Brad Redekopp
Saskatoon West, Saskatchewan · Conservative · Canada
“Bill C-287. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-287, An Act to amend the National Research Council Act . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present my private member's bill, the housing cost transparency act. Canada is in a housing crisis.”
“These summaries would show what a proposal does, what housing is affected, who pays, what benefits are expected and what assumptions are being made. It would also improve governance, transparency, public registry information and annual reporting.”
“Even by 2030-31, there is still going to be a deficit of over $50 billion, by their own estimate. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an officer appointed by the government, a person whom the government trusts, tells us it is going to be even worse than the government is saying; the government is actually not telling us the truth, th…”
“A car could be sold multiple times during its life, two, three, four times, and every single time, GST is charged, and the government makes money on that. We think that is unfair. The government should get the GST at the beginning, and that should be the end of it. I want to thank my colleague the member for Elgin—St.”
“The debt charges this year will be just about $60 billion. To put that into perspective, the amount of money the federal government gives to the provinces for health care is $55 billion, so we are actually spending more on interest than what the government gives for health care.”
“The Liberals do not want to have questions asked; they want to avoid all that. As they are spending hundreds of billions of dollars, it appears that they are evading accountability. That is not a good look, and Canadians can see that. The decisions that would be made in this bill would impact Canadians for decades.”
The complete record
Every one of 397 lines we hold for Brad Redekopp, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 8.
“Therefore, police are not empowered to lay these charges, because the prosecutors will simply not prosecute them. Conservatives believe in protecting vulnerable communities; we also believe in free expression, religious freedom and peaceful protest. These are the things that we need to balance. My concern with the legislation is that it would tip the scales a little bit too much toward giving a lot of power to the federal government. I am concerned about free expression. We need to target hate crimes with real enforcement instead of targeting law-abiding Canadians. I want to point out that the symbol part of the legislation can be very tricky as well. Symbols are used in many different situations. Of course, there is the example with the Hindu community, which has used what we would call the swastika for eons as one of its sacred symbols.”
“It is just those last two things, which are relatively small, I would say, that it changes. This is really window dressing. It avoids the real problem, which I have mentioned a few times, and that is proper enforcement. To be clear, I am not criticizing the police. In fact, if we were to talk to any police officers about any kind of crime in our country, they would say that they are very frustrated. They want to enforce the laws, but they have a lot of problems and a lot of things holding them back. For example, they know that criminals will just end up getting bail instead of going to jail, which makes it very difficult for them to arrest people. There is a lack of will at the civic, provincial and even federal levels among prosecutors to actually prosecute these crimes.”
“Removing the requirement for the Attorney General is maybe not the best idea. The other thing that I found, the last thing, was that it removes the word “extreme” from the definition of hatred. Instead of extreme bias or hatred toward a particular group, it says bias or hatred toward that group. Again, it lowers the bar a little, making it a little easier for vexatious charges to be laid, which is concerning to me. We have to be careful that we do not give too much power to the state when it comes to maintaining our freedoms. It is a balance that we have to be really careful with. If we take all of that together, the legislation does not actually do a whole lot. In terms of the first points that I made, we already have the laws to cover what we need to do here.”
“Of course, there is section 430, which deals with mischief to property motivated by hate. That is already an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years. We have all of these laws on the books that deal with the subject matter that this particular legislation is talking about. (1815) I kept reading because there was more. There were a couple more things that I found. The first was that the law removes the requirement for the Attorney General to agree to lay hate charges. There are pros and cons to this. Some would say that this is a roadblock and that it makes it difficult to lay hate charges. Others would say that it also prevents vexatious charges from happening. It provides that sober second thought to make sure that this does indeed reach the bar of a hate crime.”
“Thomas, where a family that moved into a neighbourhood was promoting a lot of anti-Semitic material and songs and a swastika was mowed into the lawn. Guess what. Two people were arrested and charged with criminal harassment, public incitement of hatred and mischief. This just happened. We obviously have not passed this bill yet, yet the police had the laws and tools they needed to charge these two people. Fortunately, in this case, charges were laid. There are of course even more laws. There is a hate propaganda law in section 318, even for things like advocating genocide. There is section 319, for public incitement likely to cause a breach of the peace. Subsection 319(2) deals with the wilful promotion of hatred, and subsection 319(2.1) is about the wilful promotion of anti-Semitism.”
