Andrew Lawton
Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“They will claim full coverage, as we see across southwestern Ontario in particular, when everyone who lives there knows that is just a joke. I thank my colleague across the aisle from Compton—Stanstead for introducing this very important discussion. I have actually spent some time in her riding in the past, and I know it is very rural.”
“I want to see us identify ways to ensure accuracy in telecom coverage maps in rural Canada, but I also want to see us fix and expand those areas where we know the coverage is not there.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege, as always, to rise and speak on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. It is a particular privilege to speak to a bill such as this one, which speaks directly to one of the most persistent concerns I hear from people in the rural communities in my riding, scattered across Elgin County…”
“We still have the same problem, which is that we have people looking to a new technology, but that not solving the problem, which is applicable to not just the farmers in my riding, but all the people who live in these rural communities who want to work in these communities, want to study in these communities and, as my colleague for Aval…”
“As technology evolves, we see farmers incorporating more and more technology into their work that requires cellular connectivity, especially if they are out in the field, far from the Wi-Fi routers they may have in their homes or, increasingly, in their barns.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. It is with great pride and pleasure that I present a petition on behalf of representatives of the Elgin County Drowning Prevention Coalition, including Briar McCaw, Linda King and Nathan MacIntyre of the RIP Current Information Project.”
The complete record
Every one of 676 lines we hold for Andrew Lawton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 14.
“Perhaps some Liberals who are members of religious communities, or who represent people who are, are starting to wonder why the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister are trying to remove protections on expressing religious belief from the Criminal Code, opening faith leaders and individual people of faith to criminal prosecution if their religious beliefs do not conform to the Liberal government's. We need to be able to do real work as legislators. The justice committee must be able to do real work on Bill C-9 . If the Liberals stopped obstructing their own agenda and stood by or rejected this amendment, doing so publicly and clearly, they could do it right now. Any member can get up in questions and comments and say that they have listened to Canadians and are backing away from this. I invite them to do it this very second.”
“This is something the Liberal government has demanded Conservatives go along with in its agenda. When we said to let us review, line by line, exactly what they are trying to do, they cancelled the meeting, so we do not know when the Liberal government will decide to get around to this. Perhaps they are dealing with some tumult within their own ranks over how to deal with this. I have had a number of conversations with all members of the House, and I realize there are people representing a variety of faith backgrounds who are members of Parliament for different parties.”
“There are people in the House of Commons and the Liberal Party who have a range of views. It is possible that the committee chair was out of line and not speaking for the Liberal government. I am very grateful that, just a couple of weeks after the member chairing the justice committee said that people should be criminally prosecuted for quoting scripture, he was removed from his post. The Liberals removed him as the justice committee chair, but that was to promote him. He is now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. The Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said that prosecutors should be able to, in his words, “press charges” against people quoting scriptures that he finds offensive and that the Liberal government finds offensive.”
“These amendments to Bill C-9 must also be understood alongside the fact that the Liberal government would change the definition of hate in Bill C-9. In doing so, as civil liberties experts and advocates from the political left and political right have said, they are putting in a murky definition that would make it easier to prosecute people for their thoughts, their beliefs and, in particular, their religious expression. If members want to know what the Liberals think about this, I would refer them to what the former Liberal justice committee chair said: Religious scriptures, and he mentioned three entire books of the Bible and Torah, are “hateful” at times. He said that it should be criminal to quote certain scriptures. We have a pluralistic country.”
“Madam Speaker, this is another example of Liberals trying to silence and censor people they do not agree with. This is exactly why we cannot let in what they are trying to sneak in through the back door with Bill C-9 passing. This is a Liberal government that has taken every opportunity to put religious freedom and freedom of expression in its crosshairs. This is a Liberal government that freezes the bank accounts of protesters. This is a Liberal government that, under the guise of protecting children, tries to expand the Canadian Human Rights Act to block what Canadian people can say on the Internet. Absolutely, I will take no lectures from any member opposite when we are trying to protect the freedoms of Canadians of all faiths. Incidentally, I will point out the fact that we cannot view any of this in isolation.”
