cover those costs and is now going to talk about a new fuel standard. I just got back, about a month ago, from a trip with the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group to Mexico. I met with some very influential people down in Mexico. It was a great trip. I also met with the senate of Mexico. I heard about how much further along they are in their talks with the United States, specifically on the automotive sector, than we are. The government, quite frankly, is nowhere near the finish line on that front. What does that really mean? It means more Canadian jobs lost. Windsor-Essex specifically has 24,000 workers, indirectly and directly, supported by our auto industry. I am sure many of them wake up in the morning and wonder if the third shift at Stellantis is actually going to go down to a second shift again. I have had an opportunity for so many years now to meet with Brian Kingston, David Adams and Huw Williams. They are from the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association and the global automotive manufacturers association. I have met with Canadian mould-makers. They have been telling me for six and a half years that industry does not drive demand, that consumers drive demand, so get rid of the EV mandates. We have been screaming from the top of the hills to the government to please get rid of the mandates. It finally listened and got rid of the EV mandates. What it did instead was to again move the goalposts. Everybody now gets to start from ground zero once again. Next week, I will be at the Toronto Auto Show, having round tables with industry leaders once again. I can only imagine what that conversation is going to look like. However, most of all, it is about the workers. It has only ever been about the workers. My father always said that we can have the greatest widget in the world, but we will not build one and we will not sell one without the people. Windsor—Essex has some of the finest skilled trades workers in the world, the greatest tool and die makers and machinists in the world. The infrastructure is already there, but the government continues to tie the hands of these tier twos, tier threes and the OEMs, who are just trying to put forward good-paying jobs to allow food on the tables of Canadians across this country. I have met with them on the shop floors. I can promise members that the workers in Windsor—Essex are not very excited when they wake up early in the morning to go to work and find out that, at the end of every week or biweekly off their paycheques, their money will be going to subsidize a job in the United States or in other foreign countries. I can only imagine how incredibly upset they must be. I can only imagine what the conversation on the shop floor is. Can members imagine waking up in the morning and going to work knowing that, at the end of the year, our taxpayer dollars, the ones that we literally worked so hard for and gave to the government, were going to another country, another company, so that they could literally eat your lunch? It is absolutely nonsensical, and it is, quite frankly, disgusting. These workers have built our industry. They are the same ones, such as those in Unifor, who sponsor so many hockey teams, soccer teams and so many events. We see them everywhere. These are the ones who are truthfully community-minded, and they equally do not deserve to be slapped in the face. That is why Conservatives are always going to put Canadian workers and auto manufacturers first. Conservatives are not about subsidizing other countries. What we are really about is making life more affordable for Canadians, which is why this bill will introduce the removal of HST on Canadian-built vehicles. What does that mean? It means about $2,500 on a $50,000 vehicle. By the way, the $50,000 vehicles are somewhat out of reach, almost a luxury vehicle for Canadians today, because of the price of food and consumables. I am very proud that my colleagues and I have introduced this piece of legislation, which would make life more affordable. To conclude, the government told industry, “Here's the goalposts and here's what you're going to do”, and industry did that. Now the government is saying, “Oh, by the way, we know you made huge investments. We're not going to give you any support for those investments, but we just changed the goalposts again.” It is no wonder that Canadian companies are leaving this country in droves when the government makes it so unaffordable to do business in Canada. Conservatives are here to ensure that we are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Mr. Speaker, how do we support it? What we do not do is send $5,000 subsidies for electric vehicles to other countries, only to turn around and sell them back to Canadians who, quite frankly, cannot afford those vehicles. I was pretty black and white in my speech. We have to stop moving the goalposts on Canadian companies and start making sure they have the appropriate backstops to keep Canadian auto workers moving and working.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague brings up some really good points in regard to all the subsidies for infrastructure that have been put in place. I believe they are around $53 billion. At the Stellantis plant in Windsor, there are great jobs, but it was designed to build electric vehicle batteries for vehicles, and today, it is not building them for vehicles. The government needs to really understand that with all the money it is putting out, it has to get it back into Canadian hands. That is only going to start happening if we are manufacturing in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, that is a fantastic question. At the end of the day, it is because Liberals do not get it. They are not on the shop floors. They are not seeing it for what it is. They are not suffering with the folks who are trying to figure out how they are going to pay their bills or put their kids into soccer this year. They do not understand. They are not in the middle of it. However, they can rest assured that Conservatives will ensure that life gets better.