“In fact, section 718.2 of the Criminal Code makes hate an aggravating factor when someone is convicted. In other words, if a person is convicted of assault, mischief or some more serious crime and it was motivated by hate, a judge can add hate as an aggravating factor, which would make the sentence that much longer. It would make the offence that much more serious to the person. We already have this, and again, it is just not enforced as much as it should be. A fourth offence would be created by this bill, a new hate propaganda offence, which would prohibit the public display of certain hate or terrorist symbols with intent to promote hatred against an identifiable group. An unfortunate example of this happened just a week ago in St.”
“That is a whole other level of intimidation when someone cannot physically get there. Once again, we already have laws for this. There are subsections 176(2) and 176(3) in the Criminal Code, for obstructing or disturbing religious services or meetings. It is already an offence. There is also section 264, which deals with criminal harassment, threats and stalking. These are long-standing offences that have been used in many different cases, but there is often a lack of enforcement of these laws in the specific circumstances related to churches and other religious institutions. I found a third criminal offence that the bill would create, which is a new hate crime offence. It proposes to establish that any federal offence motivated by hatred would be a distinct offence with elevated penalties. We already have laws against hate.”
“In other words, if there was a demonstration outside a church, mosque or synagogue and a person trying to go there felt intimidated and did not feel safe, that is what this bill is referring to. Okay, that is fine, but we already have subsection 423(1) of the Criminal Code, which is about using intimidation to stop people from doing something lawful. It is not so much that we are lacking the law to protect our religious, cultural, educational and community places, but it is that we do not tend to enforce the law that is already there. I kept reading the bill and found a second offence that it would create, a new obstruction offence, which would prohibit intentionally obstructing or interfering with lawful access to religious, cultural, education or community places.”
“When I first looked at this bill, it seemed like something I would maybe be interested in supporting. However, as I started talking to people, I heard a lot of people say they were for it and a lot say they were against it. A lot of issues started coming up, and I realized that maybe a bit more needed to be looked at in this bill. Instead of reading about the bill, I grabbed the bill and looked at it to see what it actually said, and I found some interesting things. The first thing I noticed as I read the bill is that it would create a new intimidation offence. It would prohibit conduct intended to provoke fear in order to impede access to religious, cultural, education or community places.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to split my time with the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler . This legislation, in my view, is flawed and redundant. We already have laws to cover what this legislation would be doing. I am going to talk about the real issue that I see, which is enforcing criminal laws in our country. It is one of the problems we have in our country right now, not the lack of laws. I also want to talk a bit about what we should be talking about, which is our Conservative plan to combat crime. There are real crimes happening in our country and real problems that everyday citizens are facing, and we need to take action. That is what we need to talk about. I am not a lawyer, but frankly, anything to do with stopping hate sounds like a good thing.”
“The petitioners are calling upon the government to bring back the mandatory minimum sentences for the trafficking, importing and production of illegal narcotics that were removed in Bill C-5 ; end the dangerous safe supply experiment, which has lowered the cost and increased the supply of narcotics on the street; and invest in real treatment for drug users, such as rehabilitation beds that encourage people to get off drugs. I fully support this petition.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Fairhaven, Meadowgreen Park and Confederation Park in Saskatoon, all of whom have faced significant challenges as crime, chaos and disorder take over their neighbourhoods. The petitioners note that drug use and homelessness have overrun their neighbourhoods, making public areas, schools and even private backyards unsafe, and that safe supply and harm reduction programs paid for by the federal government have prolonged and encouraged drug use instead of offering treatment for addiction.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague bringing up the issue of temporary residence in Canada because this is a major issue right now in our country. The data from the member's own party shows that well over 7% of the population right now is temporary. This has been totally caused by the government's lack of attention to this area and its encouragement for people to come to Canada, with absolutely no oversight, no controls and no limits. Of course people came. People will use the system that is given to them and now, all of a sudden, we have a problem that the government is finally waking up to. This is entirely the fault of the Liberal government, something that should have been completely preventable and should have allowed Canadians who live here to have access to health care, housing and jobs.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. The most important thing we need to do as a country is to make sure that we have the best controls we can on asylum seekers so that we are not attracting people. Former prime minister Trudeau famously said that Canada was open and invited people to come to Canada. Guess what. People came. Of course they did. It is really important that we make sure we have systems in place that can quickly process people and do not do things that unnecessarily draw people to Canada who should not be coming here because they have perfectly good places to live. Yes, we can handle real asylum seekers. We have a system that can absorb them, and they should be absorbed right across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear that the Liberals are finally listening to what Canadians have been telling them for 10 years. However, we have seen over and over again a lot of talk and ideas, but the action is not there. Maybe they will introduce something, I do not know. We have not seen it. This is a pattern we have grown to become very used to on this side of the House over the last 10 years. I might note that most of the members on that side in positions of authority are the same. It is the same government with the same track record as before. Conservatives are happy to work on anything that makes sense and that we can support, but I want to see some real action from the government.”