“In doing this, we would be able to have a full accounting of exactly what Pandora's box the Liberal government would unleash on Canadians with its proposed Bill C-9 and the amendments that would remove religious safeguards. (1055) There are going to be, I suspect, some interventions from my Liberal colleagues, who will say, “No, we are not talking about freedom of religion in general. We are just talking about people who conceal hateful, criminal and violent rhetoric in religious language.” I have some news for those members: That is already illegal. There is no protection in the Criminal Code for people who incite genocide. There is no protection in the Criminal Code for people who threaten violence. There is no protection in the Criminal Code for people who incite hatred.”
“We need to be able to speak to the Canadians who would be affected by this and who are alarmed by this. We need to be able to speak directly to the groups of people who have been excluded from the Bill C-9 study because of the Liberal government's desire to obstruct and filibuster its own agenda. The reason I am rising with this motion is that we need to proceed with a proper study. We need to go into all of these communities in Canada and speak directly to those people who are so often excluded from the process. I am thinking specifically of people in ethnic communities, who do not necessarily consume mainstream media, and are likely better for it. I am speaking, of course, of people in remote communities, for whom accessing committee proceedings in Ottawa is a great challenge.”
“All of them are saying they do not trust that their religious freedom would be preserved if the Liberal government proceeded with this secret deal it has with the Bloc Québécois to remove fundamental religious safeguards from the Criminal Code. The Liberal government could clear this up very easily. It could come out and say it is backing away from this and no longer proceeding with its plans to take aim at religious freedom. I would love to hear one of my Liberal colleagues over there say that. In fact, I hear a great deal of chatter from my Liberal colleagues now. If one of them could get up and say they will not be proceeding with these assaults on religious expression and freedom of religion, it would make this country a better place. We need to do the proper work as a committee.”
“I do not ever make the mistake of accusing the Liberals of competence, but they are filibustering themselves. They are obstructing their own agenda. The Conservatives are ready to do the work. What I suspect may have happened is that the Liberal government has been receiving similar calls and emails to the ones that have been coming in to my office from Canadians who are very alarmed by this amendment and, in general, by what Bill C-9 would mean for freedom of expression and religious freedom. People are alarmed by this. I have received calls from members of the Jewish community, the Muslim community and the Christian community and from Hindus and Sikhs.”
“The interesting thing here is that we had the resources to do our committee's work on Tuesday from 3.30 p.m., when the justice committee meeting started, until midnight. Conservative members were prepared to go line by line and clause by clause through Bill C-9 , but the Liberals adjourned the meeting at 5:30, after we had agreed on and adopted only one clause as a committee. Yesterday, in question period, one of my colleagues, who is a Liberal member on the justice committee, got up and demanded that we continue our work on Thursday, which is today. This morning, I looked at my email and I saw that the Liberal committee chair had cancelled today's committee meeting. The clause-by-clause review of Bill C-9 , which the Liberal government said the Conservatives were obstructing, has been obstructed by the Liberals.”
“We are moving this motion because we believe it is critical that the justice committee give Bill C-9 proper scrutiny, given the alarming details we have learned in the last few days that the Liberal government has reached a secret deal with the Bloc Québécois to have a full-out assault on the religious freedom of Canadians. There was a story in the National Post on the weekend, revealing that the Bloc Québécois desire to remove fundamental safeguards for religious freedom from the Criminal Code was going to be supported by the Liberals in exchange for Bloc Québécois support for Bill C-9 . In the days since this, the Conservatives have tried to do proper legislative scrutiny of Bill C-9 . The Liberals dared to accuse the Conservatives of filibustering and obstructing, but I want to explain two critical things that have just happened.”
“moved: Motion That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), the committee be granted the power to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations .”
“Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to the motion adopted on Thursday, November 20, regarding Parliament's unwavering commitment to protect children from sexual exploitation. This was a very important motion, and we proceeded with a very rigorous debate in this committee. We understand that numerous figures in this country, including provincial premiers, have called on the federal government to invoke the notwithstanding clause and reinstitute mandatory minimum sentences for those who traffic in and view child sexual exploitation and abuse material. This committee wanted to send a very strong message that the House has no tolerance for that and is calling on the government to bring this back.”
