Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe
Lac-Saint-Jean, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“It mentioned the build communities strong fund and a “requirement on provinces and territories to reduce development fees and other charges to homebuilding.” What does that mean, exactly? Is this $1.7 billion part of the build communities strong fund? Is it a mandatory requirement for accessing the fund? Is it simply a guideline?”
“Once the election campaign gets under way, the government will be restricted to dealing with day-to-day business. We hope that the Parti Québécois will win the next election. I look forward to debating the merits of a referendum on Quebec independence with my colleague from Winnipeg North . This is going to be fun.”
“The second sentence of the bill states that the amount of each payment is to be determined by the minister. That is far from a guarantee. We asked the Minister of Finance and National Revenue about this two weeks ago during the business of supply.”
“Mr. Speaker, these people had to fight to speak French. They had to hide to speak French. They were forbidden from speaking French at school. It was prohibited under Manitoban law. I recently attended the International Uyghur Forum in Berlin.”
“Mr. Speaker, we hear it all the time, but this time it is especially true. I am pleased to rise to speak to the long-awaited Bill C‑26 . It took a long time to understand the actual impact of Bill C‑26.”
“Not only that, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated in his December report on Build Canada Homes that “[Build Canada Homes] will add about 26,000 units over five years, representing a 2.1 per cent increase in housing completions relative to [the Parliamentary Budget Officer's] baseline projection.” An increase of 2.1% as a resul…”
The complete record
Every one of 440 lines we hold for Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 9.
“Bill C‑219 amends several laws, including the Sergei Magnitsky Law, to provide that “transnational repression be sanctioned”, which is very positive, and that “visas or other documents must not be issued to immediate family members of a foreign national who is the subject of an order or regulation”. The enactment amends the Special Economic Measures Act to change that act's long title and shorten it to the “Sergei Magnitsky Global Sanctions Act”. Mr. Magnitsky wound up in a Moscow prison where he was tortured for 358 days for alleged tax evasion. He succumbed to untreated pancreatitis in a grim way in 2009 at the age of 38. (1820) The bill proposes a definition of “prisoner of conscience”.”
“For example, a family could be afraid of reprisals from the country in question and could be totally opposed to making the information publicly available. This point was raised by the Bloc Québécois during the study of Bill C-281. The bill also introduces the concept of transnational repression, a request that was also made by the Bloc Québécois. We even included it in our election platform. I would like to thank my colleague, the sponsor of the bill, for including this concept in his bill. It is extremely important and it is certainly very timely. The world is changing at breakneck speed, and transnational repression is happening here, in Quebec and Canada. My Uyghur friends, my Tibetan friends, my friends from Taiwan, my friends from Hong Kong will attest to that. It is pretty obvious. In that sense, what would this bill actually do?”
“Bill C-219 is similar in some ways to Bill C-281, which died on the Order Paper in the Senate after receiving unanimous support in the House of Commons at third reading, including support from the Bloc Québécois. As I was saying, Bill C-219 incorporates some aspects of Bill C-281, but with a few significant differences. Committee work will therefore be essential—as I think my Liberal colleagues have said—to verify the scope and impact of the bill and to propose amendments as necessary. More specifically, as my colleague from Jonquière mentioned in a question earlier, I am thinking that the request to publish the names and status of political prisoners may not sit well with immediate family members for a number of obvious reasons.”
“Committee work has a concrete impact on people's lives. Unfortunately, as I said at the outset, I do not believe that this government fully understands the legislative implications or the scope of the work involved. Without wanting to make puns like my Conservative friends do, who cares about committee work? That is probably what the Prime Minister would say. I say this because, while the bill before us today incorporates several aspects of Bill C‑281 , some elements are quite different. Bill C-219 was introduced by our Conservative colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman . I would like to send him my thoughts because he is an extraordinary person and a pleasure to work with, and he is going through some difficult times these days.”
