Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Windsor West. Today, I rise to speak on their behalf to Bill C-9. Before I do, I would like to take a moment to recognize two brave police officers who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving their communities. Last week, Toronto police officer Marc Pinizzotto was killed in the line of duty while taking part in the execution of search warrants connected to a series of shootings, including attacks at the U.S. consulate and a synagogue in Toronto. Just days earlier, OPP officer Tarun Bali also lost his life while serving the people of Ontario. To their families, friends, loved ones and fellow officers, I offer my sincere condolences. These losses hit close to home for me. More than 30 years ago, I began my career in public service as a police officer with the Toronto Police Service. I spent nearly seven years there before continuing my police career in the Windsor-Essex region, serving a total of 29 years in law enforcement. I still remember what it felt like to put on the uniform and head out on patrol. I remember the pride that came with it, but I also remember the risks that came with the job. Police officers leave home every day not knowing what the next radio call will bring. Their families understand that reality too. That is why the deaths of Officer Pinizzotto and Officer Bali are felt so deeply, not just by their families and colleagues, but by police officers and former police officers across this country. Their sacrifice deserves our respect and our gratitude, and their memory deserves to be honoured. One officer came from an Italian Canadian family, the other from an Indo-Canadian family. Different backgrounds, different communities, yet both wore the same uniform, took the same oath and made the same sacrifice in service to Canada. They protected everyone. That is what police officers across this country do. As I thought about these officers, I could not help but think about the debate we are having today. A police officer has lost his life while investigating violent criminals connected to attacks on places of worship and innocent people. That reality should remind all of us that hatred is not an abstract concept. It has real consequences. It destroys lives. It tears at communities. When left unchecked, it can lead to violence. A few weeks ago, many Canadians joined Rwandan communities across this country by marking Kwibuka, the remembrance of genocide against the Tutsi people in Rwanda. Kwibuka means “to remember”. It is a solemn reminder of one of the darkest chapters in modern history. Last Saturday, I had the privilege of attending such a commemoration in Windsor, where I listened to Kizito Kalima, known to many as “Big Z”, and to other members of Windsor's Rwandan community as they shared stories of loss, resilience, reconciliation and hope. Their message was powerful. It was not a message rooted in bitterness or revenge. It was a message rooted in remembrance, healing, reconciliation and hope. That message stayed with me, and I believe it carries lessons for all Canadians. Let me be absolutely clear: Canada is not Rwanda. Our institutions are strong. Our democracy is strong. Our people are united by far more than what divides us, but history still has lessons to teach us. One of those lessons is that hatred rarely begins with violence. It begins when people stop seeing their neighbours as fellow citizens. It begins when stereotypes replace understanding and when fear replaces trust. The lesson of Rwanda is not that hatred suddenly appeared. The lesson is that too many leaders ignored the warning signs for far too long. Fortunately, Canada is not facing those circumstances, but that does not mean we should ignore our responsibility to build trust, strengthen communities and unite Canadians. General Dallaire has spent decades reminding Canadians that the lessons of Rwanda are not simply about one country at one moment in history. They are lessons about humanity. They are lessons about leadership. They are lessons about the responsibility we all share to confront hatred before it turns to violence. That is why this debate matters. Racism is real. Anti-Semitism is real. Islamophobia is real. Hinduphobia is real. Every one of us has a responsibility to challenge those things wherever they appear. However, laws alone cannot solve them. No Criminal Code amendment can teach respect, build trust or replace leadership. The words spoken by elected officials matter. The examples set by government matter. The way we speak about one another matters. Good intentions matter too, but good intentions alone are not enough. What ultimately matters is the results of government policies. We are living in unprecedented times. Many Canadians are carrying real burdens. Some are worried about paying their bills. Some are worried about finding a home for their family. Some are worried about