“At the end of the day, my job is to deliver for families along 22nd Street, for the seniors in Montgomery, for the small shops, churches and little league teams all across Saskatoon, and that means a Conservative government that will strengthen our borders, protect civil liberties, destroy the scourge of fentanyl and keep our streets safe by keeping criminals in jail. We can make that happen.”
“The government will say that Bill C-2 is about strong borders, but for people in Saskatoon West, strong borders mean less fentanyl on our streets, not more surveillance in their inbox; more CBSA capacity, not more Ottawa control over family finances; and an immigration system that works for Canada, not for corporate lobbyists and political theatre in Washington. I like some elements of Bill C-2 , which are basically the elements through which the Liberals are trying desperately to undo the ideas that they themselves implemented. However, the bill is a large omnibus bill that includes typical Liberal overreach that I cannot support. I want to see immediate help for the front lines, the CBSA officers, Saskatoon police and community safety partners, while I fight the government's overreach and demand real sentencing reform.”
“Three is to hammer fentanyl kingpins with life sentences for organized crime production and trafficking with a clear 40 milligram trafficking threshold. We need to flood the zone with treatment and recovery, not failed safe supply experiments. Last, we must secure fair immigration that puts Canadians first and ends the wage-suppressing temporary foreign worker scheme while keeping a narrowly focused agricultural stream. We need to clear the backlogs and put Saskatoon youth and Canadian workers first in line for Canadian jobs.”
“The third issue is border competence without civil liberties overreach. We must upgrade scanners at crossings and ports, extend CBSA powers along the entire border and track departures so that deportees do not disappear. These are real tools that would have real results, all while protecting the privacy rights of law-abiding Saskatoon families and small businesses. Here are our common-sense solutions to deal with these issues. One is to fix the border and implement border and enforcement tools that actually help CBSA but stay away from the surveillance back doors and cash bans. Two is to have jail and not bail to end the catch-and-release for repeat violent offenders, restore mandatory prison for serious gun and hard drug crimes and end house arrest for violent offences. Our community deserves nothing less.”
“How often can police check up on criminals at home? We can bet that these thugs are coming and going as normal while they serve out their sentences. The results are obvious in the stats and on our streets. It is time to bring back jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders and restore mandatory prison times for the worst crimes. The second big issue is fentanyl. Bill C-2 tweaks the current law around drug precursors, which is fine, but it does nothing about the cartel-level producers and traffickers who treat Canadian penalties as just the cost of doing business. Common-sense Conservatives will propose targeted constitutional life sentence provisions for those producing or trafficking fentanyl. That is what a real deterrent looks like, and that is what Saskatoon West deserves.”
“It is a policy that leaves local youth and newcomers alike worse off. Folks in Saskatoon West feel this on both ends. Employers are begging for skilled trades and reliable workers, while at the same time, high school grads and polytechnic students in Saskatoon West tell me that they cannot get their first job, because Liberals allowed a temporary program to become a permanent substitute for Canadian labour. That is on this government. Let me be clear about what Bill C-2 misses and what Saskatoon West needs. The first issue is bail and sentencing. The Liberals' catch-and-release approach failed. They repealed mandatory prison time for serious gun crimes and drug trafficking, and instead expanded house arrest for offences such as sexual assault and kidnapping. Instead of jail for serious offences, criminals are told to stay at home.”
