Fred Davies
Niagara South, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, there is no rhetoric or bluster here, as the minister does his fancy dance over there. The price of used cars has more than doubled over the last several years as a result of the government's inflationary policies. Taxing a vehicle twice is wrong.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill S‑210 to designate September as Ukrainian heritage month in Canada, not merely as a matter of multicultural courtesy but an act of moral clarity, historical justice and national affirmation. This bill is not symbolic in the diminishing sense of the word.”
“Over 1.3 million Canadians today identify as having Ukraine heritage. Four Governors General have been of Ukrainian descent. Ukrainian Canadians have served in our military, on our supreme courts and in our legislatures, shaped by culture that prizes resilience, community and a ferocious attachment to freedom.”
“When this Parliament debates Ukrainian heritage month, we are debating it against the backdrop of Mariupol, Bucha and Kherson, while Ukrainian families in Canada carry the grief of relatives killed under Russian occupation. To pass this bill is to say the culture Russia is trying to destroy is a culture Canada honours.”
“She called it what it was, which was “political posturing”, saying, “It does not affect our way forward in any way whatsoever”. This is the Canadian answer to Russian intimidation: not retreat, not appeasement, but moving forward. Sentinel is cut from the same cloth as those prairie settlers.”
“Given the current war and Russia's documented attempts to suppress Ukrainian cultural expression, ban the Ukrainian language in occupied territories, destroy cultural monuments and abduct children, the designation of Ukrainian heritage month is an act of cultural solidarity. It says that, what they are burning, we are keeping alive.”
The complete record
Every one of 273 lines we hold for Fred Davies, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 6.
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comment from the parliamentary secretary because that is exactly the problem with this legislation. We are not talking about the grandchild. We are talking about the grandchild's children and their children, who may have never had a substantial connection to Canada and who will have access to Canadian citizenship. An hon. member: No. Fred Davies: Yes, they will. Madam Speaker, we need a substantial connection test, one that does not mean some distant relative three or four generations down the road will automatically be entitled to Canadian citizenship. This is someone who does not speak the language, perhaps has a criminal record and has not gone through a security check. None of that makes sense to me. For that reason, we will vote against this legislation.”
“In conclusion, I am saddened to say as a new member of Parliament, having gone through this whole process and understanding the legislative process, that I believed the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader was being sincere when he said to me that the bill should go to committee, where we can make solid amendments to benefit it and make it better. We did that, and we are back to where we are now. That process seems to me to have been a waste of time. For that, I am sorry to see we are back to where we started.”
“I am disappointed that this legislation is now reverting back to a very bad piece of legislation simply because the government feels it has been pressed into doing something by the end of November. The government had the option to appeal the decision of the superior court; it did not. There were several layers of judicial applications that could have been proceeded with that would have given the government more time. Early in this session of Parliament, we had an opportunity to get the bill right. Despite the arbitrary deadline the government believes is there, there were options to have it extended again.”
“It is a “generational” budget, but it is also going to be a generational budget of debt. With this legislation, Bill C-3 , the generational impact of access to citizenship would undermine the value of that citizenship and saddle other generations with the debt we are imposing on them today. That is unfair. We on this side of the House believe the value of Canadian citizenship should mean something more than just having a loose connection to this country. It would undermine the fabric and history of our country. When we see the flag beside the Speaker, we need to understand the roots of it, what it means to be a Canadian and what it means to understand the history of our country and the education, knowledge, language and security of that flag as a meaningful representation of citizenship.”
“We also believe it is not unreasonable for these people to speak one of our two official languages, and that, in the legislation, would also not have to be the case. (1345) There have been several iterations of this legislation from previous parliaments. Those iterations also failed on the floor of the House of Commons before the last election, but this new piece of legislation today, which has now gone back to its original form, is severely flawed. The Conservatives would have supported a bill that had the substantial and reasonable amendments that we proposed, with the support of our Bloc colleagues. They would have made this bill a lot better. We are now faced with a budget coming in a few hours that will provide a generational impact, as noted by the government.”