crime in their communities. Some are worried about discrimination and hatred. Some are worried about the future their children will inherit. When people are worried, frustrated or uncertain, the tone of public discussion can change. That does not excuse hatred, racism, anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, and it certainly does not excuse violence. However, it should remind us that leadership matters. The responsibility of leaders is to lower the temperature, build trust and bring people together around our common values. That is how strong societies remain strong. That is how diverse societies remain united. The question before us is not whether hate is wrong. The question is whether Bill C-9 is necessary and whether it will achieve what the government says it will achieve. There are provisions in this legislation that deserve support. Every Canadian should be able to attend a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, gurdwara, community centre or school without fear of intimidation or violence. I also support the Senate amendment adding the noose as a prohibited symbol of anti-Black hate. As a former police officer, I understand the historical weight that symbol carries and the fear it is intended to create. There is value in providing clarity to police officers and prosecutors dealing with such cases. After spending nearly three decades in policing, I tend to look at legislation through a very specific lens. I look at it and ask two questions. First, is it enforceable? Second, will it make Canadians safer without stepping on their rights and freedoms? Those are the questions all police officers ask. Those are the questions Parliament should be asking as well. The government speaks as though Canada has no laws to deal with hate crimes. That is simply not true. We already have laws against the public incitement of hatred. We already have laws against the wilful promotion of hatred. We already have laws against threats, intimidation, harassment, vandalism and violence directed at people because of their religion, race, ethnicity or background. Judges can already impose tougher sentences when crimes are motivated by hate. These tools already exist. The problem is not that we lack laws. The problem is having the courage to enforce the laws. This is where I believe the government is missing the point, unfortunately. Canadians are increasingly concerned about public safety. They are concerned about violent repeat offenders. They are concerned about organized crime, gang violence, extortion and human trafficking. They are concerned about the lack of consequences for repeat offenders. These concerns are real. They are being discussed around kitchen tables and at coffee shops across this country. After 10 years of policies that have weakened confidence in our justice system, Canadians are asking whether Parliament is focused on the right priorities. Removing a long-standing protection for good-faith expression will not stop a gang shooting, a human trafficker or an extortion ring. It will not stop repeat violent offenders or the transnational gangs that continue to terrorize communities across Canada. Officer Pinizzotto was not investigating a sermon; he was investigating violent criminal activity. That is where the danger is, and that is where Canadians expect their government to be focused. As lawmakers, we should always ask whether a proposed law addresses the problem it claims to solve. In this case, I am not convinced it does. One of the most significant concerns with this legislation involves the government's decision to remove long-standing protections in the Criminal Code for good-faith expression of religious beliefs. For decades, Canadian law has struck a careful balance. It protected vulnerable communities from genuine hatred while protecting good-faith expression of religious beliefs. That balance was not preventing police from investigating crimes or prosecutors from laying charges. It certainly did not stop courts from handing out convictions. These distinctions matter. Acts of hatred, intimidation and vandalism should be investigated, prosecuted and punished. No one disputes that. However, the way we do it matters. At the end of the day, we have to understand that Canada's strength comes from our ability to live together despite our differences. It comes from our ability to disagree without being disagreeable. It comes from our willingness to remember that before we are Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, Bloc members or Greens, we are Canadians. As we remember Officer Pinizzotto and Officer Bali, let us remember what they were doing. They were protecting innocent people. They were protecting communities of every faith and every background. They were confronting violent criminals and standing up against those who would use fear, intimidation and violence to divide us. That is the Canada they served.

