Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's countertariffs are killing new work for Windsor manufacturers. Cavalier Tool's three plants need specialized U.S. steel and aluminum they cannot source elsewhere. On $244,000 moulds, their 5% to 10% profit is wiped out by countertariffs. They are trying to maintain their skilled workforce. Under the conditions the Liberals have caused, this is becoming too challenging. How many more Windsor jobs will the government sacrifice?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a dissenting report to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology's report on the impact of U.S. tariffs on Canada's metallurgical and advanced manufacturing sectors. I would like to recognize and thank my Conservative colleagues, our staff and, especially, the member forEssex, whose advocacy was important in bringing attention to this issue. When this crisis emerged, the Conservatives responded immediately because we understand that these industries are foundational to Canada. The Conservatives know the committee's report and recommendations do not reflect the urgency expressed by the witnesses. That is why our dissenting report calls for urgent negotiations to secure a trade agreement, stronger protections for our manufacturing base, support for domestic production and action to preserve the jobs and industrial capacity that are vital to Canada. The industry asked for a quick response to secure its future. The Conservatives answered that call immediately, and we always will.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians strength and stability, but under his watch, Canada became the only G20 country in a recession. That is the result of Liberal inflationary spending, red tape and anti-development policies that have crushed workers, businesses and families. Canadians deserve a Prime Minister who takes responsibility, not one who hides behind excuses. Will the Prime Minister admit that his policies caused the crisis, or will he keep pretending Canadians are not struggling under his watch?

Mr. Speaker, imagine a family standing in an appliance aisle because their washing machine has broken down. They are already dealing with higher grocery bills, higher mortgages, higher rent and higher utility costs. They are looking at the price tags and trying to make the best decision for their household. One model is more expensive but may last longer. Another is more affordable and fits their budget today. That family should have the freedom to make that choice. Bill C-267, despite its good intentions, risks having Ottawa make that choice for them by creating a broad new regulatory framework that could increase costs, reduce options and make essential products less affordable for Canadians. Every single one of us gets frustrated when products break too soon, when repairs are difficult or when replacing an item seems easier than fixing it. Those concerns are real. Canadians should be able to repair the products they own, access reasonable repair options and receive clear information about the products they buy. However, the question before us is not whether durability and repairability are good things. The question is whether Bill C-267 is the right way to achieve them. On that question, Conservatives have serious concerns. Bill C-267 would require the Minister of Industry to develop a national framework on the durability and repairability of electronic products and essential home appliances offered for sale, distributed or sold in Canada, whether they are made here or imported. That framework would include measures related to minimum useful life, labelling, access to parts, tools and repair information, replacement parts, technical documentation, software support and the responsibilities of manufacturers, importers and distributors. The bill also contemplates future legislative measures, including obligations on the industry, inspection mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance. That is a very broad scope. It goes well beyond simply helping Canadians fix what they own. It opens the door to a new federal regulatory framework over a wide range of consumer products, many of which are already subject to complex supply chains, international standards, safety requirements, warranties and provincial consumer protection laws. Parliament has already taken steps in that direction through targeted right to repair legislation. In recent years, members from different parties have worked to address practical barriers that prevent Canadians from repairing the products they own. For example, in the 44th Parliament, Bill C-244, introduced by a Liberal member, addressed the issue of digital locks by allowing circumvention for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair. Also in the last Parliament, Bill C-294, introduced by a Conservative member, addressed interoperability by allowing consumers and businesses to use third party parts, systems and devices without being blocked by copyright rules. Both bills received royal assent in 2024. Those were targeted changes. They focused on removing specific legal barriers that made repair more difficult. They did not impose broad new federal product standards. They did not create a national framework for minimum product lifespans. They did not open the door to sweeping new rules on labelling, replacement parts, technical documentation and the like, and that distinction matters. Conservatives have supported practical right to repair reforms because they can empower consumers, support farmers, help small businesses and improve competition. As we consider the best policy response, we should focus on measures that remove unnecessary barriers to repair, support competition in repair markets and give consumers better information without imposing rigid top-down requirements that may not fit every product category, or even consumer need. At a time when businesses are already struggling with red tape, tariffs, supply chain pressures and weak productivity, we should not support legislation that could add new compliance costs and uncertainty. Canadians deserve products that are durable. They also deserve affordable products. They deserve repair options, but they also deserve marketplace choice. They deserve consumer protection, but—

Madam Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. Just by stopping the illegal dumping of cheap subsidized Chinese aluminum, the government could help aluminum extrusion companies be profitable, provide jobs for hard-working Canadians and put food on their tables. Will the Liberal Prime Minister tell aluminum workers that Canada is in a recession or just a technical recession?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has taken Canada into a recession, the only one in the G7. How does he respond? His latest inflight catering bill for only three flights was $195,000. That is enough to pay for 2,600 food hampers at a Windsor food bank, enough for 36,400 days. While the Liberal Prime Minister led us into recession, he dined on luxury inflight meals while Canadians were starving. How many more bad economic reports will it take for the Liberals to rein in their out-of-control, wasteful spending?