“They would not go through the normal citizenship process that people who want to come here through normal citizenship applications do. I do not think it is unreasonable, in the amendments we proposed to the legislation, to suggest that pegging a value on citizenship should be based on having a substantial connection to Canada, not just 1,095 days or a five-year period, or just that someone went to school here to get a degree or spent the summers at somebody's cottage. In the bill, this is exactly what would give someone the access to Canadian citizenship, and that, to me, is wrong. It is also not unreasonable to suggest that people who want to get citizenship but who are multiple generations down the line should go through a security and background check. We want people with good records, not criminal records, to be part of our country.”
“That did not entitle me to U.K. citizenship. Under this legislation, those two factors would provide me with citizenship, if I were outside Canada studying for three or four years, or spending 1,095 days in the country. Countries across the world are limiting these opportunities. The legislation is nothing more than chain migration. It is the postnational mentality, where there is no more value to citizenship. It does not seem that the government puts a highly regarded value on citizenship now. Most of the Liberals who have been talking today have been giving examples about first and second generations. The legislation would provide access in perpetuity to Canadian citizenship. Someone would not need to speak the language, go through a security check or have a substantial knowledge of Canada.”
“The government members asked us at the beginning of the session to collaborate and co-operate with them. They asked us to give them things they could work with to help them build better legislation. We did that, and we see today at third reading that it was all for naught. I want to tell a bit of story. Three of my grandparents were born in the U.K., so my father and, I think, a couple of my uncles were born in the U.K. My father was entitled to citizenship, and his was the last generation that would have automatically been entitled to citizenship in the U.K. Canada and the U.K. share a sovereign. Canada is a parliamentary democracy in the British tradition. My roots go back to England and Wales, yet I am not entitled to British citizenship. In addition to that, I did my graduate work in the U.K., in England; I studied there.”
“He said that committee was where we could make a better bill, and he asked why we were filibustering on the floor of the House of Commons. I wish we were still at second reading, because the committee members, including the member for Markham—Unionville , spent hours and hours talking about substantial and reasonable amendments to the legislation. With the support of our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, we were successful in making proposals to make the bill a much better piece of legislation. The original legislation was fundamentally bad, and now that the amendments that the Conservatives and the Bloc managed to get through at committee have been reversed, as my colleague said, what a waste of time this has been. We have wasted weeks and weeks on the legislation, only to come back today to where we started. I am very disappointed.”
“Madam Speaker, it is fortuitous, or even perhaps unfortunate, that I may be the last speaker on the Conservative side to speak to the legislation before the House. I am sure the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will have another question for me, because he always does, and I appreciate his interjections. I am a new member of Parliament. I came from the business community. I am probably, I think, the oldest rookie in the House of Commons, and I am perplexed by the process the legislation came through. I spoke at second reading, and the parliamentary secretary asked me a pointed question after my speech, which was why we were holding the bill up at second reading and why we would not let the Liberals take it to committee, where we could make concrete and substantial amendments to it.”