Mr. Speaker, the Essex-Windsor auto sector is not just assembly lines; it is mould-makers, tool shops, parts suppliers and automation firms. The Liberals promised to protect jobs, yet they are handing out money to America EV companies, importing Chinese EVs and costing thousands of families their livelihoods. EV policy was meant to protect workers. Will the Liberals stop forcing Canadian workers to subsidize foreign-made vehicles and remove the GST on new Canadian-made vehicles?

Mr. Speaker, 24,000 auto workers in Essex—Windsor are once again being asked to pay for the Liberals' failed patchwork EV policy. These are workers who did everything right. They built the strongest automotive ecosystems in North America, yet the government continues to ship Canadian dollars out of the country, sending a clear message to our workers that they are not good enough. The 49,000 Chinese EVs that the Liberals allowed to flood our market are projected to account for up to 30% of our EV sales this year without end-of-life safeguards in place. It does not stop there; the Liberals are handing out up to $2.3 billion in subsidies for EVs made in the United States, and just after the Liberals reannounced their EV policy, Stellantis sold its stake in the NextStar battery plant and shut down plug-in hybrid production in Windsor. This is not a coincidence; this is a failure. Let us be clear. Who benefits from this EV policy? It is the United States and China. Who pays the people of Essex?

Mr. Speaker, Essex has recently lost three amazing individuals. Sandy Repko was known and decorated for her tireless commitment to her community and her willingness to serve others. At the hockey rink or the basketball court, the council chambers or a fundraiser, Sandy was there with a smile, helping anyone who asked. Tomi Hulkkonen embodied what many of us strive to become. He was a loving husband to Tiina and father to so many, a God-fearing man and a fearless leader of his brothers and sisters at United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 494. My private member's bill, Bill C-241, will forever be Tomi's. Tom Kissner was my brother in firefighting for many years. I am sure his finest memories were of walking the streets of Kingsville with the love of his life, Robin. He was quiet, but his presence was respected. He taught through example. Sandy, Tomi and Tom were each my friend and mentor in their own special way. I thank them for leaving the world a better place than they found it. They are each truly missed.

Mr. Speaker, as the holiday season quickly approaches, I reflect on so many amazing people and organizations in Essex that make Christmas a little easier, special, brighter and joyous for so many people in need. Essex is compassionate. Essex is generous. Essex truly cares. I am extremely thankful to represent a community committed to leaving the world a better place than we found it. Finally, I want to wish a happy anniversary to my amazing wife, Allison. It has been 27 years of laughs and friendship, tears and stories, and children and grandchildren. It is unique, to say the least. I thank Allison, and I love her. Jesus is the reason for the season. Merry Christmas, Essex.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say quickly that I do substitute in at the transportation committee, and I have had many hours of listening to the Liberals filibuster this committee. One thing that really stood out to me was that my hon. colleague had mentioned that this is about life and death. All Conservatives have been trying to do, where we are studying Driver Inc., is to call witnesses to tell their stories about the victims and the lives that are lost. Would the hon. colleague not agree with me that the Liberals need to get out of the way and allow us to do this study so their stories can be told?