“Madam Speaker, unlike my colleagues on the Liberal benches, I do not enjoy thinking about taxes all that often, because every time I do, the blood pressure goes up. I think we need to have a wholesale re-evaluation of government spending. Let us stop looking at Canadians as though they are an endless source of money, or as my Francophone colleagues say, une vache à lait .”
“Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question. Given that she voted for the budget and now says she regrets it, maybe more time to review the budget is necessary for all of us. I do not take a position on the specific timing of the budget, but I do not respect the Liberal government holding the country hostage by saying to the opposition parties that we must pass this or else, and using that as a cudgel to shoehorn reckless spending into what this country is doing. I think that is very irresponsible, and I would be happy to work with my colleague on finding a way to prevent governments from doing that in the future.”
“This is a profound mismatch that desperately needs a government that will put affordability, and what ordinary Canadians care about and need, as its first priority.”
“Madam Speaker, I think it is very difficult when a government tries to shoehorn a large suite of changes into a single bill and then turns around to accuse Conservatives of not working on the government's timeline. We need to get it right more than we need to get it done quickly on some of these things. I will go back to comments I made earlier about the priorities the government has set out. The government found money in the budget for Eurovision and for seizing firearms from law-abiding gun owners. That would cost 700-and-some-odd million dollars, and that is just what the government has acknowledged as the cost of that program. There are going to be other things as well, but the government has not found the time to come up with a plan to save auto jobs.”
“Madam Speaker, I am glad our hon. colleague pointed out how much the Prime Minister enjoys travelling. The reality is that Conservatives do support a strong economy, which is why we were saying that we need to get rid of capital gains for profits that are reinvested in Canada. It is why we need to get rid of the consumer carbon tax and the industrial carbon tax. It is why we need to eliminate the barriers to development and home construction. All of these things are still things that Canada needs. My response to the hon. member would be, if the Liberals are going to take our ideas, they need to take all of them for the sake of the country.”
“It is not that I am asking the Prime Minister to Brookfield-ize the country, but my goodness, if he is going to be the grand economist he tells us he is, why is he not acting like it?”
“They did not trust the government, under whose watch they could not find a job or buy a house, or trust that it would have their backs moving forward. These people need more than a government that is going to shrug its shoulders and say, “Who cares?” They need a government that is going to put affordability first, a government that will put their future first and a government that will respect that racking up deficits and debt is not the way we grow a country. Attracting business, attracting investment and allowing for job creation is how we do it. I do not think Brookfield ever would have put up with the Prime Minister if he were running that company's books the way he is running the country's now. Brookfield actually makes money. Canada right now is losing money.”
“If he wanted to be in the history books, he has done it. He has outspent Justin Trudeau, one of the most spendthrifty prime ministers this country has ever had. Now we ask how Canadians are going to pay for it, how we are going to be forced to fund the government's credit card spending and what the message to the next generation is. I go back to the Prime Minister 's comments to young people just a few weeks back, when he told them they would have to make sacrifices. My background is in media. I was a journalist before I entered the House. I have some breaking news for the Prime Minister: They have been making sacrifices. Youth have been sacrificing, which is why so many young people for the first time in their lives voted Conservative this past election, because they did not believe they had a future under the Liberals.”
“Christmas is coming and more Canadian auto workers are getting pink slips. The situation is quite grim. GDP per capita is used to gauge differences in living standards across countries. Higher levels of GDP per capita output are generally found in more developed countries, but we have seen that this has not grown in seven years. There has been profound economic decline under the Liberal government's watch. We have often heard in this chamber that this is a “new government”. It is a new government that looks an awful lot like the old government, not just in terms of the composition on the benches and in the cabinet, but certainly in the spending. I did not know it was possible to outspend Justin Trudeau, but I admire the Prime Minister on that achievement, which, again, I never would have thought possible.”
“It is the next generation and the generation after that, unless there is a course correction, by which I mean a Conservative government, that will be forced to continuously fund the government's reckless credit card debt. If the government could come to us and tell us what the gain would be, it would be a different story. Again, what do we see? We see more money going to bankers and bondholders. We see more money going to consultants. We see auto jobs fleeing. I spoke yesterday in question period with the industry minister , who promised 40 days ago now a full update from GM on the shuttering of the CAMI plant in Ingersoll, which is not in my riding but employs, or I should say employed, a number of the people I represent. We are 25 days beyond that 40-day deadline and there is no plan.”