“Madam Speaker, as members know, I have stood in this place many times over the last couple of months to talk about the brutal sexual assault and rape of a little girl in my riding of Niagara South, “Little E”. Everyone is keenly aware of this case. She was assaulted by a repeat offender, somebody who had just been released and who served one year of a year-and-a-half sentence. He attacked this little girl within weeks of his release. I am wondering if my colleague can comment on how this legislation might have dealt with the release of this offender. Would it have happened under this legislation, and what improvements does he believe need to happen so that people like Daniel Senecal have a sentence that is commensurate with the crime?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite, but I am concerned. The member's initial statement was that he supports the bill as drafted. Can I assume then that the government is going to vote against all the amendments that have been put forward by the Conservative opposition with the support of the Bloc? Second, the member said that his parents were so proud of their citizenship when they came to Canada. My question is this: Would his parents believe in citizenship in perpetuity for people who actually had never set foot in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, the discussions at committee were comprehensive. We spent a lot of time debating various issues with this legislation, and I am very happy that our colleagues in the Bloc and the Conservatives collaborated to understand some of the issues that were affecting this bill, which had gone through several iterations in the previous Parliament. This legislation effectively died in the last Parliament. It died twice in the last Parliament through different iterations. This version, with the the amendments that were put forward by the Conservatives and supported by the Bloc, as well as the amendments the Bloc presented that were supported by us, is a good piece of legislation. I would encourage the government to support it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member raises a valuable point. There is nothing more valuable, in my view, than Canadian citizenship. All four of my grandparents immigrated here with nothing to show when they got here, but they worked hard. They built a family and a life, and they owned a home, which is very difficult for immigrants today. We have to understand that being a Canadian is a special privilege. The process through which people proceed must be a legitimate process, not based on showing up here, being lost in the fabric of Canada and then suddenly being able to obtain citizenship. That is not an option for me, and I think we need to focus more on the suggested amendments to the legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member paints the narrative as though Canada is somehow discriminating against Canadians. Every nation puts limits on the number of generations that can apply for citizenship. It is not unreasonable to put in a generational limit. Chain migration immigration is not an option that any country supports. This legislation would provide a pathway in perpetuity for many generations of people who may never have set foot in this country, except that their parents or their grandparents may have spent five years here. I just cannot support that. There have to be limits. Not everyone can just become a Canadian because they want to.”
“They reflect careful consideration and illustrate that we can compromise and make legislation better, something the Liberals asked us to do. Well, we have, and now this legislation is before us. I encourage the Liberals to accept our amendments to protect the most valuable asset in the world, which is Canadian citizenship.”
“The Peace Bridge in Fort Erie sees over $50 billion a year of trade across the arch of that iconic bridge linking Canada to the U.S. We know we have problems with our entire immigration system. My constituents are very much aware of these issues and have told me that citizenship should not be handed out like playing cards. When I was elected as a Conservative member of Parliament, I made a commitment to the people of Niagara South that I would hold the government to account and ensure common sense would prevail. The amendments made to Bill C-3 represent the values of what it means to be a Canadian and the sacred trust embodied in it. They also make common sense. I encourage my Liberal colleagues to accept our reasonable changes to the Bill.”
“We also passed amendments requiring security checks to ensure Canada is welcoming people who have a good track record, not a criminal one. Requiring 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada over the course of 5 years, a clear language, knowledge of Canada’s history and proper security screenings with annual checkups by the ministry would ensure that new Canadian citizens are truly prepared to embrace the rights, responsibilities and values of our beautiful nation. These are not burdensome hurdles. They are safeguards that uphold the integrity of our citizenship system. Niagara South is a border riding. This past week, I had the opportunity to talk to both the immigration and public safety committees, and in the House, about how we manage the flow of goods and people across one of Canada’s busiest borders.”
“One of the most significant amendments was on citizenship by descent and citizenship by adoption. Under the changes approved at committee, a person cannot be granted citizenship by descent or adoption if neither of their parents, who are Canadian citizens, had not been physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days during any period of five consecutive years before the person’s birth. I know that sounds a little complicated, but there it is. We also passed amendments on language and knowledge. These reinforce the purpose of a Canadian identity and ensure that those who wish to apply for citizenship, either by descent or adoption, have a connection to Canada’s history and one of its official languages.”
“(1305) Even the Liberals will grudgingly acknowledge that they screwed up the immigration system over the past 10 years. With over three million temporary residents and half a million undocumented persons now living in Canada, continuing to allow temporary residents' descendants to automatically claim citizenship will deeply impact Canada’s immigration system, housing, jobs and social services. There are parts of the bill that Conservatives clearly support. We support fixing that glitch in the immigration process that resulted in the so-called lost Canadians, who, through an unintended change in citizenship law, were denied automatic and rightful access to citizenship. My colleagues on the committee and I worked tirelessly over the past months to study Bill C-3 , and we proposed reasonable amendments.”