“The number of temporary residents exploded to over three million people, nearly 7.5% of our total population. This rapid uncontrolled population growth has led to obvious shortages in housing and jobs, and put enormous strains on our health care and education systems. Employers turned the temporary foreign worker program into a wage suppression crutch. It was supposed to be for hard-to-fill agricultural jobs, but it ballooned into restaurants, hotels and just about everywhere else. We propose restoring it back to an ag-only policy because, in the first six months of this year alone, the Liberals issued 105,000 temporary foreign worker permits, despite promising a cap of 82,000, which flooded entry-level markets while Saskatoon students struggled to find summer jobs. That is not compassion.”
“Regarding immigration, the Liberals broke a system that used to work. Canada's system was the envy of the world. Countries would come to Canada to see our system so they might implement it in their own countries. In the last 10 years, the Liberal government has broken almost our entire immigration system to the point where those people are no longer coming to see how we do it, but rather how not to do it, so they do not wreck their own. (1300) This, of course, is not the fault of immigrants. Immigrants just used the system that was given to them. This was purely the government's fault. The good news is that it can be fixed, and we know how to fix it. The Liberals did not think that there should be limits on temporary residents, and guess what.”
“Yes, there are abuses of cash transactions as well, but instead of banning cash, we need better tools to stop crimes with cash. Otherwise, the government's overreach will hit hardest on the little guy in places like Saskatoon. Then there is the privacy hit. The bill would create new pathways for information demands and cross-border data grabs, lowering thresholds for access to subscriber and transmission data. The Supreme Court has recognized a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information and IP addresses, yet the government buries a workaround in a border bill and tells Saskatoon families to trust it. This legislation would create a warrantless runaround for the police to invade our fibre optic networks, something the Liberals hid deep in this 140-page omnibus bill.”
“Is that what we are debating today? Sadly, it is not. What exactly is Bill C-2 ? The bill has elements to improve border tools, such as compelling export-side co-operation with CBSA, authorizing security patrols and improving interdiction of contraband in the mail. Conservatives can work with that. We all want to stop guns, drugs and stolen cars, but the bill also veers into bundled surveillance powers, a cash crackdown and a political rewrite of asylum rules. Bill C-2 slaps on a blanket cap for cash transactions over $10,000 without offering evidence for why a federal ban, rather than record-keeping, is needed. In Saskatoon West, seniors, small contractors and family-run shops still use cash for perfectly legitimate reasons.”
“However, last year, it spiked again to 383 deaths, making it a record year, even outstripping the COVID years. What has it been over the first eight months of 2025? It is a whopping 330 deaths already, well on pace to have the most deaths in the history of our province. These numbers are not elsewhere or in theory. They are our neighbours, our coworkers and our kids. If members want a picture of what Ottawa's failed approach looks like on the ground, they can find Health Canada safe supply warnings taped outside a pharmacy on 22nd Street right in our riding. That is how close the crisis is. There is hope. The solutions are obvious by now: repeal Bills C-5 and C-75 to ensure repeat offenders get jail and not bail and focus our care on a recovery model rather than on keeping people in a perpetual state of addiction.”
“Saskatoon police chief McBride summed it up this way. He said, “all of the intervention work that police tried to accomplish through holding them accountable, utilizing legislation is for naught...it is a struggle every day for us with repeat offenders.” That is what families in Saskatoon West feel every day, in their communities, in their driveways and outside their corner stores. They feel that, whatever happens, the revolving door of criminals will keep going due to the Liberals' soft-on-crime agenda. While we fight to keep our streets safe, the opioid disaster continues to devastate our province. The Saskatchewan Coroners Service recorded eight deaths by fentanyl poisoning in 2016. That number peaked at 272 in 2021 and was still 252 in 2023.”
“In our city, there were 13 homicides in 2023, 14 in 2024, and by Labour Day this year, only two-thirds of the way through the year, there were already six people slain. Those are not statistics. They are families reeling and a community on edge. Assaults are up this year. Sexual assaults and violations are up. Most alarming is that there have been 818 weapons charges brought forward in the first eight months of this year. These are not isolated spikes. They reflect a Saskatchewan trend line that has gone the wrong way under a Liberal government. Since 2015, violent firearms offences in Saskatchewan are up 206%. Extortion is up over 600%. Even motor vehicle theft is higher than it was. These crimes, more often than not, are committed by repeat offenders out on bail or who have had their sentences severely reduced.”