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I would say that, yes, there is a lack of courage and a degree of timidity among the ranks, especially the higher ranks, not the frontline folks. They are ready to do the work they are assigned, but one has to have the courage to do what needs to be done. Courage has to be shown by prosecutors, as well as judges. When somebody drops the ball, it is not a judge who goes to a mic and answers questions, or a Crown prosecutor for that matter. The guy who is left holding the bag is the police officer, who has to explain why the judge made a certain decision or why the Crown prosecutor did not proceed. These are the challenges that our friends from the opposite side are not quite getting.

Mr. Speaker, Officer Pinizzotto did not die investigating a sermon. He died investigating hate crimes. He died investigating a shooting at the U.S. consulate. I can tell members from experience that, generally speaking, police officers are not out there challenging people at a religious ceremony to say whether the sermon is allowed or not allowed. Police officers are not the experts. They do not have the wherewithal to do all of those things. The challenge is that when we have unclear legislation, it causes confusion. That lack of clarity is going to cause more harm in our country, rather than solve any problems.

Mr. Speaker, as a cop, I was trained to ask questions when the facts did not match the story. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said the Gordie Howe bridge was opening this weekend, and yesterday he said Canada agreed to a delay at the request of the U.S., because of technical issues, apparently. When asked the question of what the issue was, he had no answer. The bridge is built, and the staff are in place. The people in Windsor have been patient for years. Now they are getting fed up and tired of this drama, so what is the real reason for this delay, and why will the Liberal government not be honest with Canadians, who paid $6.4 billion U.S. for this bridge?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents of Windsor-Essex, such as Mike Fisher and The Friends of Ojibway Prairie, regarding the future of national urban parks and the proposed Ojibway National Urban Park. The petitioners recognize Canada's commitment to establish up to 15 national urban parks and believe these important national spaces require clear legislative protection, ecologically grounded boundaries, and governance that includes the meaningful participation of indigenous nations and local communities. They also know the ecological significance of the Ojibway Prairie Complex and other nationally important landscapes. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to establish a legislative framework for national urban parks and to expedite the creation of this important network of protected spaces across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal government scandals, foreign interference concerns and loss of public trust, the government wants Parliament to rush through the bill and change the rules governing federal elections. This process deprives Canadians of a fulsome debate. Why is the government focused on rewriting election laws instead of rebuilding the trust that Canadians have lost? They need trust brought back to democratic institutions. That is not what the Liberals are doing. They have spent years undermining that trust. Why do they not work on affordability, crime prevention and economic growth so Canadians can once again trust what their government is doing?

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and the Prime Minister has zero respect for the sacrifices Canadians are making every day. We know families are cutting back. Businesses are delaying investment. Productivity is falling. A former central banker is driving the economy, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, appointed by him, is saying there is a 99% chance he is going to drive the economy into a ditch. Will the Prime Minister admit Canada is in a recession, or does he believe Canadians are better off after 10 years of Liberal rule?

Mr. Speaker, while we debate billions in government spending, Canadians and Windsorites learned today about the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, and from Michigan officials, no less. This government is still silent about it. This project, as my colleague knows, is years behind schedule and nearly half a billion dollars over budget. If the government cannot even tell us clearly about one of the largest infrastructure projects in our country's history, which Canadians paid for, by the way, how can Canadians have confidence in the government that it can properly manage the billions of dollars the government is asking us to approve today?

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 nation facing a recession under this Liberal Prime Minister. After months of “elbows up” rhetoric, he went to New York this week and said he would be making America great again. If flip-flopping generated electricity, the Liberal Prime Minister could power the EV sector all by himself. As a former cop, I have seen plenty of U-turns, but I have never seen one presented as a trade strategy. Can the Prime Minister just make up his mind and get to work, or are Canadians expected to live with a government that is always a day late and several dollars short?

Mr. Chair, firstly, I will be splitting my time. Secondly, I am an immigrant, and I value the hard work, sacrifices and contributions of all immigrants across this great country. Organized crime, extortion, immigration fraud and criminals gaining entry to our country all increased under the minister's watch. Canadians are asking a simple question: Was the minister completely reckless, or was the minister completely clueless?

Mr. Speaker, Windsor families are tired of being failed by this Liberal government. They are paying about 30¢ more per litre of gasoline than people across the river in Detroit. This Liberal Prime Minister is the same as the previous one. He is very expensive and has nothing to show for his spending. All we get from him is more costs, more taxes, more debt and more on the national credit card. We Conservatives have a real plan. Canadian families are looking for relief. Let us provide it by removing all federal gas taxes for one year, with no more half measures. When will the Liberal government get it done?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I attended the commemoration ceremony for the Battle of the Atlantic in Windsor, alongside veterans, cadets and members of the HMCS Hunter. Young men sailed into danger so Canada could remain free, democratic and sovereign. All Canadians are united by a belief in what this country represents: democracy, the rule of law, accountability and the promise of a better future. Even new Canadians deeply understand the sacrifices made to preserve those values. What we see today is young people facing a jobs crisis, food bank use exploding and seniors worrying about health care and affordability. We see a government drifting from crisis to crisis without a compass. The young Canadians we honoured yesterday sacrificed themselves at the altar of democracy itself. If we will not defend democratic principles here in this place, then where are we going to honour the legacy of those brave souls? The generation that crossed the Atlantic under fire did so out of a sense of duty for King and country. After 11 years of Liberal rule, Canadians are still waiting for that leadership.