Mr. Speaker, the new section 232 tariffs are gutting our tool, mould and die companies in Windsor-Essex and across the country. These shops are vital to our manufacturing industry. Hundreds of thousands of skilled workers will lose their jobs. Where is the Liberal Prime Minister's plan? Workers need results now in order to survive. When will the Prime Minister finally do his job, get to the table and put our workers first for a change?

Mr. Speaker, last year, the Prime Minister promised to end tariffs and fix our trade with the U.S., but he failed. This year, on April 6, section 232 tariffs increased dramatically and are putting up to 2.6 million Canadian jobs at risk. The Prime Minister calls our trade relationship a “weakness”, but the real weakness is his failure to make a deal. With millions of Canadian families at risk, when will the Prime Minister deliver results instead of more speeches, illusions and excuses?

Mr. Speaker, young Canadians are being hit the hardest by this Liberal-created cost of living crisis. One in five Canadians aged 18 to 34 cannot even pay their tax bill without going into debt. At the same time, nearly 75% are cutting back on spending just to survive, and still the Liberals voted against the Conservative plan to lower taxes on gas and groceries. Why will the Liberals not cut taxes on gas and food to make life more affordable?

Mr. Speaker, today parliamentarians are considering a measure to address a rare disease that affects thousands of Canadians, sickle cell disease. Bill S‑201, the national framework on sickle cell disease act, is intended to take steps to ensure awareness and to ensure that the level of care for people with sickle cell disease across Canada is more aligned. Sickle cell disease is a lifetime genetic blood condition where red blood cells become hard and crescent-shaped instead of round. These misshapen cells can block blood flow, causing severe pain, infections and serious damage to organs over time. An estimated 6,500 people in Canada suffer from sickle cell disease. I say “estimated”, as we do not have an accurate count because there is not a national registry. Because of this, it is difficult to fully understand the scope of the condition, or for provinces to plan effectively for health care services and resource allocations so patients receive appropriate support across the country. Conservatives are proud to support sickle cell awareness. We voted to recognize June 19 as national sickle cell awareness day, as an important step in increasing visibility and understanding of this disease across the country. The bill would build on this awareness by including “measures to support public awareness campaigns on sickle cell disease and blood donation”. Despite the good intention of the legislation, there are several sections of the bill that raise questions. The bill seeks to “set evidence-based national standards for the diagnosis and treatment of sickle cell disease”. However, standards of care are set by professional associations that operate under provincial jurisdiction. This is why it is essential that provinces and territories be fully engaged and that their perspectives shape any coordinated national approach. There are examples of other framework bills where guidance has been established for the care of people with a specific disease or class of diseases. For example, Bill C-442, an act respecting a federal framework on Lyme disease, which was introduced in 2013 in the 41st Parliament, included a provision that mandated the establishment of guidelines regarding the prevention, identification, treatment and management of Lyme disease and the sharing of best practices throughout Canada. Similarly, Bill C-224, the national framework on cancers linked to firefighting act, introduced in 2022 in the 44th Parliament, will “make recommendations respecting regular screenings for cancers linked to firefighting”, “promote information and knowledge sharing in relation to the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting” and “prepare a summary of existing standards that recognize cancers linked to firefighting as occupational diseases.” These are sound and balanced examples of legislation that promote more consistent care across Canada while respecting provincial jurisdiction and encouraging national knowledge sharing. Similar concerns come to mind as the framework seeks to “include measures to institute universal neonatal screening”. As of August 2024, universal sickle cell disease screening has been implemented in all provinces except for Newfoundland and Labrador and the territories. From my point of view, the real opportunity here would be to focus on closing the remaining gaps, working with jurisdictions that have not yet implemented screening, and supporting them in a way that respects their unique circumstances. I am looking forward to discussions at committee about what collaboration can take place with Newfoundland and Labrador and the territories to make sure the screening can be implemented across all Canadian jurisdictions. There is also the question of how much taxpayer money the measures included in the bill would cost. To date there has been no estimate from the Parliamentary Budget Officer outlining the financial impact of the bill. It is only reasonable that Canadians have a clear understanding of these price tags before the framework is finalized. Federal strategies need to focus on delivering value for taxpayers by investing in solutions that improve outcomes, not just increase spending. If we are spending without any results, that is problematic. That is why Conservatives support the implementation of a rare disease strategy, not just a rare disease drug strategy.