“Mr. Speaker, when I look across Saskatoon West, past the shopfronts along 22nd Street, and the family homes and small businesses that built the west end of Saskatoon, I see the real cost of 10 years of Liberal failures on crime, drugs and immigration. The government broke these systems, and Bill C-2 is its frantic omnibus attempt to look tough at a podium while ducking accountability at home. It stuffed sweeping surveillance powers in a de facto war on cash into a border bill, then dares ordinary people to swallow the lot. That might work for Ottawa insiders, but it does not work for folks in Confederation Park, Meadowgreen, Mount Royal, Montgomery Place and every neighbourhood in Saskatoon West that wants safe streets and a fair shot. Let us start where my constituents live today, with local safety.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for an amazing speech. The question I have for him has been talked about today. The government has not put forward any sort of number as far as how many people this bill might affect. The PBO did an estimate, but the government has not been able to make any of those estimates with respect to the number of people, which of course then relates to the costs that are going to be incurred by Canadian taxpayers potentially. I would be curious to know what the member thinks about that and if he has any estimates or ideas about what this might cost Canadian taxpayers.”
“Mr. Speaker, two points have been raised a number of times today, with the legislation as it is proposed, relating to language requirements and criminal history. I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary whether there is any indication, any acceptance or agreement from the government that these things should be considered. We consider them with all other types of immigrants to Canada. We do not want to bring criminals into our country. I think there is a widely established agreement among Canadians. It is the same with language. It is very important that people coming to Canada can speak either English or French. I would like to know the parliamentary secretary's thoughts on those two points.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the questions that was asked to the government in the prior Parliament was how many people this bill might affect. That was when it was in its previous form, as Bill C-71 , and the Liberals did not have an answer. They had no clue, basically. They could not make an estimate, which then leads to obvious questions. The member spoke about health care, but it also raises questions about other expenses we might incur. Speaking on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, what does the member think about that? Should there be at least numbers of people, so that there can be estimates of costs and impacts on Canada from this issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, I just heard the member for Vancouver East talk about championing the government's bill, and it made me think back to the last Parliament, in which the party of which she is a member continually, on issue after issue, championed the government's legislation. In fact, the NDP always supported it. It sounds as though, even today, its members have not learned much, and they are still continuing to blindly support the legislation being put forth by the government, even though their party does not really even exist in the House anymore. My question for the member is, how is that working out for you? Why do you continue to support the Liberal government? How did that work out for you?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to fix the Liberals' broken bail system, but has not delivered. It is another broken Liberal promise and another Liberal bait and switch because the Prime Minister is just another Liberal. Chief McBride, Saskatoon's top cop, says that it is a struggle every day with repeat offenders. The Prime Minister said he would get tough on crime, but since the Liberals took power, repeat offenders have fuelled a crime wave in Canada with violent crimes up 55%. When will the Prime Minister stop breaking promises and put repeat violent offenders behind bars?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have been unable to get a number from the government today of how many people this might impact. We have the PBO number. It was 115,000 people, so it is at least that many people or it could be more. What are the ways in which that many new citizens might impact Canada when it comes to the work that needs to be done in the bureaucracy and the cost to Canadians for things like old age security and other things?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was going to say it is always a pleasure, but I am not sure it is, to listen to the member from Winnipeg— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Brad Redekopp: Okay, it is a pleasure. Mr. Speaker, there are things that we have been trying to get at today that we have not gotten an answer for. I know that the member is very knowledgeable, so I am hoping that he will have an answer for it. It is the number of people who would be impacted by this legislation. It is important because we have heard numbers in the hundreds of thousands, and the government seems to be unable to provide a real number. It is important because the legislation would potentially cause a lot of extra bureaucratic work in different departments, and certainly it would cost Canada money.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is not in this bill is any sort of security check or background check on the people who might be conferred citizenship. As the member well knows, and as all of us do, security checks can be a really big, enormous, time-consuming part of getting citizenship. My question to the member is this: What does he think about that? Does he think there should be security checks? How does that compare to the security checks that are already in place for existing people who want to get PRs and the time that it takes? Should there be a comparable process?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech intently. One thing we need to know as we study this bill in the House and maybe further in committee is the impact of it on Canada. In other words, how many people would this bill impact? How many new Canadians would it create? I ask that because it is important. It would affect the administrative requirements of Canada with people applying for citizenship, applying for old age security and applying for passports. Also, there would be financial implications. If people are going to gain old age security, that is going to be a cost. I wonder if the member has an idea of how many people this bill would impact and what the cost would be.