“On this point, I am thinking more specifically of the colleagues I have the honour to serve with on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights or my friends on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, with whom I recently studied Bill C-3 on lost Canadians, and whose amendments, though supported by the majority of committee members, were defeated once they arrived in the House. Today, I feel I must highlight the importance of the work carried out by parliamentarians in committee. I know that this aspect of our work requires thoroughness, precision and, above all, a willingness to collaborate and improve things. Unfortunately, as we know, committee proceedings are not the most exciting thing to watch on television. However, committees are where the most important work is done for the future.”
“Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to be able to give this speech this evening because what I have to say is very important to me. Since the new Parliament began, many of my colleagues in the House will certainly have noticed, as I have, that the importance of parliamentary and committee work seems of little interest to the Prime Minister of Canada. He seems far too busy meeting with leaders of what I would call dubious countries, to put it politely, including China, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In the meantime, parliamentarians are working hard in committee to improve bills or collaborate on drafting reports and recommendations, often involving complex files, based on testimony that is frequently heart-wrenching or hard to hear.”
“Mr. Chair, I must be the only member of this House who, just before being elected, worked on paper machines. I think I know the forestry industry well. I know what it is like to work 12-hour shifts during the day, at night or on weekends on paper machines. There is no one in this House who can say they know that better than I do. My colleague, whom I really like, is fighting to protect the environment. I would like to know how she feels when she sees the current government putting billions of dollars into subsidies for the oil and gas industry and not a damn penny for the forestry industry, even though it is the industry that is best positioned to combat greenhouse gases.”
“Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. My colleague says that he did not understand the question, so there is clearly an interpretation issue. If we intend to abide by the Official Languages Act, I suggest that my colleague rephrase his question so that my colleague can hear it properly.”
“Mr. Chair, during the budget debates, we talked a lot about government spending that made no sense, along with an $80-billion deficit. For one thing, this government extended tax credits for the oil industry until 2040. These tax credits for the oil industry are collectively going to cost us $100 billion. In the meantime, the struggling forestry sector is getting not one penny. That is why we are here this evening. Does my colleague agree with me that it makes no sense to give $100 billion in tax credits to the oil industry and absolutely nothing to the forestry industry?”
“Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. Earlier, my colleague from Jonquière asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources a question. He asked him whether he was open to the Bloc Québécois's proposal. Actually, this proposal comes from the industry and the unions, but the Bloc Québécois supports it. It consists of asking the government to buy back 50% of the countervailing duties. The parliamentary secretary told us he was open to the idea and wanted to consider it. Can my colleague tell me whether she too is open to this proposal, which is supported by the Bloc and, again, comes from the sector, by which I mean not just the industry, but the unions and municipal officials as well? Is she open to the Bloc Québécois's proposal?”
“Mr. Speaker, people are waiting for years to get their citizenship, while Ottawa drags out the process, dithers, twiddles its thumbs and sits on its backside. We know what the Liberal solution is. All it would take for Ottawa to finally get moving is a referendum in Quebec. Imagine how the conversation would go. If people want their file to be processed faster, they would be instructed to vote no, out of gratitude to the great Canadian government. How is it that Canada's immigration system never seems to work, except when it is time to hurt Quebec?”
“Does he agree with me that the $100 billion collectively being given to the oil and gas industry in the form of tax credits epitomizes how irresponsible the current government is being?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech. I strongly agree with one thing in particular that he mentioned. What the government is doing with public money is irresponsible. It is creating record deficits. It is increasing the debt even further, a debt that will have to be paid off by future generations. What is happening is irresponsible. My colleague put it well. One specific example comes to mind among many. Collectively, this budget allocates $100 billion in tax credits to the oil and gas industry. That is $100 billion in subsidies disguised as tax credits. Not a single Conservative has told me that I am right. Given how passionate my colleague was in his speech, I have a feeling that this time it will work.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised an extremely important point. I am surprised to see that members from all parties do not agree with us that a carbon tax rebate was issued even though the tax was never paid. Just before the election campaign, suddenly everyone across Canada received a cheque, except the people in Quebec and British Columbia, because those two provinces do not pay the carbon tax. That tax was never paid, and the rebate was issued before any payment had taken place. That represents $814 million that Quebec paid to the rest of Canada through its taxes during the federal election. I would like my colleague to come back to that, because I think that this is unacceptable. The fact that no one in the House is rising to speak out on this is alarming to me.”