Mr. Chair, obviously, because I come to the House as the member for Essex, something very near and dear to my heart is the auto manufacturers. Quebec specifically has an EV mandate that requires 85% EVs by 2030 and 100% by 2035, though I did come to understand this afternoon that Quebec has now dropped that to 90% by 2035. However, the percentage of electric vehicles actually sold in Quebec is only 17.3%, so it is quite a way to go in a short five years. At a time when the auto industry is under enormous pressure from tariffs, would my hon. colleague agree with me that Quebec and the Liberal government have gone too far and are putting the mandate into place far too quickly to make it affordable—

Mr. Chair, first and foremost, I am the co-chair of the Conservative auto caucus, so I do understand a thing or two about auto. I also come from Essex, which is right next door to the busiest international border crossing in the world, where a part for one vehicle can go back and forth across the border seven to nine times before it is actually produced. To my understanding, there is no more automotive assembly in Quebec. When there is only 17.3% of electric vehicles that are being sold in Quebec right now, and I am hearing it time and time again from the global auto manufacturers and Canadian auto manufacturers, the dealers are incredibly scared. Would my hon. colleague agree with me that perhaps we need to scale that back and look at this a little bit further down the road?

Mr. Chair, I do want to get back to the fact that electric vehicles are, quite frankly, not selling in Quebec. The number is 17.3%, but it is being pushed so hard to basically force people to purchase an electric vehicle, when the industry is screaming that it is not going to meet the mandates. Would my hon. colleague agree with me that the mandates will not be met and that they need to be lifted? Does he agree that we need to let industry continue to thrive in Canada?

Mr. Chair, during my hon. colleague's intervention, he mentioned that he went to law school. He mentioned the importance of contracts and of actually reading contracts, and then he also mentioned the incompetence of the Liberals. I did not go to law school, but obviously my hon. colleague did. How important is it to read the contracts so we know exactly what is in them and so we can secure our workforce and ultimately our business and industry?

Madam Speaker, a 26-year-old, a 24-year-old, a 22-year-old and a four-and-a-half-year-old and their better halves make up my family, along with my wife. They all live with me, and by the way, they have very good-paying jobs. They cannot afford a home or to start a family, so they all live under my roof. It is probably my greatest gift, but, at the same time, any loving parent would want their children to move on. Other than the industrial carbon tax, what falls short in Bill C-4 that would truly give young adults an opportunity, something that Conservatives would put into this bill to give them a chance to start their own families and buy their first homes?

Mr. Speaker, food costs are rising 40% faster in Canada than in the United States, and families in Essex are feeling the pressure. My riding is one of Ontario's most productive agriculture regions, but after 10 years of a Liberal government, the Canadians who produce our food are struggling to pay for it. Farmers have been clear: Scrap the industrial carbon tax. Instead, the Liberals continue to drive up the price of fertilizer and farm equipment, making it harder for farmers to grow, ship and sell food. When 80.6% of Canadians say that food is their top expense pressure, the government should listen and take action by cutting hidden taxes to bring down costs and make life affordable for families. Unlike the Prime Minister, who says, “Who cares?” to Canadians, I, along with my Conservative colleagues, care about the families of Essex

Mr. Speaker, the thing that is probably most disappointing in the budget is the lack of help for our young adults, the adults who cannot afford a home, who are full of fear and anxiety. Quite frankly, they now have a belief system that nine out of 10 young adults will never be able to afford a home. We need to get rid of that belief system. I know my hon. colleague has an up-and-coming family as well. What should have been in the budget, such as removing the industrial carbon tax, to help our young Canadians to be able to afford a home and to start a family?

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister handed $10 billion to Stellantis to create 2,500 jobs in Windsor, but now it is threatening to ship 3,000 jobs from Brampton to the U.S. The Liberals have abandoned Canadian auto workers, who do not know how they will provide for their families and their futures. What job guarantees did the Liberals actually negotiate? If there is nothing to hide, why will they not release the contracts outlining the specific details of the Canada-wide job guarantees?