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that amendments are on the table and that the government is willing to listen to them. One of the things, as the member well knows, is that we are very concerned about the bill's allowing for non-consecutive days in Canada and a fairly weak connection test to Canada. I would like to remind the member that the rule for becoming a citizen is that people have to have been in Canada for three out of the last five years. I would ask the member whether she thinks that might be a better substantial connection test that could be done as an amendment to the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear that the parliamentary secretary had not looked at the bill until this morning and is learning all about it now. There is one thing I want to point out. He talked about how the 1,095 days might be consistent with something else. The government's website says that someone has to have lived in Canada for three out of the last five years to be eligible to become a Canadian citizen. Would the member agree that is a better test for a substantial connection to Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member spoke, in her awesome speech, about the fact that the government has no numbers. It got me thinking about the impact this has on the system in Canada. For example, all of us know that it takes a long time to get things through the immigration department. It has been plagued by a big backlog and delays. There are also other ways in which I could see new citizens impacting Canada, for example with old age security. Could the member comment on some of the impacts that hundreds of thousands of new citizens might have on the costs in our government?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we did just hear a number from the member. That is great. I have heard that number before, in relation to just one segment of the bill. However, I do not believe the main part of the bill, which is the citizenship by descent for generation after generation, is covered by that number. We have heard estimates of hundreds of thousands of people. If we do not get numbers from the government, then how are we supposed to know? Can the member provide the number of how many people will be impacted by citizenship by descent? Will the government be providing that information for committee when we get to that work?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech, and it honestly sounded like most of it was written by the government PR department. It was something I might have heard on a reel in EPCOT Center at the Canada Pavilion, although there was some discussion about Bill C-3 . When this was at committee last, Conservatives asked many questions about how many people it would potentially give citizenship to, and we had trouble getting a number from the government. I wonder if the member can enlighten us on how many people this bill would affect and how many new citizens it would create. If she does not have a number, I would ask if she thinks it makes sense to create a new citizenship bill without actually knowing how it is going to impact Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree. That is one of the key things. If we look at some of the other countries, we see they have much more stringent requirements. I think we should have at least a consecutive requirement. Even three years, in my mind, would not be enough. If we look at the U.S., for example, it has a five-year requirement, and two of those years have to be after the age of 14. I think we can look to our peer countries to find many good examples of how to make a more substantial connection test, and having consecutive days is key to that.”
“That is why the process we are going through here in the House is so important, and what the bill will go through at committee is vital.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member knows well the processes of the House. Obviously, it could be done at committee. That is a good thing. We all know of unique cases that have happened. We cannot craft legislation that covers every single situation. Sometimes it works out well for people, and sometimes there is a bit more work that is required. What is really critical, from my perspective, is that the legislation we create covers all situations. We have to make sure we do not allow bad legislation to get through that allows for loopholes such as, for example, the father and son who were given citizenship, who clearly should not have, because security checks were not properly made. Therefore, we have to make sure that the legislation we approve in the House is as solid as can be.”
“I want to point out that the member, and others from the former party that used to exist in the House, were right beside the Liberals all the way along. They were helping them at every single step. That may be why they are in the position they are in today.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are concerned about citizenship and want to make sure crazy things are not implemented into our system. That is why we take the time to look at things. We make sure that we give it proper investigation and bring in the proper experts, and that is what happened. The member mentioned Bill C-71 . That was completely under the control of the government. That had nothing to do with us. The government controlled the agenda. It could have brought it forward. It could have made changes. It could have had that implemented if it chose to. It was not able to control the calendar in a way that made any sense, and it was not able to get it done, just like so many things the Liberal government was unable to get done in the last Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, as everyone in the chamber knows, Canada is suffering from an increase in crime because of the way the Liberal government changed the laws, particularly around bail, and weakened statutes, along with other ways that have made it easier for criminals to stay out of jail. We have to be very careful about crime and to not do anything to potentially increase it. That is why I am very concerned that this bill has no provision for any kind of security check on the new citizenship that it would create. That does not make any sense. It is not the same standard that we apply to others who are given citizenship. We need to be extremely cautious and careful about not checking backgrounds and not checking for convictions and things like that. It is very important to do that and make those changes in the bill.”
“I can certainly imagine that the immigration committee is going to be very consumed with all kinds of issues because of the broken system that the Liberals created.”