“I would also like to know whether my colleague thinks that the government should just take the Bloc's bill and introduce it as a government bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a rather pointed question about something that is not in the budget or in Bill C‑15 , and that is the government's intention to legislate on forced labour and child labour. In the two previous budgets, the government stated its intention to legislate on this issue, but, at a time when the Prime Minister is trying to thaw relations with China, there is no mention of it in the budget at all. I find that rather fascinating. The Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C‑251 , which seeks to reverse the burden of proof so that it is up to importers, rather than customs officers, to prove that their products are not made with forced labour. I would like to know whether the Conservatives will support the Bloc Québécois's bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, we share the Conservative Party's views on the budget tabled by the Liberal Party, particularly the fact that there is a lot of waste, as we are now facing a generational deficit of $78 billion. I want to thank my colleague for her speech, and I would like to ask her whether she agrees with me on the following point. Among other things, this budget extends tax credits for the oil and gas industry until 2040. Before this budget was tabled, the tax credits were scheduled to end in 2035. Support for the oil and gas industry, which does not need it, was already costing the public treasury and taxpayers $83 billion. With this extension, the collective cost will rise to $100 billion in tax credits for the industry. Does my colleague agree that this is a prime example of wasteful spending of public funds?”
“Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague often used the phrase “build a stronger Canada”. This summer, the U.S. President posted a tweet demanding that the Prime Minister abolish the GAFAM law, which allowed us to impose a 3% tax on the web giants and would have generated a total of $7.3 billion in public funds over five years. Those funds could then have been redistributed to the media sector without the need for any taxpayer contribution. That is pretty fantastic. The U.S. President's tweet was obeyed. In fact, 24 hours after it was posted, the Prime Minister got rid of the infamous tax. How does obeying a tweet by the U.S. President and foregoing $7.3 billion in public funds over five years amount to building a stronger Canada?”
“I therefore rise today in the House to call on parliamentarians to reaffirm our support for the religious freedom of Tibetans and their right to choose the Dalai Lama's successor without interference, to recognize Tibet's historical status as an occupied nation and to demand respect for human rights in Canada's international relations. Compassion is not weakness. It is strength, courage and inspiration.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the House's attention to the invaluable presence of Richard Gere on Parliament Hill today. He is a staunch defender of rights and freedoms, and his fight for the Tibetan people deserves to be applauded in this House. The year 2025 marks a historic moment: the 90th birthday of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, a man whose entire life epitomizes compassion, peace and moral courage. Today, as parliamentarians, we have the opportunity to send a clear message by making 2025 the year of compassion.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech by my colleague from Kings—Hants. However, what the people on the other side of the House are saying about the forestry sector is totally outrageous. In his speech, the member boasted about measures for the forestry sector. The government is going to give $100 billion in tax credits to the oil and gas industry until 2040, but there is absolutely nothing for forestry. Last week, on Wednesday, October 29, industry and union representatives and municipal officials came to Parliament Hill to make an innovative proposal, namely that the government purchase 50% of the countervailing duties imposed across the border and get its money back when the dispute is resolved. This proposal would give the industry access to cash flow. The government did nothing when those people came to the Hill.”