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today in strong support of today's Conservative auto strategy. For far too long, Canadian and Windsor auto workers have been tossed aside because the government is subsidizing foreign electric vehicles and standing by as thousands of Canadian auto jobs vanish, all while prioritizing everyone but our own workers. Despite this, I have good news. Today's Conservative auto strategy is simple. It is about auto workers and their families in Windsor and across our beautiful country. For generations, Windsor has been the beating heart of our auto industry. It is not just a manufacturing region; it is the place I proudly call home. Thousands of families do as well because they want to build their lives around stable, well-paying automotive jobs. Today, unfortunately, those workers are watching their livelihood slip away, not because they failed but because the Liberal government failed them. In 2016, Canada produced approximately 2.4 million vehicles. Today that number has collapsed to 1.2 million vehicles, nearly cut in half. Over the same period, production in competing countries has remained stable or even increased. Meanwhile, here in Canada under the Liberal government, our industry has been gutted to fill the needs of foreign manufacturing, and workers in Windsor, Oshawa, Brampton, Ingersoll and Sainte-Thérèse are being expected to watch. In fact, employment in vehicle assembly has declined significantly over the last decade. In 2015, roughly 32,700 Canadians worked in assembly plants. By 2024, that number had dropped to about 23,700. Last year alone, nearly another 6,000 jobs were lost in our auto sector. That means that during the 10 years that the Liberal government has been in power, it has managed to decimate our auto industry by nearly half. That is not a transition. That is a failure of Liberal government, yet what has been the government's response? Instead of defending Canadian workers, it has doubled down on failed policies that subsidize foreign production. My Conservative colleagues and I will never stand for this, and I promise I will always defend and stand up for our auto industry. Today nearly 90% of vehicles sold in Canada are imported. Canadians are buying cars, but we are not building them. Now, under the current government, Canadians are being asked to use their tax dollars to subsidize the purchase of those imported vehicles. That is not an industrial strategy. That is an industrial surrender. Conservatives are not and never will be willing to back down from this fight, so why is the government ready to lie down when our workers most need its support? I am begging for the Liberal government to adopt our motion today, because we know it would work. In 1965, Canada entered the Canada-United States auto pact. That agreement tied production to market access. If a company wanted to sell vehicles in Canada, it had to build vehicles in Canada. The results were transformative: Auto production in Canada grew from roughly 700,000 vehicles annually in the mid-1960s to nearly three million vehicles by the late 1990s. That was not an accident. It was because Canada had a strategy that ensured that Canadian workers benefited from Canadian demand. Today we have the opposite: a government that has accepted tariffs as permanent; a government that has failed to secure access to our largest market, the United States; and a government that is actively subsidizing foreign-built vehicles while Canadian auto jobs in Oshawa, Brampton, Ingersoll and Sainte-Thérèse disappear. Families and auto workers in Windsor are worried they will be next. Windsor is not just another city; it is one of the most auto-dependent regions in the entire country. Tens of thousands of jobs in Windsor-Essex are directly and indirectly tied to the auto sector. When a shift is cut in Windsor, it is not just a factory issue. It also affects spinoff jobs, restaurants, small businesses, suppliers and entire communities. These Canadians, who once had a promise that if they worked hard they would have a stable life, are now experiencing mass job losses in Brampton, Oshawa, Ingersoll and Sainte-Thérèse. Supply chains are unstable, and livelihoods are at risk. My community and workers across Canada should not have to wake up every day wondering if they are next. Auto workers are asking this simple question: “Who's fighting for us?” Our Conservative auto strategy answers that question. First, it supports a plan that would make it affordable to buy Canadian vehicles by removing the GST on Canadian-made cars, putting our workers first. Second, it would restore balance to production by ensuring that if a company wants to sell in Canada, it must build in Canada on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Third, it would protect North American supply chains by maintaining a 75% North American content rule under CUSMA, which would ensure that production stays here and not overseas. Fourth, the plan would stand firm against unfair trade by aligning with our North American partners to confront state-subsidized Chinese electric vehicle imports that will undercut our industry. Finally, it would strengthen our national security by ensuring that vehicles operating on Canadian roads are not connected to the software systems of foreign companies. Let us be clear: The Liberal government knows that these modern vehicles are not just machines but also data systems. They collect location data, behavioural data and infrastructure data. Allowing vehicles connected to hostile regimes into our market is not just bad economics but also a national security risk. If members will not take my word for it, they should ask why the Minister of Industry will not say that she would drive a foreign-made car. It is because she knows it is a major security risk and threat, not just to herself but to every Canadian. This is the difference between a Conservative government that believes in Canada, and our current Liberal government, which has given up. The Liberals' approach not only welcomes but subsidizes foreign production, accepts tariffs and pushes a false narrative that this will benefit Canadians. Our approach is simple. We build here, we buy here and we protect our communities. We will bring back production by taking Canada from 1.2 million vehicles per year back up to two million vehicles, not just restoring our auto industry but also restoring the promise that Canada is a place for opportunity. It is about giving Windsor workers not just hope but a future. I would say to the auto workers across Canada that Conservatives see them. We understand what is happening, and we are fighting for them. They are not alone. I, alongside my Conservative colleagues, will always stand up for our auto industry, and let me be clear: This is not just about an industry. It is about the thousands of families and other Canadians who depend on this sector's prosperity. A country that cannot build its own cars, maintain its production and create more jobs is a country that has lost control of the future. Canada can be a manufacturing powerhouse again. We have the workers, the resources and the history. What we need now is the leadership. That is what the motion represents, that is what the plan would deliver and that is why I urge all members of the House to support our motion, not only for my community but for our workers and the future of Canada's auto industry.