Mr. Speaker, as a retired police officer, I can say that only 5% or 6% of sexual assault cases in the civilian world are brought forth, and probably less so in the CAF world. Policing also depends on a lot of clarity, evidence and integrity. When we transfer that between two bodies, the civilian and the CAF, it is not going to work. How is this going to work practically speaking? If there is a mistake, who is going to be held accountable? Is it going to be the civilian world or the CAF world? That is what I would like to know.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear for anyone to see that the government has engaged in the neglect of duty on this file and others. What message is this debate sending to the victims who have already come forward and are watching this show? What message does it send to future soldiers, sailors and airmen and their families, who are probably wondering whether, if they are ever victims, they will be taken seriously and their complaint will be heard properly?

Madam Speaker, Windsor workers and manufacturers are already feeling the pressure from the section 232 tariffs, and 150,000 Windsor families are worried about what comes next. They think that the Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal. He has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, while Canadians continue to face an affordability crisis alone. If the Prime Minister likes to gamble, he can come visit a casino in Windsor but leave the Canadians' credit card at home. There is no targeted relief and no meaningful support for the workers and businesses that carry this country—

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart following the tragic stabbing of a 16-year-old boy by a 19-year-old boy in Windsor. At the centre of this unimaginable loss are two mothers, one grieving the loss of a child, the other grappling with the reality of what her child now faces. There are two families whose lives will never be the same. Their pain is shared by friends, loved ones and a wider community that has been left shaken, wondering how something like this could happen so close to home. The most fundamental responsibilities of any government are to protect its citizens and ensure that families feel safe in their communities and secure in their daily lives, yet while Canadians are confronting tragedies like this, the government is focused on expanding committees and engaging in procedural manoeuvres that feel far removed from the realities people are facing. Is anyone on the government benches truly paying attention to these families, to those mothers or to the communities they were elected to—

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the petition at hand, I would like to wish a very happy birthday to my son, Rohan, who celebrated his birthday this weekend. I would also like to send birthday wishes in advance to my daughter, Aviana, whose birthday is in July, as we will not be in session. As we serve in the House, I am reminded that everything we do is for the future of our children. I am incredibly proud of my children. They impress me every day with their kindness, strength and promise of a hopeful future. To my wife Michelle, the heart of our family, I wish her a very happy Mother's Day, well in advance. I thank her for all that she does for us. The petition I have is from the good friends and folks of Windsor West. First of all, they would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your strong support in the previous Parliament for Bill C-248. While that bill did not make it across the finish line due to prorogation, the hard work behind it and the voices of people—

Mr. Speaker, they appreciate your support. This petition has been signed by Canadians from Windsor and across the country. It is calling for strong, lasting protections for national urban parks, including the Ojibway Prairie Complex. The petitioners recognize Canada's commitment to establishing up to 15 national urban parks by 2030, including one in Windsor. The petitions know that Ojibway is not just a green space, but one of the most unique and fragile ecosystems in the country, home to species at risk and deeply tied to our local identity. They are asking for clear science-based boundaries and a strong legislative framework that puts ecological integrity first. Once these lands are lost, they are lost for good. They are also calling for the meaningful participation of indigenous nations alongside local communities in protecting and stewarding these lands for generations to come. For the people of Windsor, this is not just about policy, it is about legacy. It is about making sure our kids and grandkids inherit something—

Mr. Speaker, who does this motion give control to? Does it give control to the Parliament or to the Prime Minister's Office? What are we trying to hide here? I would like the hon. member to list all of the compromised situations we are going through right now with the party opposite. What is it going to do in the future? Who is going to hold the Liberals accountable? With this makeup of committees, I do not think anybody is going to know what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I asked the government a question regarding the Gordie Howe bridge, which is in my riding. Instead of an answer, I got banter, jokes and an invitation to switch sides. I have a lot of respect for the member opposite. She has a measured tone. Can she speak to the accountability that she has often referred to, and does she believe that deflection and jokes from government ministers meet the standards she has for accountability?