“I am wondering, do the Conservatives support giving $100 billion in tax credits to an industry that clearly does not need tax credits?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a question I like to ask the Conservatives. Oddly enough, I never get an answer from them, and that always surprises me. I will try my luck with a new colleague. Maybe I stand a better chance of getting an answer from her this time. I asked my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska the same question earlier. It was related to government waste and the deficits that the Liberals like to describe as generational. This budget extends tax credits for oil and gas companies until 2040. We already knew that the tax credits for oil and gas companies until 2035 would cost roughly $83 billion. This extension will raise that total to over $100 billion. The answer I got was it is important that we develop our natural resources. That is not what I am talking about.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Drummond asked a former finance minister a very simple question, and I expect a very simple answer from that former finance minister. How does he explain the fact that security spending for hosting FIFA is listed in the federal government's investment column of this budget, rather than in the expenditure column? I am going to focus on that specific example. Can my colleague explain to me how spending money on security for FIFA is an investment?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his first speech on the budget. He talked about recklessness and waste. I agree with him on that and on several other points. I would like to know whether he shares my opinion on one thing in particular. We already knew that oil companies were getting tax credits to the tune of $83 billion until 2035. This budget extends those credits until 2040. Now, oil companies will be getting $100 billion in the form of tax credits. Is that not a fine example of the government's wastefulness and recklessness? What does my colleague think?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from the member for La Pointe‑de‑l'Île. First, the bill only calls for three years, not five. It was our idea to put that over a five-year period. One part of the member's question is very relevant and very important. One of the amendments that was passed in committee was that the government report annually to Parliament on the number of people who become citizens through Bill C‑3 . Again, we were only asking for accountability. I think this government is rattled because they have to be accountable to Canadians.”
“That is an excellent question, Mr. Speaker I would remind members that that same colleague just told us that had there been more members, it would have been in the committee. He has a fascinating way of looking at politics. I would also remind members that that same colleague told us to bring amendments at second reading, that the committee would work on the bill, and that we would reach consensus on this piece of legislation. That same colleague is now telling us to throw out all the work done at committee as well as all the amendments adopted by the majority of committee members because, as he put it, had there been more members from another party, things would not have turned out this way. It is such sheer madness that one can only laugh.”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe my ears. If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a tractor. “If” can be used to preface any statement. The member opposite has just told me that if there had been New Democratic members on the committee, things might have been different. Yes, but if there had been 78 Bloc Québécois members from Quebec, things might also have been different. If Maxime Bernier had gotten 54 members elected to the House, things might also have been different. The member is saying that if the NDP were a recognized party, things might have been different. Is that the way we do politics here? He is saying that if there had been more New Democratic members, things would turned out differently.”
“We would have voted in favour of this bill if the government and independent members had respected the committee's work, but the outcome shows that nothing happened. We have a bill before us, but it is as if no work was done in the committee. All the work that was done has been thrown out. The Bloc Québecois will not be able to vote in favour of this bill in its present form. I presume the government has struck a deal with the NDP, but this is an unfortunate situation. I think it is appalling. It shows a lack of respect, not for parliamentarians, and not only for democratic institutions, but for the people we represent, who expect us to work in democratic institutions the right way. Above all, they expect us to do our work the way these institutions were designed to function. That concludes what is probably my 44th speech on this topic.”
“It tells us that it will listen to the experts and encourages us to propose amendments. Bill C‑3 was one of the first bills introduced in this Parliament. As a matter of fact, it was the third one, hence the bill number. It is one of the first bills to come up for third reading in the House of Commons. However, everything that was done before has been gutted. There is no respect for the work of the committee. This is unacceptable. It tells us a bit about the Liberals' view of democracy and democratic institutions on Parliament Hill. That is very unfortunate. I believe this could set a dangerous precedent and lead us down a slippery slope. What is the point of committee work if this is the outcome?”
“I am well aware that there is a former prime minister out there who wanted a postnational state, but the idea that people do not need to speak either English or French fluently to become Canadian citizens is quite bizarre. It is just odd. The Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois worked very hard together to, again, take the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as a reference and slip this criterion into Bill C‑3 . These amendments were adopted in committee in a very reasonable and responsible manner. Once again, the government has undone what we accomplished. It is unacceptable to me when the government does not respect an institution such as a parliamentary committee, particularly when it lectures us day after day about the need to work together, to work in committee.”
“A person could be 65 years old, have spent 1,095 days in the country intermittently, not over a specific period, and still be considered to have a substantial connection to Canada. We felt that this did not make sense. The Conservatives proposed an amendment to add the five-year period as a variable and we supported it. (1525) The astounding thing is that today, with the help of independent MPs here in the House, the Liberals undid what we accomplished in committee, even though it made a lot of sense. Our work was based on provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We also thought people should have to be proficient in one of the two official languages in order to obtain Canadian citizenship.”