“Canadian citizenship is also not a loosely connected generational thread for people who have no understanding of what it means to be Canadian and who do not know the generosity of Canada, the magnificence of Canada, the splendour of our Great Lakes, the majesty of our Rocky Mountains, our linguistic duality and the struggles of building this country across vast distances and impossible terrain. The most egregious aspects of the original legislation allowed for loosely connected generational individuals to gain citizenship without official language proficiency, security checks against criminal activity or a basic understanding of Canadian history, a test that everyone else seeking citizenship would need to take before being granted the right to enjoy the most valuable asset in the world, which is being a Canadian.”
“This is chain migration without an adequate connection to our country, and it creates a two-tiered system where those who never lived here get the same rights as those who worked hard to earn their Canadian citizenship. Canadian citizenship should not be inherited as a chattel, an heirloom or a convenient hedge against political or social circumstances elsewhere. Being Canadian takes commitment, not convenience. As one witness said, “There is no benefit derived from having non-contributing citizens living abroad, not paying taxes, but just using a Canadian passport for their convenience and parachuting into Canada when they need assistance.” Canadian citizenship is not a prize. Canadian citizenship is not a hand-me-down. Canadian citizenship is not an asset to be kept in a safe to be used from time to time.”
“Fundamentally, one big question faces the House at this pivotal time in defining the value of being a Canadian: Is it reasonable for anyone who wants to become Canadian to be required to demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada? I say it is absolutely reasonable, but the Liberals have come up with this idea that foreign-born individuals who have never lived here could gain citizenship just because a parent spent a few months here a few years ago. Now, I know my Liberal colleagues will say that I am simplifying the scenario, but I know that my immigrant grandparents would be appalled at this concept as a serious option to become a Canadian.”
“The original text of the bill would have opened the floodgates to people with no serious connection to Canada, either through loose lineage or lived experience here, which was our biggest problem with the legislation. When I was asked to join the citizenship and immigration committee, one of the first pieces of legislation we saw was this bill. Conservatives support several aspects of this legislation and argued at committee for some changes. We were successful in improving the bill, although questions remain. Will the Liberals recognize the improvements we made to the bill, or will they impose a view that seriously diminishes the value and pathway to becoming a Canadian?”
“Let me preface this by saying that my citizenship in this country derives from brave people who came here three generations ago from England, Wales and Italy. They came here looking for a better life. Canada represented, for them, a new frontier, where there was hope, opportunity and a promise that hard work and a commitment to Canada would give them a good life. For me, I owe them everything. I stand here today in this magnificent place of Canadian democracy because of the path and opportunities they gave me as a proud Canadian. While the times were different then, the objectives were the same. They never thought Canadian citizenship was easy. It was hard. They made their way by supporting the ideas of peace, order and good government.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to speak to this stage of Bill C-3 . Canadian citizenship is one of the most valuable possessions on the face of earth. I know, without a doubt, that no one in this chamber would trade, diminish or relinquish their Canadian citizenship for any price, any prize or any thing. We believe, with good reason, that Canadian citizenship is perhaps the most valuable asset in the world. The spirits, the legacy and the sacrifice of those who fought to protect the value of Canadian citizenship are with us here today in this chamber as we consider important changes to the processes and pathways to gaining the most valuable asset in the world, becoming Canadian. We have a sacred obligation to respect their ultimate sacrifice for our democracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, Stellantis announced that Jeep production is moving from Brampton to Illinois, taking 3,000 Canadian jobs with it. The Liberals gave Stellantis up to $10 billion in taxpayer money for an EV plant in Ontario but failed to secure job protection for its workers. They also did this with two EV plants in my riding: one that never opened and one that is still under construction. Will this be another case of déjà vu? When will the Liberal government keep its word and stop the destruction of the auto sector in this country?”