Mr. Speaker, it has been 273 days since the Prime Minister promised a deal with Washington. Instead, we are seeing more tariffs now being applied to the full value of Canadian exports. That means businesses and workers in Windsor are being tariffed on their labour, their investment and the products they build right here at home. When will the Prime Minister keep his word to the 2.6 million Canadian workers whose livelihoods depend on cross-border trade and deliver on the deal he promised a year ago?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a quick moment to wish a good friend of mine, Gurwinder Ruprai, a happy birthday. She is a teacher and a great friend from the member opposite's riding in Mississauga. We have all seen cases where information was not shared among police agencies, so are there any provisions in this bill that would provide not just access but also sharing with other police agencies that get the information?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by wishing a couple of my friends a happy birthday: Sowmya Subramaniam and Nainesh Modi. Their birthdays are coming up in the next couple of weeks. They are fantastic friends and great people. We all believe in strong and free elections, but we would be naive to ignore the hard truth that many Canadians today carry a healthy skepticism about institutions with respect to accountability and transparency, especially when it comes to elections. We see that skepticism being exploited every day through misinformation and disinformation on social media. We also know from watching other democracies that trust is not lost overnight. It is eroded gradually when safeguards are weakened and clarity is replaced with ambiguity. In an environment where misinformation spreads rapidly, what concrete measures in the bill would ensure transparency so Canadians can clearly see how elections are administered and protected, and that there are consequences for this not being done?

Mr. Speaker, on April 6, the U.S. government imposed section 232 tariffs that threaten nearly 60,000 Canadian jobs and hit an industry worth $6 billion that feeds our manufacturing sector, which is worth over $100 billion. These new tariffs are hammering our mould-makers right now. Some companies are thinking of moving to the U.S., unfortunately. Canadian mould-makers are in Washington today trying to negotiate on their own because the Liberal government is refusing to do that. When will the Prime Minister show that he cares about Windsor workers and Canadian businesses and actually defend our country's economy and our jobs?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize Vaisakhi, a time of renewal, gratitude and community for Sikhs and Punjabis here in Canada and around the world. It marks the founding of the Sikh faith and reminds us of the enduring values of service, equality and courage. With that spirit in mind, I will turn to my question. Let us say a municipal police service flags a suspected trafficker, but that information does not fully reach federal partners like the RCMP or CSIS, or perhaps even provincial partners like the OPP. What good is more data if it is still stuck in separate systems? My experience as a police officer has been that there are silos and those silos do not necessarily talk to each other at all.

Mr. Speaker, before I get to my question, I would like to wish my good friends, Shanti Ramachandran and Anthony Norohna, a happy birthday. They are fantastic friends and fantastic people. When I was in policing, if I wanted subscriber information tied to a phone used in a fraud case, say, I had to go before a judge and justify that before I could get the production order. Why are we now saying that reasonable suspicion alone is enough? Are we lowering the bar for accessing personal information?

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. In policing, there is often an issue with missed connections. I have seen cases where one agency had information on a suspect and another agency had information on associates, but the information never got shared with either one. What in the bill would actually fix that breakdown of communication? Could it break down the information silos that exist? That is what the Canadian public needs to know.