“Take, for example, the idea of 1,095 days to establish a substantial connection with Canada, which the government decided to include in the bill as a way to demonstrate that a person has strong ties to Canada. The individual must have spent 1,095 days in Canada over an unspecified period of time. Those 1,095 days are not a new concept; they come from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Under that act, if a permanent resident wants to become a naturalized Canadian citizen, they must have spent 1,095 days in Canada over a five-year period. That is the variable. The government is using the 1,095 days in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as a reference, but it is removing one of the two variables, namely the five-year period. In Bill C-3 , the 1,095 days could occur over an indefinite period.”
“These democratic institutions exist to serve the people we represent. If, unfortunately, the government is once again undermining the work being done in these important forums, particularly the one I am talking about, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, what message does that send to the public? How can the public have confidence in democratic institutions if all the work being done is undermined? By the way, committee work is not free. It costs the public money to run committees. We are talking about astronomical costs to run committee meetings. We did the work, but in the end, we find out that our work will not be respected. The amendments that were proposed were very interesting. That is why we supported them.”
“Today, we find ourselves in a situation where the House has blatantly used a parliamentary tool, one that is not used very often, to undo everything that was done in committee. Every day, I hear the Liberals say that committee work is important, that amendments need to be proposed and that the parties will work together. That is exactly what we did. We worked together and we proposed amendments. We then voted on them, and the majority of committee members voted in favour of these amendments, but the procedure that was used in the House completely wiped out the work done in committee. I find that hard to accept. Once again, a Bloc Québécois member is standing up to defend Canadian institutions. It is quite remarkable that we have reached this point. Once again, we respect democratic institutions.”
“That is a huge difference compared to what we were told before. We did our job. We brought in experts and tried to understand how this bill should move forward, given the injustices done to the people known as “lost Canadians”. At the same time, we must do our work rigorously. When changes are made to the Citizenship Act like this, we need to be serious, and this is coming from a Quebec separatist. We were serious, we brought in experts and we worked very hard in committee. All members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration from all parties contributed to that effort. The Conservatives came up with amendments that were very well drafted. The majority of committee members voted in favour of these amendments.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that the speech I am giving today is probably the most anticipated one of the day. As I was saying, I must have spoken to this bill or another version of it at least 45 times. For that reason, I really have no need of notes. There was Bill S-245 in the previous Parliament and Bill C-71 , which was almost identical to Bill C-3 . That said, when we invited experts to appear before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration when it was studying Bill C-3, the Parliamentary Budget Officer came and set the record straight. Basically, when we were presented with such a bill, we were told that it would affect about 800 to 1,000 people at most. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that, depending on the algorithms he used, it could affect between 115,000 and 300,000 people.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Chinese regime is guilty of genocide against the Uyghurs and Turkic peoples in Xinjiang. This genocide includes forced labour and child labour to make products such as cotton. Their blood is on our hands. This House has formally recognized the genocide, but that has not stopped the Prime Minister from courting China. The Bloc Québécois bill is simple: It follows in the footsteps of the United States, which is banning the import of products made with forced labour. My question is simple: Will you support the Bloc's bill, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my speech. I do not even need my notes to talk about this bill anymore. As I was saying, we worked hard in committee. We did our job as parliamentarians. Our work was thorough and amendments were adopted by the majority of committee members. Those amendments made this bill better than it was when it was referred to the committee. The party currently in power has formed a minority government, yet it is behaving like a majority government. The government keeps telling us that it received a strong mandate from the people. It received a minority mandate. Perhaps it should be aware of that. Today the government is presenting the budget, and it should be doubly aware of that fact. I assume that I will continue my speech after question period, since I have not finished yet.”
“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with one of my colleagues. It is unbelievable that I am here before the House, just before question period and before the budget is tabled, to once again talk about Bill C‑3 . I would remind members that we also discussed Bill S‑245 and Bill C‑71 in a previous Parliament. I have probably given 25 speeches on exactly this issue, which is discussed in Bill C‑3 in particular. As my Conservative colleague just said, we did a thorough and responsible job in committee. We did our job, we listened to the experts and we even heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer in committee.”
“Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. In committee, he and I worked hard, responsibly and collaboratively on amending the bill. The party in power tells us every day how important committee work is. It tells us that we have to work together to conduct thorough studies or to examine bills. That is exactly what we did at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We proposed amendments and the majority of committee members voted in favour of those amendments. Today, we are in a situation where the Liberals are not respecting the work of the committee. I would like my colleague's thoughts on this. What does this say about the Liberals' view of democratic institutions and the parliamentary tools we have at our disposal to do our job as parliamentarians?”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are a people like any other, neither better nor worse. We might be a little cooler though. Like all peoples of the world, Quebec deserves to be sovereign at home, it deserves to have its voice heard in the world, and most importantly, it deserves to make all of its own democratic choices. The Clarity Act undermines this principle. English Canada retains the right to oversee our democracy. When will the government repeal this colonialist legislation?”
“I would like assurances from my colleague today that the committee's work on Bill C‑14 will be respected and that what happened to Bill C‑3 will not happen to Bill C‑14.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work. We have been hearing a lot about the work done in committee and how important that work is when legislation like Bill C‑14 makes its way there. Unfortunately, something happened recently with Bill C‑3 , which the committee worked on and amended. The bill that came back here was not the same as the original version because we had amended it with Conservative support. However, the Liberal government decided to undo those amendments using House of Commons procedure. Apparently the government decided not to respect the work done in committee. We are in favour of Bill C‑14, but we want to work on it in committee. We have concerns.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore for his speech. I work with that member on various issues, including those related to Tibet, but we are dealing with something else today. As my colleague knows, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑14 and wants to refer it to committee. However, we are apprehensive. We will propose amendments in committee. There will be discussions and hard work. The bill may be amended in committee. Our fear is what will happen when the bill returns here from committee. If it is amended, but the Liberals do not like the amendments, they might use the House of Commons to cancel the amendments to the bill made in committee. That is what happened with Bill C‑3 . That scares me because, if they can do that, then what is the point of working in committee?”
“Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has concerns about this bill, but we want to study it in committee so we can propose amendments. The Conservatives will probably want to propose amendments too. However, an additional concern has emerged. During the committee's study of Bill C‑3 , members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration voted in favour of a number of amendments. When the bill came back here, the Liberals set out to use the work of the House to undo all the amendments we had worked on in committee. Is my colleague as concerned about this as I am? This bill will go to committee, where we will do a rigorous job and work hard to amend it. Is he afraid the Liberals will undo all of the committee's work when the bill comes back to the House?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous that the government will not tell us how many people are currently affected by this law and will obtain citizenship. Worse still, after this bill passes, the government does not want to tell us how many people will be affected year after year. The government is allergic to accountability, no matter what the issue is. It is the opposite of Midas, who turns everything he touches into gold. The government turns everything into a word I will not say. This government has a real problem with being accountable to the people. No one understands why, since it is the government's duty to be accountable to the public. Every time the government is asked for a report or accountability, it buries its head in the sand like an ostrich. This government is truly shameful when it comes to being accountable to the people.”
“As things stand, in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, it is not even a requirement. A person need only to be fluent in English to become a Canadian citizen, even if they live in Quebec. It makes no sense because French is the official language of Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, this amendment is very important. Obviously, we want to demonstrate that a person who obtains citizenship has a special connection to Canada. That is the first thing. I also think that, when someone of legal age is seeking to acquire citizenship, requiring them to speak one of the two official languages should not even be a question. There are countries where knowing the language is mandatory in order to obtain citizenship, so I believe the work that we did was tough, but perfectly reasonable. Again, why do people even need to be compelled to learn the national language, which is French in Quebec, before becoming a citizen living in Quebec? At the Bloc Québécois, we take things further. We think that when someone has an address in Quebec and they want to obtain citizenship, they should be fluent in French.”
“What the government is doing now is simply joining forces with another party that does not sit on the committee and is not there to vote on amendments. Unfortunately, the work done in committee is being taken lightly by this group, which is always saying it wants to collaborate.”