“Canadians will pay for it now with their taxes, or they will pay for it next year with their taxes. We know the debt interest that Canadians have to shoulder, the debt interest Canadians have to pay, is billions upon billions upon billions a year. This year, we are spending more on debt interest than we are collecting in GST revenue. We are spending more on debt interest than we are giving the provinces in health transfers. This is unsustainable. The $90 billion in new spending in this budget is about $5,400 for every Canadian family. Of that, $1,400 is going to the consultants. Where are Canadians expected to find this money? We are being told that this is generational investment, but it is generational debt. It is money the government is spending now that it does not have and that eventually will come due.”
“However, the Liberal budget has $26 billion for consultants. That is an increase of just shy of 40%. Maybe the Liberals could hire one of the consultants to come up with a report on how to reduce reliance on consultants. Yes, they did that, and they are still increasing the amount of money they are spending on consultants. (1055) I come back to the question of priorities. We have pointed out that this is an irresponsible budget, a budget that runs up a deficit of $78 billion. By definition, a deficit is the government spending money it does not have. It can only collect this from two places. It can take out loans. It can borrow the money and thus increase the debt burden on Canadians, or it can increase taxes. Either way, Canadians are going to have to pay for it.”
“There is $150 million for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as “cultural investment” to create a plan for Canada to explore participation in the Eurovision Song Contest. I realize the Prime Minister is a proud European, but even then, I do not think it is a priority for Canadians. Not one single person has said that is something they believe their hard-earned tax dollars should go toward. Similarly, no one has told me that they cannot afford groceries, their daughter cannot afford a house and their son cannot find a job, but what would be really helpful is more money for government consultants. It is possible some constituents have told some Liberal MPs that, but not one has ever told me they think we need to give Deloitte more money or that KPMG is really struggling in this economy.”
“We also have to deal with the fact that the Liberal government has largely been in the driver's seat for the last 10 years as these problems have ballooned or been aggravated beyond what Canadians can withstand. I come back to the question of priorities. I have spoken about this budget to more constituents than I can count. People have sent me emails. I have had phone calls, and I have met people in the riding. In fact, someone came up to me at the grocery store and we looked at the products that people are having so much difficulty paying for right now. None of these people have come to me and said that what we need in this country and what they are really concerned about is that Canada does not have Eurovision. No one has said that. Eurovision is in the budget.”
“As we discuss the budget implementation act, the law that applies the Liberal government's budget to the country, the question I am left with is this: What are the government's priorities, truly? The Prime Minister , infamously now, a couple of weeks ago, when asked about his conversations with the United States as it pertained to getting a deal for Canada to protect Canadian workers, said, “Who cares?” That has become a rather dismissive response that I think is indicative of how the Prime Minister has viewed many of the concerns facing Canadians, certainly affordability concerns. Most Canadians do not have millions upon millions of dollars of assets and Brookfield stocks to rely on. Canadians have to scrimp and save to get by. Canadians have to deal with these realities in a way that the Prime Minister does not.”
“Grocery costs, which we once largely acknowledged had to be paid and could be managed, would maybe be a little more expensive one week and people would clip coupons to save a little bit here and there, but groceries have now become a luxury to some people. We see this locally. Food bank usage has been on the rise across the country. The St. Thomas Elgin Food Bank expects to have to feed 30,000 mouths this year. That is the third straight year of record demand. That is unsustainable. A society in which people need to use the food bank to fill their fridges and pantries is not a society that is functioning the way it must. What Canadians needed and deserved was a budget that would put affordability front and centre.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, which represents so much of what we have in this country. We have the larger city of London and rural communities such as Eagle and New Sarum. We have burgeoning communities like St. Thomas, which were once viewed as small farming towns but now are growing to tens of thousands of people, who are coming from all over the country and all over the world. All of these people have been seeing, under the last 10 years of the Liberal government, how unaffordable life has become. We see it at the grocery store. We see it in housing. Home ownership, which used to be a dream that everyone could rally around, has now become, for so many people, especially young people, a pipe dream. It has become a fantasy.”