Mr. Speaker, honestly, I agree with my colleague. I do not understand the Liberals' plan either. It benefits a foreign, hostile country by accepting imports of its vehicles and it gives an incentive to buy other foreign-made cars. When Canadians, who are not getting the jobs to build cars, need a car, they are going to dig deeper into their pockets to buy an electric vehicle that is being incentivized. It just does not make any sense to me whatsoever. We need to build cars and car parts in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Windsor—Tecumseh—Lakeshore, who are counting on me to defend their jobs and their future. I am here to fight to protect our workers and the automotive industry that sustains our community. On Monday, Liberals and the Bloc voted down the Conservative motion that would have strengthened Canada's automotive sector. For our community, that decision is deeply concerning. Windsor is highly dependent on a strong auto industry to keep a robust and healthy local economy. By defeating this motion, the House missed an opportunity to provide certainty and stability for our local manufacturing and our economic growth. The ripple effects will be felt across our community, in workplaces, in storefronts and around kitchen tables. I will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our workers and fight relentlessly to protect our industry and the livelihoods it supports.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill S-227, a bill that would recognize April as Arab heritage month in Canada. This matters to Arab Canadians, especially in a city like mine, Windsor. Windsor has always been a working city, a city built by people who showed up ready to work, people who believed that, if one put in the effort, they could build something better for their family. Arab Canadians are part of that story. Families came here from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and across the Arab world. Some arrived decades ago; others arrived more recently. They came looking for stability, for opportunity, for a future their kids could count on. They did not come expecting an easy road, and they did not get one, but they worked, adapted and built lives here in Canada. Today, Arabic is the third most spoken language in my home city of Windsor, Ontario, after English and French. That tells us something important. It tells us that Arab Canadians are not on the margins of our city, but woven into everyday life, at work, at school, in business and in our neighbourhoods. We can see that clearly along Wyandotte Street, in what many of us call the Arabic village. If we walk down that street, we do not just see businesses; we feel community. We smell fresh bread coming out of the bakeries early in the morning. We see families gathered in restaurants late in the evening. We hear Arabic music drifting out of cafes, sometimes traditional, sometimes modern and sometimes mixed with North American sounds. All of this did not happen by accident or because of a government plan; it happened because people took risks. They opened restaurants serving shawarma, falafel, manakish, kebabs and hummus, food that is meant to be shared and that brings people together. In Arab culture, food is not only about eating, but also about hospitality. It is about generosity. It is about making room for others. We do not rush a meal. We invite people in. We make sure everyone is welcome. That spirit shows up in Windsor. We will see people from every background sitting side by side in these restaurants. Students, workers and families are all welcome and all treated the same. That is what real integration looks like. Beyond food, there is music, cafes and community life, where people gather to talk, debate, laugh and stay connected, places where elders pass down stories and where young people blend cultures naturally. At community events and festivals, we will see traditional dance, live music and celebrations that are open to the whole city. They are not closed off or exclusive. They are shared. That matters, because culture is not preserved by locking it away; it is preserved by living it and by inviting others to experience it. That is exactly what the Arab Canadians in Windsor and Tecumseh have done. Many came here with strong education and skills. There were engineers, doctors, teachers, tradespeople and entrepreneurs, but when they arrived, it was not easy. Credentials did not always transfer. Language barriers existed. Some had to take jobs below their training just to get started. Some had to start over completely. Still, they pushed forward. They went back to school. They retrained. They worked nights and weekends. They opened small businesses with family support and worked long hours. They did what Windsor families have always done. They made sacrifices so their kids would not have to. We should also be honest about this: Not everyone came here by choice. Some were fleeing war, conflict or instability. They arrived carrying loss: the loss of homes, the loss of careers and sometimes the loss of loved ones. Still, they believed in Canada. They believed that if they worked hard, this country would give them a fair shot, and Canada did just that. Today, Arab Canadians are raising families in Windsor and across Canada. They volunteer, coach sports teams, support local charities and run businesses that keep our neighbourhoods alive. Their kids go to school with our kids. They argue about hockey like everyone else. They speak English with a Windsor accent, sometimes mixed with Arabic, at home. They are not separate from the community. They are the community. That is why Bill S-227 matters. The bill is not about division or special treatment; it is about recognition. It is about saying that this community matters, that its contributions matter and that its story belongs in the Canadian story. For young Arab Canadians growing up in Canada, that recognition counts. It tells them they do not have to choose between who they are and where they live. They can be proud of their heritage and proud to be Canadian. For everyone else, it is a reminder of what makes this country work: hard work, family, community and responsibility. I have seen this first-hand as an entrepreneur in the hospitality business. I hired Adel, a talented chef from Egypt with skills in Italian cooking. Through hard work, he built a life here, marrying a Canadian teacher and raising a wonderful family. I also hired Hassan at one of my venues, a large nightclub. He started young, worked hard and quickly became head of security. He built and owns a multi-million dollar company, proof of what dedication and effort can achieve. Then there is my friend Tony, whose parents opened a pita bread bakery many years ago. They worked tirelessly to provide a life for their family. Tony is now an electrical engineer; he is deeply involved in Windsor, volunteering on boards and with charitable and political organizations. He is a pillar of our community. I cannot leave out the Chaldean community, leaders like Adel, Salman and Dr. George, who dedicate themselves to strengthening their community. Another friend, Khassan Saka, founded an organization that helps Iraqi and other immigrants settle in Windsor. Every person I have mentioned is a hard worker. Everyone has excelled and everyone has enriched our city through their efforts, generosity and commitment. Many more names could be mentioned as examples of how our society has benefited from these hard-working new Arab Canadians. This bill would not create new bureaucracy, cost taxpayers money or tell anyone how to live. It would simply acknowledge a reality that already exists. Windsor knows what happens when people are given the freedom to succeed. Arab Canadians have helped build my city and this country, one business, one family, one meal and one neighbourhood at a time. For that reason, I am proud to support Bill S-227, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, yesterday's announcement of a new national automotive strategy was nothing more than a slap in the face to Windsor's auto workers. The Prime Minister proudly announced that Canadians will now be subsidizing American-made vehicles. Why do the Liberals think that it is better to subsidize foreign-made vehicles rather than to adopt the Conservative plan to cut the tax on cars made in Windsor, in Canada?

