Grant Jackson
Brandon—Souris, Manitoba · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it was very audible, the government whip shouting across that a member was a “liar” in the House. You previously ruled on a heckle that called another member a “liar”, and the member was asked to retract that statement. I would ask, Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister minds addressing whether any of this money would be available for municipalities that are quite small. Despite their not being perhaps as flashy as big announcements in the major cities across Canada, these municipalities, in previous Liberal iterations of bloated federal government programs and fundi…”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it very unfortunate that the member for Winnipeg North would accuse this member of the things that he has put on the record today. I think that is a pretty disturbing accusation to put on the record.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think we will be trusting the minister's word on what a .22 is, given that he did not know what an RPAL is either. Manitoba's premier, Wab Kinew, recently said that the Prime Minister is requiring LNG to be shipped through the port of Churchill by 2030 as a requirement for federal support of the port of Churchill plu…”
“Mr. Speaker, it always amazes me that the theme for the government should be that someday they will get it done, and that member is certainly no exception to that rule. He is in charge of planning for the government, in terms of the House schedule, as is the House leader he serves. That member has been elected in this House since 2010.”
“Mr. Speaker, despite leading Canada into a recession, the Prime Minister continues living in luxury, racking up $1 million in inflight catering alone. Meanwhile, more and more Manitoba families are struggling just to put food on the table.”
The complete record
Every one of 325 lines we hold for Grant Jackson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 7.
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians he would be judged by the cost of groceries. Well, the 60,000 Manitobans who are lined up at food banks each month have judged him. They judged him based on grocery prices, which have not come down. They judged him because even though they are working multiple jobs, they are not able to put food on their own table. They have done everything right, but the Prime Minister has failed them. The question is very simple: When will the Liberals end their inflationary spending and taxes so Canadians can afford to put food on their own kitchen table again?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would invite the minister to get outside the Perimeter Highway in Winnipeg every once in a while to come into our communities in Manitoba. Here are a few facts for her: Families in Manitoba are being squeezed harder than ever thanks to her Liberal government, with Harvest Manitoba reporting today that 60,000 Manitobans a month are accessing food banks, and almost 50% of them are families with young children. That is a record for that minister to be proud of. Canadians do not need handouts fuelling dependence on bloated government programs. They need affordable groceries on their kitchen tables. When is she going to get out of the way and deliver that for Manitoba?”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals came to office in 2015, the average Canadian grocery bill was $160 a week. A decade later, it has more than doubled to $338 a week. That is $17,500 a year, and the food price report for next year confirms that Canadians will pay $1,000 more, which is the largest annual increase ever. Instead of axing taxes and spending, which increase the cost of growing, transporting and selling food, these Liberals actually raised them in budget 2025. When are the Liberals going to read the room and get prices down, so Canadians can afford to eat?”
“There were better levers and better avenues and paths this could have been taken down if they wanted to provide real results for working-class Canadians and seniors on fixed incomes. We know we worked very well with our Bloc colleagues to try to bring that about. It is a shame the Liberals blocked all of those initiatives at committee.”
“Madam Speaker, I certainly do agree with the comments from the member for Edmonton West as well as the member for Mirabel . This bill does not strike at the heart of the people who most need tax relief in this country. It screams of Liberal elitism, giving big tax breaks to the corporate elite in this country, who are very good friends with most of the Liberal front bench. However, it does not help low-income seniors, certainly, or low-income workers. I think it results, for low-income seniors, to 13¢ a day or $4.16 a month, something like that. That is hardly a cup of coffee a month. It is not even that in some parts of the country. This is nothing. There is no real relief here.”
“Madam Speaker, the member is sadly very lost about the conversation going on today. At no point did I talk about fuel standards. Here is something I would like to ask the member: When he travelled on the taxpayer dime to China, what exactly did he achieve in terms of results for ongoing Chinese tariffs on Canadian canola, which is grown and produced in my constituency? We are calling on the government to get over itself and get a deal with China so our producers can continue to sell at prices at which they can make a profit. They know the Conservative Party continues to stand up for Canadian canola producers. Why will that member not do his job and get a deal for Canadian canola farmers?”
“That is the legislation they deserve. That is why Conservatives are standing here. We will continue to stand up for that in this Parliament every day going forward until we deliver a Conservative government that will bring that home for Canadians. I look forward to my colleagues' questions on this bill.”
“Conservatives support letting Canadians keep more of their own money, but when the government gives small tax cuts here, while taking away thousands on the other side, that is not relief; it is just a bait and switch. As such, while we are pleased that there are small tax cuts, this bill certainly does not go far enough. We would have liked to see in this bill a full carbon tax repeal on everything, to support affordability and increase Canadian competitiveness abroad; the GST removed from more homes as well as home construction; a bigger income tax cut that would actually help those in the working class; and responsible government savings by cutting wasteful bureaucracy, foreign aid and corporate handouts to protect the financial health of this country for future generations. That is the government Canadians deserve.”
“The reality is that homes are being built incredibly slowly due to bureaucratic red tape and gong-show housing policy legislation on the Liberal side. Home ownership, with or without this GST rebate, has never been further out of reach for Canadians. Young families and first-time buyers are struggling to enter the market, while construction stagnates, costs rise and regulatory red tape continues to slow the growth of new homes. Conservatives have long been fighting for real solutions, like lowering taxes, cutting red tape and supporting builders, so that Canadians can finally achieve the dream of owning and not just renting a home.”