“Mr. Speaker, when GM shut down the CAMI plant and laid off 1,200 workers, the industry minister claimed she was on it. She said she was demanding a full update from GM within 15 days, and that she would offer transparency to Canadians. This was 39 days ago. There is no clarity, no plan and no relief for auto workers in Elgin, St. Thomas and London, whom the Liberal government told it would have their backs. When the Prime Minister was asked about standing up for Canadian jobs, he said, “who cares?” My question for the industry minister is this: Does she?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the plug for my book. If the member were to read books instead of talking points, the country would be in a better place. Food prices have risen almost 40% faster in Canada than in the United States. Beef is up 17% and chicken is up 6.2%, and now the Liberals are adding a fuel tax that will make gas 17¢ a litre more expensive. Driving in my riding and in rural Canada is not a luxury; it is a necessity. A tax on gas is a tax on life. When will the Liberals get real and make life more affordable?”
“Mr. Speaker, the current Liberal government is the most expensive in Canadian history. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians and drives up the cost of everything, especially food. At the St. Thomas Elgin Food Bank, there is record demand. Four out of five Canadians say that food is their top expense pressure, and the Liberals are standing by their industrial carbon tax, which makes it more expensive to grow, ship and sell food. Not only are the Liberals not scrapping it; they are increasing it. Why is the Prime Minister making life more expensive for Canadians when they cannot even get by as it is?”
“Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board said the government is “spending less to invest more”. The Prime Minister said the deficit would be capped at $62 billion, but this budget has it at $78 billion. Is 78 more or less than 62?”
“As for accountability, he has appeared in question period just 11 times this fall. If the Prime Minister is this bored with Canada, can he please make his next junket a one-way ticket?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish our high-flying Prime Minister coveted results as much as air miles. Since taking office, he has made 28 trips, flying 153,000 kilometres, which is enough to circle the globe four times. He is off again this week, heading to the United Arab Emirates and then South Africa. That is no surprise from the Prime Minister, who collects passports like Pokémon and identifies as European when he is hanging out in Davos with his fellow global elites. What do Canadians have to show for this? There are no trade deals and no tariff relief, just photo ops and hollow letters of intent. The Prime Minister blew past his own deadlines with the United States with no deal, and his eight-day junket to Asia made no progress. Chinese tariffs stay, India added new ones, and not a single tariff has been lifted on Canadian goods in eight months.”
“The Liberals can try to use whatever tricky words they would like, but at the end of the day, this is a budget that is going to create $320 billion more debt over the next five years, which future generations of Canadians will be forced to bear. Why is there no path to genuinely balancing the budget, and why are we not able to see what Canadians are going to be getting for this money that is mortgaging the future generations?”
“Mr. Speaker, I hear the words “investment, investment, investment” over and over. What I do not hear is the more honest framing of “spending, spending, spending”. If we want to get private sector investment in this country, and certainly in my region, we need the government to abandon the industrial carbon tax and to reduce costly and burdensome regulations. We need the government to admit that it has been killing jobs over the last 10 years by suffocating companies. We do not attract private sector investment by ballooning and bloating the size of government, which is precisely what this budget is going to do.”
“This budget will only put Canadians at risk of having to spend more in debt interest and having to deal with more inflation because of runaway debt and deficit spending, with no plan to secure our jobs and secure an economic future for our country. Will the Prime Minister say once and for all that the Liberals have a plan to protect the auto sector and reveal what it is?”
“There has been, from the Liberal government, a fair bit in the way of revisionism. When we called out what the Prime Minister said, which is that he would get a deal with the United States, a deal with Donald Trump, by July, the Liberals said that he did not really mean that. He meant that he would work toward it. It was not really a deadline; it was a guideline. Well, for Canadians who put their trust in the Prime Minister to secure an economic future for this country, that is a broken promise. In this budget, we do not have anything resembling a plan that will protect auto workers and will protect manufacturing jobs in my region and across the country.”