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the member across the aisle understands my question. Five thousand Canadian auto workers lost their job. The government's response is to hand out subsidies for American-built electric vehicles. I am imploring the member across the aisle to answer the question: Instead of subsidizing foreign-made cars and killing Canadian auto jobs, will the Liberals adopt our Conservative plan to take the tax off cars made in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, 1,200 more auto workers in Oshawa just lost their jobs. Brampton workers are still waiting on the Liberals to respond to their 3,000 jobs that were lost. Windsor thrives on auto manufacturing and now we are left worried about our future. The Liberals promised a deal for Canadians. They promised to defend Canadian jobs, but every week, the government fails on all accounts. When will the Liberals stop their pointless photo ops and get real results for the thousands of auto workers who have lost their jobs?

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about this new trade deal with China. All we see is that Canada gives and China gets. The Prime Minister is calling this a strategic partnership, but for Windsor workers it looks like a raw deal. He is opening the door to nearly 50,000 Chinese electric vehicles and flooding our market while getting nothing concrete in return for our auto sector. There is no permanent tariff relief for Windsor and zero protection for Canadian auto jobs. Windsor is the backbone of Canada's auto industry. Thousands of families depend on these jobs, yet this deal undercuts the very companies investing in Windsor. Even Canada's auto sector is warning us that this creates uncertainty and threatens long-term stability. Canada deserves trade deals that protect our auto workers, not deals that sell them out.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being crushed by the cost of food, and the solution from the Liberal government is more red tape, more bureaucracy and more empty promises. Just months ago, the Prime Minister told Canadians that he should be judged by the cost of groceries. Well, the verdict is in. According to Statistics Canada, food inflation rose 6.2% year over year, with groceries up 5% and restaurant meals up 8.5%. Canada now has the highest food inflation in the G7, and it has increased more than double than that of the United States. It is not a global problem. This is a made-in-Ottawa Liberal failure. Let me be even clearer: Bill C-226 would do nothing to lower food prices. Instead, it would add red tape and federal overreach at the worst possible time. Bill C-226 would require the Minister of Industry to create a national framework on grocery price transparency and unit pricing. Canadians do not want their tax dollars going to a federal report to tell them that food costs too much. They already know that every time they swipe their credit card. What Canadians need is relief from the taxes, deficits and regulatory costs that are driving up prices. The bill before us would not increase food supply or lower input costs, but in the same Liberal fashion, it would add another layer of bureaucracy. In an email, a member of my community said that she finds herself disgusted and angry. Let us be clear: Food prices are out of control. I want to speak directly about Windsor because this debate is not theoretical. One member of my community emailed my office stating, “I'm deeply concerned about the rising cost of groceries in our community. Even with careful budgeting and deal-hunting, families are struggling to keep essentials on the table.” Another said, “During a recent shopping trip to pick up a few items for dinner, my wife and I were shocked by the total at the checkout. One example that stood out was a bag of just five potatoes, which cost us $8. With the added expenses of caring for a newborn, we've found ourselves relying more on lower-cost frozen meals just to make ends meet, often at the expense of healthier choices. Eating well should not be a luxury.” Could members across the aisle please take a moment to think about those words and truly ask themselves if the government is doing enough? Eating should not be a luxury. My community is a working-class, manufacturing-driven region. It is home to thousands of auto workers, parts suppliers, truck drivers and food processing workers, whose livelihoods depend on affordable energy, transportation and stable supply chains. According to Stats Canada labour and income data, Windsor-Essex consistently has lower median household incomes than the Ontario average, which means food inflation hits families harder and faster. When Ottawa raises fuel costs, carbon taxes on industry, packaging compliance costs and transportation costs, those increases are magnified in regions such as Windsor, where families already spend a higher share of their incomes on necessities. Let me be clear: The bill before us would only create a finger-pointing report, which is something the Liberals are good at doing. When grocery chains face higher compliance costs, they do not absorb them; they pass them on to Canadian families, Canadian seniors and Canadian students, all of us. Instead of taking responsibility for the cost of living crisis