Mr. Speaker, before I go ahead with a question, I would like to acknowledge the death of Hassan Haidar, a resident of Windsor, who passed away in Lebanon last week. He was a father of five, a husband and a business owner. His death is a solemn reminder of the human cost of conflict. Our thoughts are with his family, his loved ones and all those who are grieving at this rather difficult time. The question I have for my friend is this. As a police officer, I have personally been involved in cases where evidence was excluded because proper legal steps were not followed or there was an overreach by certain officers. That directly reflects on the point of there being consistency and clarity in the law. If parts of this law are challenged through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the evidence gets thrown out, what do we say to the victims who came to us and asked us to do something about this? These are not hypothetical concerns but things that actually happen. I would like to know from my friend what is in this bill that would prevent that from happening.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not with an abstract theory but with a testimony, the testimony of men and women who rise before dawn, who punch in, who build, who weld, who assemble and who simply ask only this of their country and its leaders: Stand with them as they stand for their nation. I speak for the good people of Windsor, Oshawa, Kitchener, Oakville, Ingersoll, Simcoe—Grey, Brampton and New Tecumseth, for all the workers who hold the beating heart of Canada's auto industry in their hands. I speak for communities where a factory is not just a workplace but the spine of the local economy, the anchor of family life and the promise that if we work hard, we can get ahead. Let us begin with the simple truth. We are told often and with great confidence that this is a new government, but most Canadians are not so easily persuaded. They remember that it is the same Liberal government that has been in power since 2015. The story we are about to tell is a story about the government written over that decade. During this decade, Canadians remember being told the budget will balance itself. They remember a very casual approach to deficits, as though fundamentals and fiscal anchors no longer mattered. Even when concerns were raised, too often the response was, who cares? Workers in Windsor care. Families balancing bills care. Seniors trying to keep body and soul together care. Young Canadians wondering if they will have a future in this country care. Let us look at the facts for a moment. In 2015, we had roughly 1.5 million manufacturing jobs. Today, after nearly a decade, we have about 1.56 million. This is an increase of roughly 60,000 jobs, which is simply 4% more. Over that same period, Canada's population grew by four million to five million. That is a 10% to 12% increase. We added millions more to our country, but barely added enough jobs in the sector that builds our economy. That is not growth. That is simply more people competing for the same opportunities. Let us turn to the auto sector, because Windsor does not just participate in this industry; it defines it. In 2016, Canada produced over two million vehicles a year. Today, that number is about 1.2 million, which is a decline of about 35%. Since 2019 alone, production has dropped by about 33%. Meanwhile, the United States is holding steady compared to its prepandemic levels, but Mexico is moving ahead, and Canada, as we know, is falling behind. The simple truth is that when production falls, jobs follow. Tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost. Assembly lines are disappearing and part suppliers are under immense pressure. This is not just decline. It is instability and uncertainty. It is workers wondering if they have a job next week, families wondering if the next paycheque is secure and parents wondering if their kids will have to leave the city, province or country to find opportunities. We have an economy growing at around 1%. In aeronautical terms, it is an economy operating at stall speed, certainly not at the unprecedented speeds promised by the Prime Minister. Countries do not drift into prosperity. They decide it, and we are choosing to go the other way. There is a deeper concern, one that Canadians increasingly feel, even if it is not always said out loud. It is that the government has lost its way. It does not seem to know what it wants to do. It is pulled in different directions by competing ideas, competing ideologies and competing factions within the party. It seems to have put up a tariff wall of its own against anyone trying to invest here or build in this country. Instead of de-risking our manufacturing and trade systems, instead of protecting them from shocks, we have added more uncertainty through unpredictable policy, making it harder, not easier, for businesses to plan, invest and grow. The result is no clarity and no direction, but plenty of hesitation. It is a government caught between choices and increasingly frozen into inaction. What we see from it is announcements, press conferences and repackaged ideas, but people are asking where the results are. As we well know, we cannot run an economy on announcements alone. We cannot build an industry on uncertainty. We cannot de-risk a fragile manufacturing base while piling on regulations that choke competition and slow down investment. We certainly cannot lead a country if we are unsure of our own direction. Sadly, it is the Canadian worker, the Canadian family and the Canadian entrepreneur who are paying the price. People in the manufacturing sector are telling the government the same story. They see policies introduced and then reversed. They see mandates announced and then withdrawn. They see regulations layered on top of regulations without regard for competitiveness. They see barriers within our own country, where free trade between provinces is still a dream rather than a reality. They see labour unable to move freely to where the jobs are, and they ask how they can compete globally when they cannot even compete internally. In their own words, these businesses face gale-force winds of uncertainty and are