“Where is the master financier, the guy who can move at the speed of crisis? Where is that Prime Minister? The question I asked in this House a few weeks ago and on which I rise again today has to do with the auto sector specifically. My riding of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South has a great many employees who have been affected by a number of plant closures over recent weeks. Some are from the CAMI plant in the neighbouring riding of Oxford , and some are vendors and suppliers to CAMI around the region, including in my riding, where hundreds of workers, well over 1,200, have been put directly at economic risk, their livelihoods terminated because of the government's failure to fulfill a promise that it made, the key promise by the Prime Minister to stand up for the auto sector.”
“When I bring that up, it is to say that these numbers have meaning. Canada's fiscal situation is dire after 10 years of mismanagement by the Liberal government. This is something we have heard warnings of. We have the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. The deficit of $78 billion is one that the Liberal government and the Prime Minister said would not exist, because he promised a deficit of no more than $62 billion. The reason this is so important is that Canadians could not afford to run their own household budgets the way the government is running Canada's budget. In fact, I do not think the Prime Minister would have had the deal he did at Brookfield if he had run Brookfield the way he is now running Canada and Canada's books. Where is the master banker we were promised?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in this House. I suspect members opposite knew I had the first late show this evening, and that is why so many of them are still here, which we are not used to seeing in Adjournment Proceedings. I am very grateful for that. I note that the question I am asking of the government comes on the heels of this House's passage of what I will say is a very dangerous budget for Canada and for Canadians. It is a budget that cements a $78-billion deficit, a budget that signs Canada up to $321 billion more in new debt over the coming years and a budget that will allow $55 billion to be spent this year on debt interest alone. That is more than the government spends on health transfers going to provinces. That is more than the government spends on child tax incentives. That is more than Canada collects in GST.”
“Madam Speaker, there is a narrative we have been hearing from the Liberals today, which is that the budget they have put forward should just be blindly accepted by all opposition parties, and that if we do not go along with this reckless budget, an election is on our hands. Interestingly, with a member as loquacious as my colleague from Winnipeg North , we can always find something he has said in the chamber. Back when there was a Conservative minority government, he sang a very different tune. All of his messages, and I found about a dozen of them, were about how the government needs to listen to opposition parties. My question to my colleague from the neighbouring riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington is, when did it become the obligation of opposition parties to find support for government legislation?”
“Madam Speaker, the member for Markham—Unionville is the embodiment of what the Conservatives have been trying to say, which is that to be a Canadian citizen requires, or should require, a commitment to and an investment in Canada. Can the member, as someone who was not born in Canada, speak to the value of Canadian citizenship and what that should mean for people?”
“Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Winnipeg North is an experienced member. He knows better than to speak directly to my hon. colleague rather than through you. He was accusing you of doing something, which I am sure you will be the first to admit you were not actually doing.”
“Madam Speaker, the question at hand is, what constitutes a substantial connection? Again, the Conservatives worked across party lines at committee to beef up this definition because we do not believe the one in Bill C-3 adequately ensures there is a substantial connection to Canada. I most certainly believe Canadian citizens should be invested in our country. That is absolutely not disputed, certainly not by our side.”
“Madam Speaker, I love how much of a range there is of people, backgrounds and beliefs in this country. It is interesting that, when members of the Liberal government talk about the value of diversity, they never promote diversity of thought and diversity of opinion. That is a form of diversity they do not particularly go for. I hope the Liberal government will truly back off on its attempt to censor and restrict what Canadians say online.”
“Madam Speaker, I do not think we should allow external pressures to force something through that is imperfect. [ Translation ] I want to thank my colleague for her question. I respect Quebeckers a lot for having these conversations about identity and nationality. Quebeckers understand their heritage and they have a clear definition of who they are. What bothers me about the Liberal government's approach is that the Liberals do not believe that there is such a thing as a Canadian identity. The Liberals think that Canada is a postnational country. That is dangerous. It devalues Canadian citizenship.”
“Madam Speaker, this is a gross misrepresentation of what the Conservatives have been trying to do on this bill. There are already tools available to the government to deal with lost Canadians. The minister has tremendous latitude on this. What we are talking about is not a government that has not been in power for 10 years. We are talking about the value of Canadian citizenship and people who, despite no real meaningful connection to Canada, will be permitted to access Canadian citizenship if this bill passes.”