they created, the Liberals spend their time pointing fingers, blaming grocers, blaming global forces and blaming everyone except themselves. Canadians know better. Government policy drives prices up, and the government keeps driving them up. Food insecurity is rising, and the bill would do nothing to solve this crisis. This is no longer just about prices. Canadians are struggling under the government. Canadians are having to choose if they should eat or heat their homes. Students are skipping meals and stretching canned food across multiple days, while parents are buying cheaper, unhealthy options because that is all they can afford. According to Food Banks Canada, nearly 2.2 million Canadians visited a food bank in a single month last year, the highest number ever recorded. The Dalhousie University Agri-Food Analytics Lab estimates that it will now cost $17,600 to feed a family of four, and that is an increase of $1,000 in just one year. Nearly 30% of students report skipping meals because they cannot afford to eat. A quarter of Canadian households are now considered food insecure. This is the result of the Liberal government's lost decade. Its empty promises, failed regulation and being so out of touch with Canadians have resulted in one of the costliest times to live in Canada. In the face of this crisis, the Liberal government's response is a rebranded rebate, a one-time cheque. It is a blatant attempt at vote buying that the government is now calling the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Let us be honest with Canadians: This is the same GST credit renamed and temporarily inflated ahead of an election. One thing the government will not tell Canadians is that the scheme will cost taxpayers $11.7 billion over six years. Liberals love to point fingers when groceries get more expensive, but they refuse to look in the mirror. They cannot tax, regulate and spend their way into affordability. The government is forcing Canadians to pay the price for that denial. A family cannot budget around a one-time rebate, a senior cannot plan groceries around a temporary cheque and a student cannot rely on a rebranded, failed rebate instead of real affordability. Bill C-226 argues that unit pricing frameworks would help consumers compare prices, but even the Competition Bureau, in its grocery sector studies, has made it clear that price transparency does not lower prices when competition is weak and costs are high. In fact mandatory labelling frameworks increase costs, especially for small grocers, independent retailers and rural and regional stores. These costs include shelf relabelling, signage redesign, staff training and compliance monitoring. As we have already seen in Quebec, where detailed price display rules were introduced, governments were forced to delay implementation after retailers warned of confusion, cost and complexity. The lesson is obvious: Out-of-touch legislation does not cancel out bad economics. Conservatives are not opposing transparency; we are opposing symbolic politics that raise costs while pretending to help. When confronted with this growing crisis, the Liberal government's answer has been to point to a temporary GST rebate increase and claim that help is on the way. However, as The Canadian SHIELD Institute has made clear, this approach is nothing more than a band-aid on a wound that the government keeps reopening. A one-time rebate does nothing to stop grocery prices from rising in the first place. It does not lower the cost of food production, transportation or retail; reduce fuel costs; or fix broken supply chains. It certainly does not make food more affordable next week, next month or next year. In fact temporary rebates often have the opposite effect. When governments recklessly put cash into an economy without addressing supply issues, prices continue to rise. Families receive a short-term cheque, but they are left paying the higher grocery bills. The rebate fades, but the inflation does not. It gives the appearance of action without delivering real affordability. I ask the members across the floor to be honest with Canadians. A rebate that lasts a few months cannot keep pace with the grocery prices that rise every single day. It cannot help a family planning a food budget over an entire year, and it certainly cannot help seniors, students or working parents who are already stretched to their breaking point. Every dollar the government spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians, and they are feeling this more and more every time they enter a grocery store. Conservatives will provide for permanent affordability so hard work once again means a good life, a home Canadians can afford and healthy food on the table, not a fake process of clarifying grocery store prices.

Mr. Speaker, at industry committee again yesterday, the finance minister falsely claimed there were the strongest protections for auto jobs at Stellantis. Well, we all know the outcome of that: 3,000 job losses in Brampton and $13 billion of investment by Stellantis in the United States. The contract was so badly written that the job numbers were only cloaked, aspirational, with no penalties. How can the Liberals claim they are supporting auto workers when there are zero job guarantees in the contract?