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the amazing folks of the riding of Essex. I will be sharing my time this morning with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. I do not get a lot of opportunities to speak in the House because we have so many more Conservative members, but every time I do get a chance to speak, I always want to give all praise, honour and glory to our Lord and Saviour. I would like to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to the dedicated men and women of the Canada Border Services Agency. These officers are the front line of our national security. Their work is demanding, and their commitment is unwavering. For all they do, they deserve clear policies, proper resources and respect, not vague directives and unchecked government powers. As the member of Parliament for Essex, I represent a riding that sits at the heart of one of Canada's most vital economic corridors, the Detroit-Windsor border. In Essex, we understand the importance of secure borders. We live it every day. We also understand the opportunities and the challenges that come with living next to the border. That is why I stand today to speak to Bill C-12. This legislation claims that it would enhance border enforcement and streamline immigration processes, but as someone who represents a border community, I must ask this: Would this bill truly serve the interests of Canadians, especially those of us living at the border? In its current form, the answer is no. Conservatives have long called for improvements to border security and our broken immigration system. Bill C-12 may be a starting point, but it requires significant amendments. It must include clearer definitions of ministerial powers and ensure that exporters are not burdened with added compliance costs. We know that economic prosperity and responsible immigration go hand in hand. When one system fails, the other suffers. That is why we support efforts to modernize enforcement and crack down on organized crime, fentanyl trafficking and immigration fraud. These are real threats, and we are glad the government has recognized them, but we must be vigilant in how these reforms are implemented. Let us be honest. The immigration system did not break itself. It was broken by years of Liberal mismanagement. The backlog of applications, the lack of transparency and the inconsistent enforcement all stem from a government that has failed to plan, failed to listen and failed to act. Now, with Bill C-12, the Liberals are scrambling to fix the very system they dismantled, but instead of thoughtful reform, they are reaching for sweeping powers and vague regulations. That is not leadership; it is damage control. We must acknowledge that this bill has serious shortcomings that must be addressed before it is allowed to impact the lives of Canadians. Conservatives believe in strong borders. We believe not only in protecting Canadians from illegal activity, trafficking and threats to public safety, but also in accountability, transparency and respect for individual rights. My office regularly hears from constituents about the real-world impacts of federal decisions, such as delays at the Ambassador Bridge, astronomical fees on exports and frustrations with immigration and enforcement. Bill C-12 would grant sweeping new powers to the government, which would only add to these frustrations, with limited parliamentary oversight. That should concern every Canadian, especially those of us in border communities. It is deeply ironic that the Liberals show little concern about violent repeat offenders who remain in Canada after receiving lighter sentences than their crimes deserve, yet they seek the power to cancel or suspend valid visas of permanent residents who have followed due process and contribute meaningfully to our country. The bill also fails to outline how new regulations would be enforced. This raises a troubling question: Is this legislation simply a way for the government to claim it is fixing the immigration system it broke without taking real action? Conservatives believe in responsible immigration that prioritizes economic needs and family reunification. We support measures that streamline processing, reduce backlogs and help newcomers integrate successfully, but we oppose policies that put power in the hands of ministers without proper oversight. Furthermore, Bill C-12 contains provisions that could unintentionally harm Canadian exporters. There are implications of increased processing times, additional expenses and vague inspection requirements that could disrupt trade and burden businesses. The people of Essex, and all Canadians, cannot afford to suffer the consequences of Liberal missteps, and the bill would impose further financial responsibilities on exporters by requiring them to upgrade their facilities to comply with the new CBSA inspection regulations. That is an unfair and unnecessary burden, especially during a time of financial uncertainty when every dollar matters, both for businesses and for individual Canadians, and especially when considering the Statistics Canada