being blinded by the word salad being spewed by our friends opposite. When businesses are driving blind, they slow down, they delay investment or they go somewhere else where the conditions are calmer and more predictable or consistent. That is exactly what we are seeing. Even the infrastructure that is meant to support this industry, the very arteries of trade, are delayed. The Gordie Howe International Bridge, so critical to Windsor and our national supply chain, is still not open. We do not know when it will open, and at a time when we should be accelerating trade, we are still waiting. What is required? It is not reinvention nor slogans, but a return to basics. That is exactly what the proposal from His Majesty's loyal opposition represents. It begins with an idea so simple, so grounded, that it resonates beyond politics. If we want to sell cars in Canada, we should be building cars in Canada. It is a modern auto pact, not a nostalgic hearkening to a bygone era, and it is practical and modern in its application. Simply put, if companies build here, they get to sell here duty-free. If they invest in this country, they see a return on their investment. We would tie local production to local market access. We would reward work done here in this country. We would remove GST on Canadian-made vehicles and support Canadian auto workers directly. We would align regulations with the United States and remove barriers that drive investment away. We would secure access to the U.S. market and compete where it matters most, and we would focus on building the infrastructure, the connectivity and the internal trade corridors that would actually grow GDP, not just talk about it. Here is a reality check: Our integrated supply chains are with our North American neighbours, not European or Asian neighbours. The question we have to answer is not whether we engage, but whether we do so strategically. There will always be debate and there will always be concern, but we must measure any approach against facts. The current path delivered a 35% drop in production, a decade of stagnation and an economy at snail speed. At some point, we must move beyond defending the status quo and start changing it. The simple truth is that if we make it easier to build somewhere else, companies will build somewhere else. If we make it harder to build in Canada, investment will leave Canada. That is not ideology; that is reality. If we ignore this simple reality, we will lose more jobs, we will lose capacity and we will lose skills. Once the skills and talent are gone, they will not come back. This is not about left or right. It is about whether Canada still believes in building things, whether we still believe in our workers, in our industry and in creating opportunities for a better future, or whether we accept a timid future, a future of steady decline dressed up as progress. If we continue on this path, we already know where it leads. It leads to more stagnation, more uncertainty, more loss and eventually more despair. In other words, it is managed decline leading to a permanent loss. The people of Windsor and across southwestern Ontario and Quebec are not asking for perfection. They are asking for leadership. Let us give it to them. Let us stand up for production. Let us stand for workers in Canada. Let us stand for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, folks in Windsor have already started diversifying, and they started diversifying over 10 years ago. However, the uncertainty that the last year and a half has brought is something that is unprecedented. They were looking to the government for some solutions, because the Liberals promised them. They said, “We will have a deal by July 21. Don't you worry. We will have the best deal.” Meanwhile, we have no deal. We have plants that are being courted from Michigan and Ohio, and they are on the verge of leaving because they cannot sustain themselves in this environment. We are chasing away investment, and we are chasing away workers, because we have not done enough for them. In fact, we have not done anything for them, sadly. We have people who want to build plants here, but they are complaining about the regulations and policies that are choking them out of being competitive. Nobody wants to come to a non-competitive place.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is simple. Canada's auto sector has declined over 30% in production, while manufacturing jobs have barely grown, despite millions more in this country. That tells us that the current approach is not working. What we are proposing is grounded in common sense. If people want to sell cars in Canada, they should be building them here. By tying market access to production, reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers, improving infrastructure and strengthening North American integration, we can de-risk the sector, attract investment and protect jobs. Right now, businesses are facing uncertainty, tariffs and mixed signals. That is why investment is hesitating. The plan restores clarity, competitiveness and confidence in our folks.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has just given a fantastic, passionate speech. The chief of the largest police service in this country says that the laws that govern hate crime already exist and that they just need to be used. Would the added legislation help this process any further, or would it make things more confusing for law enforcement officers who are out there in the middle of the country and may not know the entire context of what they are seeing?

Mr. Speaker, Canada's sovereignty is not negotiable, but foreign conflicts are spilling onto our streets. Three synagogues have been shot up this past week. An Iranian dissident has disappeared, and the police think he may have been killed. However, the Liberals are patting themselves on the back because they removed one Iranian official linked to the IRGC. There are hundreds more on our streets. The number one job of any government is to protect its citizens. They are not doing that. Will the Liberal government table a plan within one week to deal with the Iranian agents in our country and on our streets? It is about time it did that.