Madam Speaker, the budget continues a regimen of massive borrowing that would burden our generations to come. Canada is experiencing an economic structural problem that will need severe action to mitigate further decline of its status among the G7 nations. The severity of our situation is evident by realizing that Canadians' debt-to-disposable-income ratio is now at $1.75 to $1; for every dollar of disposable income, Canadians have $1.75 of debt. This is not good by any measure. This, by the way, is the highest ratio in the entire G7. Canada has over-leveraged itself, and the budget unfortunately continues the path in the hope of an economic miracle. The severity of the situation will become more acute in 2026, when 60% of mortgages will face renewal, which will create pressure on the entire ballooned real estate market. The Liberals have successfully transformed our once-great nation into a credit card nation and high mortgage leverage nation by borrowing from the future, by printing money, by devaluating the dollar and by ignoring investment in innovation and productive resources. In the last 10 years, Canada has chosen asset inflation over productivity growth. Is this what our kids and our kids' kids want or deserve? The Liberals have had 10 years to fix our declining international competitiveness and to increase our real GDP, but what we received is fake GDP growth based on non-productive real estate inflation. As this has happened, the Liberals have successfully chased away international investment by imposing cost-prohibitive carbon taxes and unreasonable regulations. The Prime Minister is chasing other markets while distancing and alienating Canada from the biggest and strongest market in the world: the United States. Yes, we need to make deals with the United States and not disengage, although we need to pursue new markets and trade deals such as the eurozone, South America and Mexico as a necessary diplomatic objective. The growing national debt and associated interest costs negatively impact productivity and business investment. A perceived lack of sufficient action on core issues like affordability and health care has placed Canadians in a vulnerable state. The increase in the capital gains inclusion rate from 50 to 66% for corporations, and individual gains over $250,000, is a major point of contention. Business groups and economists have warned this would discourage private sector investment, potentially drive capital and talent out of Canada and worsen the country's existing productivity problem. There is also criticism that the budget overlooks crucial areas like domestic skills development for major infrastructure projects, relying instead on international talent recruitment. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has raised concerns that the government's fiscal targets may not be met, noting there is a low chance the deficit-to-GDP ratio will decline as projected. The PBO also questioned the government's use of a new capital budgeting framework, which critics see as a deceptive budgeting technique to separate operating and capital expenditures. A primary criticism is the significant deficit, projected to be around $78.3 billion for the current fiscal year, which is beyond reckless. The cumulative national debt is projected to climb significantly, leading to high public debt charges that are expected to exceed health transfers to provinces. I guess the waiting lines at the ER and hospitals will continue to get longer. I have experienced this myself recently. The budget is not going far enough with spending cuts. It is relying too much on new taxes and higher-than-expected revenue to fund its initiatives, rather than on fiscal discipline. It is in essence a continuation of backdoor taxes on the average worker and members of the middle class, who are having great difficulty obtaining a wage that can keep up with a reasonable living standard. The evidence is glaring as we go to the grocery store to buy essential goods or to a restaurant to enjoy a simple meal. Budget 2025 leaves millions of people behind. It comes at a time when millions are being forced to choose between rent, heat and food. What is missing from the budget is a plan to ensure that everyone in Canada can eat properly. The budget offers no national target to reduce food insecurity. It offers no meaningful increase to income support for low-wage workers or for people with disabilities. Food insecurity is not simply a symptom of rising costs; it is a predictable result of inadequate incomes and policy changes. By favouring productivity and fiscal restraint over people's basic needs, and by offering tax breaks that would disproportionately benefit higher earners, budget 2025 risks deepening inequality and entrenching hunger in one of the world's wealthiest countries. The promised tax cut would provide lower- and middle-class income earners savings of up to $840 for a family, but according to Dalhousie University's Agri-Food Analytics Lab, the average family will pay nearly $1,000 more for groceries in 2026. That leaves everyone impacted, even the people who get the maximum tax rebate. The tax break would not even cover the increased cost of food. The budget lacks meaningful measures to reduce food insecurity for seniors, children who live in poverty, and persons with disabilities. In my community, seniors represent 19% of the population. Children living in poverty in Windsor represent 23.2% of all children in the city, which is the highest in Ontario, and 10.8% of Windsor's population lives in poverty; this means that over 25,000 people in my community are “unable to afford a set list of basic [needs].” Stats Canada has named Windsor the province's southwestern “poverty capital”. Again, people affected, our seniors on fixed income, cannot make ends meet. Many seniors are deciding to cut food use in order to pay rent and utilities. Some seniors are giving up and are now counted amongst the homeless. Families with young children that are living in poverty are watering down formula and milk. They are opting to feed their children food that is less nutritious and is lacking in protein, healthy fats and vitamins. There is a lot of pasta, meatless meals and Kraft Dinner going on. People living with disabilities and who must live on a fixed income as well are having difficulty coping and with accessing the basic needs of food and shelter. The long-term effects of food insecurity and poor nutrition are characterized by eventual heart disease, type 2 diabetes, certain cancers, obesity, hypertension and vision loss. Poor nutrition impacts one's physical and mental health. It causes inflammation and insulin resistance, and early-life malnutrition affects poor growth of organ development. These total effects reduce economic productivity and quality of life, and they make managing other health concerns harder. Poor nutrition decreases physical and cognitive capacity for work and shortens life spans. This weekend I was in the Santa Claus parade. I looked at the faces of my constituents and could tell they were looking to me to provide them with some hope for the future. I can tell the House that I do not see the hope Windsorites need in the budget.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I do not agree with the member opposite. Windsor—Tecumseh has not seen benefits from anything that the government has done recently. There is definite uncertainty when it comes to auto jobs. We do not know what is going to happen with tariffs. We do not know what is going to happen with our automotive plants. When we talk about this new budget, we have a lot of small and medium-sized enterprises that support the auto workers' industry. Guess what. They cannot get any benefits from this new budget. They cannot get write-offs like the great big corporations can. If there have been added jobs, and I agree with the member that our employment numbers have improved slightly recently, they are all part-time jobs and they are all temporary. There is no significant increase in productive, full-time jobs in my community at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many residents. I have talked to a lot of residents, especially in the past several days and over the weekend. So many are complaining that, even more than a few months ago in the summertime, prices have increased. They have had to cut more of the foods they want and need from their grocery budget. This is totally unacceptable. We need our communities and we need our people to have quality foods and to be able to access them at a reasonable price.