Q3 report for this year, which found that, following tariff announcements, exports to the U.S. dropped 15.7% and imports fell 10.8%. This clearly shows that businesses are facing mounting costs, increased input prices and uncertainty due to shifting border policies. We cannot add to the pressures faced by Canadian businesses with more unclear border directives. Consider our greenhouse growers, who rely on timely border crossings to deliver fresh produce to markets in Michigan and Ohio. Any delay, whether due to increased inspections, unclear regulations or bureaucratic bottlenecks can mean lost revenue, spoiled goods and broken contracts. Our auto parts manufacturers, which are part of a tightly integrated supply chain with Detroit's automotive industry, depend on predictable and efficient border operations. More frequent inspections could slow down export processing across all sectors, not just for the high-risk goods the bill aims to target. The new requirements for inspection facilities and associated delays could also increase warehousing costs, with the greatest impact falling on small and medium-sized exporters, 35% of which reported to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in May of this year that they already experience border delays, with the average time spent at border crossings being up to two hours. These are real consequences for real people. If Bill C-12 introduces new compliance burdens or slows down processing, it could further jeopardize jobs and investment in our region at a time when hard-working Canadians are already struggling to provide for their families. Conservatives agree that Canada's borders must be safe and secure, but we must also protect the economic backbone of our country: our exporters, our manufacturers and logistics providers. This is something our government should already know. A report from the Standing Committee on International Trade during the 44th Parliament identified regulatory complexity and inefficiencies at the border as major barriers to Canadian exporters. The report even recommended that inspection protocols should be streamlined to avoid further harming trade. That is why the bill needs amendments to prevent unintended harm to Canadian businesses. Bill C-12 also touches on information sharing and surveillance powers. It is important to introduce tools that help law enforcement do their jobs, but we must be cautious about infringing on privacy rights. Canadians deserve to know how their data is being used, who has it and what safeguards are in place. Transparency must be a cornerstone of any security policy. Conservatives have a clear vision for border security and immigration. We support investing in border infrastructure to reduce wait times and improve efficiency. We advocate for strong partnerships with our U.S. counterparts, especially in regions like Windsor-Detroit, where co-operation is essential. We believe in empowering local law enforcement and border officers with the tools and training they need, not just more paperwork. That is why I urge the House to scrutinize the bill carefully, consult with stakeholders in border ridings like Essex and make the necessary amendments. Let us hear from our farmers, our truckers, our customs officers and our local mayors to ensure this legislation reflects the realities on the ground, not just the theories in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, I am so darn proud of the Essex and Windsor region and the Chatham-Kent region, but one thing I am not proud about is that we have the busiest corridor, from Windsor through to Montreal, of human trafficking. We need to do a whole lot more at our borders to protect our borders. That is not even talking about handguns, which, quite frankly, are the reason we have so much crime in Canada. It is not due to legal firearm owners; it is due to the illegal guns that are smuggled in. At the end of the day, it is about the lack of direction from the Liberal government after 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, this is where I am at. I see veterans sitting on the streets of Windsor who do not have a home, do not have any food, have no place to live, have no clothes, quite frankly, but have served this country. We have to finally put Canada first. Regardless of wherever the asylum seekers need to go, what I am really focused on are the folks of southwestern Ontario and, of course, all Canadians. We have to take care of our own house before we can take care of everyone else. I will always stand with the veteran who is laying on the street and has served this country, yet has nothing.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7 and the highest unemployment rate. There are 150 workers at the Stellantis plant in Essex-Windsor who have lost paycheques, and now we learn that investments of $10 billion are going to a U.S. battery plant. One day after the Prime Minister's trip to Washington, the Trump administration said that no auto deal is coming. Why is the Prime Minister selling out Canadian auto workers in Essex, all the while fuelling the tank of the U.S. economy?