“Mr. Speaker, actually, my speech was a calm debate. It was pointing out existing issues that need to be fixed. If border-scanning equipment were deployed in the port of Montreal, the port of Vancouver, Halifax and across the board, it would instantaneously fix the export of stolen vehicles in Canada. That is how effective this equipment is. It is deployed across the entire U.S. southern border along Mexico. We have one coming to Canada. That is real debate about the solutions we have. I would encourage the government to deploy this across the country and fix the car—”
“Mr. Speaker, at the public safety committee this morning, I was asking questions of officials of the border bridges. They were telling me about the shortfall of CBSA officers across the board. The shortage is well more than 1,000 people a year. There is just no capacity to train these people. When the Gordie Howe International Bridge opens up shortly, the draw of existing officers to that new facility is going to be an enormous burden on our resources and our personnel. The Liberals can talk the big talk and make big announcements, but 1,000 new people is a drop in the bucket of what the CBSA needs. I urge the government to move forward with 1,000 hires annually.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting components of the member's question is that it has nothing to do with this bill. Let us talk about law enforcement. With respect to the CBSA, we hear about the 1,000 jobs being created. I have talked to people at the CBSA and people who have applied for the jobs. There has just been no response. The people who run the CBSA just point out the actual annual turnover of officers, either through resignation or retirement. Unfortunately, lately, there has also been a series of suicides. That has impacted the ability of the CBSA to operate effectively. There is a personnel issue here. The CBSA would hire 1,000 new employees every year, given the opportunity. That is the importance of law enforcement at our—”
“There are serious issues to fix here. I hope the government will pay attention to the points I have raised. My riding's economy, people, businesses and jobs are inextricably linked to Canada and U.S. trade. Please let there be no absurd reannouncements of old projects. We have real problems to fix.”
“What it means directly is that, for non-federally owned or controlled border bridges, the only way to pay for capital expansion for federal freebies is through tolls. There are federally owned bridges, such as Blue Water Bridge, Thousand Islands Bridge and Seaway International Bridge. Under proposed section 6, the costs would be borne by the government because it owns these border crossings, which is not the case with the Peace Bridge. This is a classic government download on the consumer and a lack of organizational understanding. Worse, it manifestly disregards the interests of local residents. The government needs to look at this unfair provision and make changes to ensure there is a level playing field. The legislation imposes a double standard. There is so much more I could talk about regarding this bill, but time does not permit.”
“Proposed section 6 requires operators of international border crossings, like the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie and the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls, to provide existing, new or significantly expanded assets free of charge to the CBSA upon a simple request. The Peace Bridge, unlike others in Canada, is owned by and operated through a binational authority, with no taxpayer or public funding. The operations of the bridge are managed through independent revenue streams or, in simple terms, tolls. This legislation imposes a blanket requirement on the Government of Canada to demand investment in new infrastructure without a financial contribution. This is an open-ended and serious flaw in the legislation.”
“We have been hearing about these extra 1,000 border officers, a high-profile announcement with zero action. I have qualified constituents who have been waiting for months after applying with no response and no callback. No one at the CBSA has an idea of how this can be done. There is simply not enough training capacity. There are other issues facing the CBSA that need to be fixed. Suicide rates in the organization have rocked its members. We need to pay attention to the entire cultural structure before making absurd political announcements. Finally, I need to talk about one very serious issue related to this bill.”
“We no longer feel safe in our safe zones and neighbourhoods. The Prime Minister was in Niagara last week reannouncing old announcements. I would bet a dollar or two that he had no idea this technology was sitting at the base of the Peace Bridge. If he really wanted to look at game-changing opportunities, he would have stood there and fixed the bureaucratic logjam. Instead, he regurgitated old announcements and called it news. I wrote to the Minister of Public Safety , the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of Transport in July urging them to get involved and fast-track this technology out of the bureaucratic logjam. Four months later, it is crickets. Is it any wonder Trump is taking advantage of us? We cannot even launch a project that is already built. What about those 1,000 new jobs at the border?”