Mr. Speaker, this budget proves one thing: The Liberals do not understand how real Canadians live. Every dollar the government spends comes straight out of Canadians' pockets, and under the Prime Minister, everything costs more. After years of inflation and higher taxes, the Liberals have chosen to raise the industrial carbon tax. This means higher prices at the checkout line. Why is the Prime Minister increasing the industrial carbon tax and making food more expensive?

Madam Speaker, each month in Canada, there are over 2.2 million visits to food banks. We talk about these numbers every day, and we watch them increase every month. These are not just numbers, colleagues; these are the people we serve. Many of them are workers whose paycheques have not gone up the way grocery prices have. The Liberal government, however, thinks Canadians should sacrifice even more. When will the Prime Minister give Canadians an affordable budget for an affordable life?

Mr. Speaker, after Stellantis was handed $15 billion for an EV battery plant in Windsor, it has now sent 3,000 jobs from Brampton to the United States. In my community, workers are now worried about their own jobs, how they are going to pay their mortgages and how they are going to feed their families. Canadians deserve transparency about the multi-billion dollar contracts they paid so much for. Can the Liberals even confirm that their contract included a Canada-wide jobs guarantee for workers, or will they continue to cover up for their incompetence?

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Windsor—Tecumseh—Lakeshore. I would like to thank my community for putting their trust in me. I promise I will always work very hard to deserve it. Today I would like to acknowledge my friend and the mayor of Windsor, Drew Dilkens. Mayor Dilkens is currently recovering from a recent surgery for prostate cancer. I admire him for his character, strength and leadership, and for candidly sharing his story and advocating for early detection. I am inspired to bring his message to Ottawa. September is the national Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. Prostate cancer can be a silent killer but a simple blood test can save lives. My message to all men is for themselves, for their children and for their friends and family. I ask them to please get tested. I also ask that we keep our thoughts and prayers with Mayor Dilkens and his family during his recovery.

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal housing chaos, buyers cannot buy, sellers cannot sell and builders cannot build. My community has an unemployment rate of over 11%. It is the highest in Canada, and now we have one of the highest markets in which to buy a home. A new report states that ownership is only for the very wealthy in Windsor. When will the Prime Minister stop his empty promises? When will he stop building bureaucracy and start building homes?

Mr. Speaker, Windsor has an unemployment rate of 11.1%, the highest in Canada. The Prime Minister came home empty-handed after tariff negotiations, causing people to tighten their purse strings because of the economic uncertainty that the Liberal government has caused. The women's unemployment rate has increased by 12%, and now more people cannot afford rent, gas and food. Everyone worries about being the next person to get a pink slip. Which of my colleagues from across the aisle will bring their silver spoons to Windsor to—

Mr. Speaker, a new report says that the U.S. tariffs on Canada's auto sector could kill 50,000 jobs. The Prime Minister promised elbows up with the U.S., but it has been elbows down. He said he was the man with the plan, but he has been unable to get a deal, directly threatening the jobs of Canadian auto workers. We need real solutions for Canadians. Can the Liberal government tell us how many jobs will be lost in the auto sector because of its failure to get a deal?

Mr. Speaker, time after time, the Liberal government must be held to account for its mismanagement of Canadian dollars. Now we have even more damning evidence showing that the Liberals have lost control over their spending on consultants. GC Strategies, which is linked to the arrive scam, got 106 contracts, worth $93 million. The Auditor General has said that Liberals frequently disregarded procurement rules that promoted fairness, transparency and value for Canadians. There were consultants who did not have experience. There were massive security clearance failures, and there was proof that little to no work was ever done. It is clear that the Liberals are out of touch with Canadians. They cannot be trusted with tax dollars, so how can anyone trust them to be in a position of power? Will the Liberals support a Conservative motion to have GC Strategies pay back the $64 million stolen from taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker, we have a new Prime Minister, but nothing has changed. He is proposing the same spending that will cause the same painful consequences for Canadians. People in the auto industry in Windsor, Ontario, are worried about losing their home if they are laid off. The results of Liberal spending are missed mortgage payments and skyrocketing job losses. Why is the Liberal government asking to spend half a trillion dollars, causing further inflation, without a budget plan?

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in the House on behalf of the people of Windsor—Tecumseh—Lakeshore. Windsor workers are rightly worried. They are worried about threats from the United States toward their jobs. They are worried about their shifts being cut. They are worried about paying their mortgage and putting food on the table. In Windsor, we can literally see the car manufacturers and industries across the river in Detroit, Michigan. American workers at these plants do not need to worry about a costly, job-killing carbon tax. They know that their jobs are more secure without an industrial carbon tax. That is not the case on this side of the border. The Liberal government is making our industry and our manufacturers less competitive by keeping in place the costly industrial carbon tax. We need to work together and do everything we can to protect our jobs. By keeping the industrial carbon tax on steel, aluminum and other manufacturing, the government is forcing our workers to fight with one elbow tied behind their back. Will the government unshackle our workers and cancel the whole carbon tax on everything for everyone?