Mr. Speaker, I received an email to my office recently. Part of it said that the person went to Kingsville to buy some apples and picked out six apples of average size. The price was $8.50 for six apples. They left the apples and left the store without making a purchase. The Prime Minister is another bait-and-switch Liberal with more broken promises. After half a year to bring down food prices and the deficit, will the Prime Minister commit today to getting inflation under control, or is his message to my constituents “How do you like them apples”?

Mr. Speaker, Essex is basically right next door to the busiest international border crossing in North America, and soon we are going to have a brand new bridge, called the Gordie Howe International Bridge. My question is this: How much collaboration was done with the CBSA officers? I have heard a lot about police departments, but the CBSA officers are ultimately the front line. The second part to that question is this: I believe that the hon. member referred to the people who wrote the bill, and I am wondering about the follow-ups to make sure that the bill would actually do what it is intended to do.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the fine member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. This being the first substantial time I have spoken in the House, I would like to ask for a few moments to thank a bunch of people who made it happen. Number one, first and foremost, as always, is my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Without Him, I would not have the ability or opportunity to serve the great folks of Essex. I want to say thanks so much to my lovely wife Allison of 27 years—

Yes, she is a saint. Madam Speaker, I thank her for being there with me and thank my three amazing children. I thank my father Kim, who has taught me a lot along the way, and my late mom Helen, who I know is looking down. I also thank my amazing election team so much for all their hard work. I have one of the very best teams. Of course, I thank the amazing people of Essex, who have put their trust in me for a third term. Over the last 10 years, we have been in this House time and time again facing legislation that stems from the Liberal anti-energy agenda, with bills like Bill C-49, Bill C-55 and, most notably, Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” act. Each of these bills sought to increase the regulatory framework around energy infrastructure, slowing and in many cases stopping development. Because of these policies, in January of this year, EnergyNow reported that since 2015, Canada has seen $670 billion in cancelled natural resource projects. The cancellation of these projects has had devastating impacts on people's lives, with the Montreal Economic Institute projecting that the Liberal oil and gas cap could cause the loss of almost 113,000 jobs by 2040. How striking it is that a political party that has spent the last 10 years throwing up every barrier it could to the construction of new energy infrastructure should now find urgency in passing Bill C-5, a bill that would only slightly lower some of those barriers. Across Canada, unemployment has risen to 7% according to the latest data released by Statistics Canada. Liberal job-killing policies have caused this crisis, and the refusal to repeal antidevelopment laws will only worsen it. Through this act, the government is telling Canadians that the very laws it has implemented have prevented them from getting jobs, prevented them from putting food on the table and prevented the economic development of our country. How many more cancelled projects, layoffs and losses of income will we see before we say enough is enough? What we saw consistently from the last government was sweeping plans and grand promises, but no action, and here we go again. On June 9, the hon. government House leader said, “Bill C-5 is a response to an economic and trade crisis caused by our neighbours to the south.” He is right. Our lack of growth in the energy sector has created a reliance resulting in the United States receiving 96% of our oil exports in 2023. It is now the number one exporter of LNG in the world, a position that should and could have been held by Canada. If the Liberals had focused on bringing energy products into Canada over the last 10 years instead of halting their development, Canadians would not be losing their jobs and we would not be stuck playing a frantic defence. In the past five years, proposals have come from almost a dozen countries that have wanted to purchase or partner with Canada's LNG production, such as Germany and Poland in 2022, Japan and South Korea in 2023, and Greece, the Philippines and Taiwan in 2024. The Liberals have had the last 10 years to strengthen our workforce and economic independence and diversify our LNG. Instead, they have left Canada without the option and infrastructure to stand on our own two feet. Canada should be strong and independent, not scrambling to pass legislation because the government realized it has been making serious mistakes. Bill C-5 promises to speed up the approval process and remove regulatory barriers. If that is the goal, why does the government want to create an entirely new office to oversee each project proposal? This regulatory body has not been identified, may take several months to establish and staff, has an unknown set of criteria by which to assess projects and does not have a designated minister. As it stands, the building Canada act may at best reduce the number of months that a proposed project would spend before the new regulatory body. To build a major project today, whether it is a pipeline, a mine, an electricity transmission line or any other project, takes several years, and there is good reason for that. Those years are filled with advanced planning, engineering, road evaluation and consultations with landowners and indigenous communities, and then they take several months to build. Shortening the regulatory