“It lowers emissions and commercial congestion. It expedites the identification of contraband and stolen goods. (1240) Last week, I heard a minister across say something about scanning equipment being put into the budget, but I am not sure who it was. If this technology is being considered, my question is this: What took the government so long? The government is talking big about beefing up our security at borders. This bill is supposed to have a major role in this, but we have been standing on the shoreline of this project and missed the proverbial boat to solve one of the most pressing problems plaguing Canadians right now: the theft and export of stolen vehicles. Even ministers of the Crown are not immune to this, one having had his vehicle stolen twice. The anxiety Canadians feel over the lack of response to this epidemic is palpable.”
“Unfortunately, Canadian bureaucracy has held this project up because we cannot seem to get the Canadian nuclear regulatory authority to green-light the technology, a technology already safely and widely deployed around the world. For over a year now, this infrastructure has lain unused at the base of the Peace Bridge and the scanning equipment has sat in storage somewhere in Baltimore, waiting for the Canadian government to live up to its end of the bargain. This technology is pretty amazing. Using state-of-the-art scanning, we can get a full history of the trucks that cross the border, such as driving records, the track record of the company crossing, e-manifest verifications and facial recognition for matching driver identity. We get a complete data package on the vehicle in minutes. This expedites trade and safety.”
“We know that only a small percentage of containers in the major ports in Canada are actually inspected. This is why thousands of stolen cars are being exported to distant criminal markets. This MEP technology is universally used in southern U.S. ports of entry and exit and can provide a full inventory of contents within a minute or two. This technology is not new, but for some reason Canada has dropped the ball on this in the most egregious way. Canada and taxpayers invested $10 million to build the infrastructure for this scanning equipment at the base of the Peace Bridge on the Canadian side two years ago. Guess what. The United States government invested $30 million, literally giving us this technology here in Canada. All we had to do was build the infrastructure, and we did.”
“In my riding, the Peace Bridge is one of the most critical border crossings in Canada, facilitating over $50 billion in trade every year. Tourism from our American friends also drove our local economy. An issue that came up during the election relates again, to the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie. Transport Canada invested $5 million, and the Peace Bridge authority also invested $5 million, to build new infrastructure to scan commercial vehicles leaving Canada. This is called the Peace Bridge pre-arrival readiness evaluation project, or PARE. Multi-energy portal technology exists to scan the contents of trailers, containers and vehicles while the vehicle continues to move at around 10 kilometres an hour through the scanning lanes. It identifies what is actually inside these vehicles.”
“We are in a kind of economic purgatory right now. We have caved to Donald Trump after a decade of missed opportunities, failed industrial and innovation policy and declining productivity. We are now watching the Stellantis deal literally implode before our eyes, losing a long-term key investment and 3,000 jobs. This is a massive failure. There are repercussions to our trade failure, which the Prime Minister said is a rupture. It is an interesting case study in economic impotence. Canadians want solutions, but the government has proposed none. The silence on the file, outside of platitudes and bold but meaningless political hyperbole, tells me that the guy who said he could deal with Trump is appeasing him or simply hoping to wait him out. The guy who said he would engage in nation-building projects simply announced old ones.”
“We do not so much anymore. I am incredibly saddened by the current issues we are facing: trade disputes, tariffs and the strain and stress those are placing on literally thousands of people employed in my riding because we are a border community. Our cross-border business ties have become part of the very bone structure of Niagara South. Niagara South is a great example of what can be built with strong trade links and binational and international commerce. I spent a lifetime in the local business community helping people grow their enterprises, commercialize their products and find markets in and outside Canada. We have struggled over the past 10 years with the brain drain of ideas flowing south to where capital is more readily available. Recent market machinations mean that our already-weakened innovation sector is at even greater risk.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in the debate on this split border bill, Bill C-12 . My riding of Niagara South is a border riding. The town of Fort Erie borders the city of Buffalo. The connection between Canada and the United States in my riding runs deep in our DNA. Everyone I know in every part of my riding has ties to western New York. Crossing the Peace Bridge was like simply crossing the street. Relationships and, indeed, every aspect of our region are, or were, tied to something or someone in the Buffalo or Niagara Falls, New York area. We cheered for the Sabres, of course, unless the Leafs were in town, in which case the KeyBank Center in Buffalo was often filled with a majority of Canadians. We were part of the Bills Mafia and lined up to cross the bridge to tailgate with our American friends.”