reviews, while desirable, will not change that, nor will it prevent groups that oppose such projects from using the courts to hamper and delay their development. Those legal delays will undoubtedly drag on, and we will see exactly what we have seen over the past 10 years: Projects will get cancelled, and hard-working Canadians will lose their livelihoods because of the government's lack of planning. What happens when the approval of important projects is sped up without proper consideration is that mistakes are made, details are overlooked and corners get cut. TD forecasts that there will be 100,000 job losses by the third quarter of this year. Canada cannot afford this lack of concrete planning or commitments. More cancelled and delayed projects will lead to more Canadians who cannot provide for their families. Several areas of the bill are vague and noncommittal. For example, Bill C-5 fails to outline clear criteria for what is considered a national interest project, and hidden away at the end of the bill, it states that cabinet has the power to exempt national interest projects from federal laws. The government is handing itself unchecked power to exempt projects it deems important and telling us not to question it, without committing to repealing the laws that have created these problems in the first place. Additionally, the bill fails to provide concrete timelines for the new and improved approvals process. The Liberals have merely stated that the goal for this bill is to shorten approval timelines from five years to two, but conveniently have not committed to that timeline in the text of the bill. Not only will this bill make little to no real impact on the timeline of energy infrastructure projects, but the Prime Minister has also said the premiers will have a veto on resource projects and pipelines, which will certainly cause delays and hinder our fight to protect Canadian sovereignty. At best, moving projects from concepts to useful and operating infrastructure will still take several years and billions of dollars. What is the justification for ramming this bill through the House without proper examination and debate to ensure it will have the same benefits the government claims? This cabinet is effectively the same as the last one. For the past 10 years, it has failed to further Canada's interests, increase Canadian jobs, grow Canada's economy or strengthen Canada's sovereignty. As my colleague, the hon. member for Lakeland, pointed out on May 28, “the Liberals [have] killed 16 major energy projects” in the last five years. She went on to ask why we should trust what they will be able to get done this time around. If the government wants to enact real change and speed up nation-building projects, then it should repeal its antidevelopment laws that block those projects so we can strengthen the jobs in our oil and gas sector. Furthermore, it should repeal the industrial carbon tax, which is financially strangling our farmers and steel, aluminum and natural gas producers, and causing companies to give up their operations in Canada and move to other countries. Make no mistake: Conservatives want to see streamlined project development without the piles of red tape that have built up over the past decade. We want to work with the government to make sure that happens. Conservatives have been consistent in our support for natural energy infrastructure, warning the Liberals for years about the economic necessity of these projects. However, that does not mean we should not do our due diligence and take the time to properly consider this legislation. In its current state, Bill C-5 does not provide real solutions. The crisis caused by the Liberals has robbed Canadians of jobs and stability. Bill C-5 also has no impact on the laws causing these issues, the laws that have given us skyrocketing unemployment and an oil and gas sector that is far behind our competitors'. Canadians deserve economic stability, but they also deserve transparency and clarity. I challenge the government to repeal its antipipeline and antidevelopment laws and allow the House the time to flesh out the details of this bill to give Canadians concrete timelines and a set list of criteria so it provides real, tangible benefits to Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member to pardon me if I am a bit cautious. I have been around this place for five and a half years, and time and time again, what the Liberals have said has never come to fruition. I am happy to hear the bill is going to committee. I think that is fantastic. It should be debated; it should be discussed because there are great ideas on both sides of the table. However, as I mentioned in my speech, there has not been enough time to debate it properly. Yes, there is definitely a sense of urgency, but Canadians have been failed far too many times for Conservatives not to bring up their concerns.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. It puts a bit of a smile on my face, because, again, in the almost six years of representing the great folks of Essex, I saw time and time again the Conservatives stand here while the NDP and the Bloc propped up the Liberal government. Then when the NDP decided not to prop it up anymore and did not have enough folks, the Bloc propped it up. I find it a bit half-hearted that the member would consider for a moment that Conservatives will not continue to stand and ask really tough questions while holding the government to account to ensure that the best deal for Canadians from coast to coast to coast will be made. We will stand with Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Windsor West. He is not only a colleague, but a riding neighbour. Much of what my colleague spoke about affects my riding as well. I appreciated that he said it would be really difficult for him to meet his constituents and say that we do not need to fight for $64 million. What kind of money would go toward projects if we continue to fight for this?