“We are done with the reckless Liberal hug-a-thug, weak-on-crime, catch-and-release justice system. Canadians do not feel safe in their neighbourhoods and their homes. lt is time for the Liberals to step up or let Conservatives do it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the residents of Niagara were shocked over the brutal sexual assault of a three-year-old toddler by sexual predator Daniel Senecal. Nearly a year after the Liberal election promise to “act decisively to strengthen the Criminal Code” and protect victims by strengthening bail laws, the government has done nothing. The impact on my community is profound and has mobilized brave people, survivors and the entire region to demand changes to the Criminal Code. I have talked to the first responders in my community. These men and women have children of their own. The chief of Welland's fire services told me that it is important that MPs and leaders from across Canada understand the devastating impact these crimes have on the brave people we depend on to protect us every single day.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am following up on the quantitative easing issue. The Government of Canada went into a stimulus program. In January, the bank said it had normalized and finished its quantitative tightening process, but during the Speech from the Throne, I warned that this was an indication that the government was going to go on a spending spree again. From what I have seen over the last couple of months, as the fiscal house of cards has fallen apart, we are on the verge of massive new quantitative easing. I wonder if my colleague might comment on the impact of that, particularly in the current context of the economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, Daniel Senecal brutally sexually assaulted, choked and nearly killed a three-year-old little girl in Niagara. This crime has mobilized my community and galvanized an effort to have the Criminal Code changed so monsters like this never see the light of day again. The Conservative jail not bail act will restore safe streets and keep vile perpetrators like Daniel Senecal in jail. The government can act right now by supporting our legislation. Will the Prime Minister scrap Liberal bail or get out of the way and let Conservatives do it?”
“Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we believe that the time is right for our bill, Bill C-242 , to be passed in the House of Commons. We are doing this because the Liberals have had ample opportunity to put legislation forward, and they have failed to do it. I do not know what they are waiting for. Do more people need to be brutally beaten and raped by repeat offenders? At what point do we say enough is enough? The opportunity is now. Let us not wait any longer. I implore the government to bring the legislation forward now. It is already written. I do not know what the government is waiting for, but I know that children like little E need to have hope in the government. I ask it to please bring legislation forward or pass the Conservatives' bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, rushing into legislation is obviously never a good thing, but the epidemic of violent crime against people is not new. We have known this for many years. The government has had ample opportunity over the last five months to introduce legislation. My colleagues on this side of the House have been talking about it daily. Conservatives are not rushing into this. We know what the problem is and how to fix it. We need perpetrators such as Daniel Senecal to stay in jail, not get out early. We need him to serve his sentence, serve a longer sentence and never again have the opportunity to assault a little girl as he did in my community.”
“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader turns himself into an apoplectic pretzel from time to time, trying to validate the delay by saying it is on its way. He references the promised Liberal campaign, saying that it is on its way and that they are going to do it, but when will they do it? He should give us a date. What does “the fall” mean? Does that mean next week? We are in the fall now. We need the legislation now so people like little E are safe again in their homes. The Liberals need to change it and bring in the legislation. They have a lot of opportunity to do this. They should do it now. We do not need self-righteous caveats in the House in this language. There is no excuse for delay.”
“To the survivors, I thank them for their courage to talk to me about the pain, the fear and the difficult path of recovery. They give me strength here, and I am grateful for their counsel and help in bringing this message forward. I implore the government to introduce legislation. There is no time to waste. It must bring in legislation now, not sometime in the fall but right now, so dangerous criminals like Daniel Senecal never hurt children again.”