“For years, our party warned that the carbon tax would raise the cost of everything without reducing emissions, and for years, the Liberals insisted that they were right, we were wrong and everyone else was wrong as well. However, now they are plagiarizing Conservative common sense and pretending it was their idea all along. If they had listened a decade ago, families in communities like Verdin, Boissevain, Souris and Killarney would not be drowning in skyrocketing costs today. Now we see the Liberals rolling out a temporary GST new-housing rebate for first-time homebuyers, a policy that Conservatives campaigned on in the spring election. It took pressure from our party to finally get the Liberals to act, and even now they are presenting it as if it was their own idea.”
“For years they mocked and demonized anyone who questioned their tax-and-spend climate scheme, and they told families in southwestern Manitoba that paying more to heat their homes, drive their trucks and buy their groceries was somehow good for them in the long run. Now 10 years later, in the middle of an affordability crisis that they helped create, the Liberals are desperately trying to walk back the very policy that they flogged and pushed for countless years. Canadians are supposed to applaud the Liberals for putting out the fire they started, but they would not find much of a warm reception for that in my constituency. Let us be clear: The Liberals did not scrap this tax because it was the right thing to do. They scrapped it because Conservatives made it impossible for them to keep defending the indefensible.”
“This does not change the reality that every dollar collected from Canadians is being poured into interest payments and debt service rather than helping Canadian families make ends meet. I find it ironic that after a decade of lecturing Canadians, the Liberals have finally admitted what Conservatives have said from the very beginning. The carbon tax was a costly, punishing failure, and the mental gymnastics that these Liberals now go through, after 10 years of flogging how the carbon tax was going to save the planet and then proudly putting forward a bill that cancelled it, are nothing short of hypocritical.”
“There are higher taxes, higher inflation and a rising burden on ordinary Canadians. At the same time, we see record food bank growth, including in my constituency at the Samaritan House Ministries food bank in downtown Brandon. This is a rising burden on ordinary Canadians that is resulting in families skipping meals and seniors being forced to choose between heating their homes or putting fuel in their cars. (1600) That is not governmental success; it is a systemic failure on a grand scale that is forcing more and more Canadians to be reliant on government handouts just to get by. The Liberal answer is more government programs, more spending and more planning, increasing the money supply, raising debt and calling it investment.”
“A small tax cut or a few dollars here and there will not move the needle for these households when rent, groceries, fuel and utilities continue to rise due to Liberal inflationary spending. Looking at the structure of employment in Brandon and Westman more broadly, around 45% of jobs in Brandon are in health care and social services, retail trade or manufacturing sectors. These sectors often run on modest wages, where many workers feel the pinch of inflation and rising costs most severely. Manitobans are hard-working people. Families raising children, seniors on fixed incomes who worked hard all their lives and young adults trying to start their lives deserve more than vague promises and symbolic gestures. While the Liberal government continues to rack up debt and deficits, cost of living pressures mount.”
“Why does this matter for the people in southwestern Manitoba? It matters because many working families and individuals are already making due on modest incomes while the cost of living climbs. Let us consider this. In Brandon, the average monthly cost of living for a single renter, including housing, food, transportation and basic necessities, is estimated to be approximately $1,800 a month. That is roughly $22,000 a year. Meanwhile, the typical household income in Brandon is lower than the national average. Local data suggests the average individual income does not match national paycheques in my region. For some residents, especially renters, younger workers or those early in their careers, that means a very tight budget from month to month.”
“That is no surprise given that it took the Liberals more than halfway into this fiscal year to come up with the amount of money they had already spent and what they planned to spend for the few remaining months left in this fiscal year, by the time they introduced their budget. Make no mistake: The words used to describe the government's spending, including “shocking”, “stupefying” and “unsustainable”, did not come from partisan critics. They came from the very independent fiscal office that the Liberals themselves put in place and staffed. Meanwhile, the government is adding $80 billion in new spending, which works out to over $5,000 for every household in Canada that someday will have to get paid off. That is money being taken out of the pockets of families, seniors and workers through higher taxes, inflation and interest rates.”
“They said that they had heard Canadians loud and clear and that they understood the pain their policies had caused for nine and a half years in this country. They assured us all that things would be different, but every single one of those promises has turned into failure, and this bill is no different. The House has now passed a budget with a record $78-billion deficit. That is more than twice the kind of deficit that was at one time considered excessive in this country. This is not a minor miscalculation; it is a massive burden added by the government to the future of this country. According to the independent budget officer, the chance the deficit stays below that is less than 10%.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin today by thanking my colleague from Edmonton West for splitting his time with me to share some words about Bill C-4 . The last question of my fellow Manitoban from Riding Mountain about the interest payments on our debt now being higher than health care transfers to provinces was an alarming note to leave it on. With a health care system that is in crisis across Canada, that is an absolutely disastrous record for the Liberals to be leaving this country with. Six months ago, the Liberals stood in the House, and during the election campaign, and asked Canadians to trust them one more time. They promised lower spending. They said, spend less to invest more. They promised lower costs and a smaller, slimmer federal government.”
“Number one is to unleash the economy by cutting taxes, reducing red tape and attracting investment. There are three more important pillars.”
“If the Liberals had been paying attention, they would know that this is why more young people under 40 voted Conservative in the last election than have done in decades. Young people do not want more housing bureaucracies; they want housing built. Young people do not want handouts or food programs; they want affordable food they can purchase themselves. Young people do not want a bloated government bureaucracy in Ottawa; they want good-paying jobs close to home. In short, young people in this country do not want to be forced to rely on government handouts to stay afloat. They want the dignity of being able to build an affordable life for themselves. Where do we go from here? Conservatives have a youth jobs plan, unlike the Liberals across the aisle, and it is built on four key pillars.”
“We do not want to still be living in our parents' basement in our mid- to late-20s; we just cannot actually find a house for which the bank would allow us to take out a loan to buy. This is particularly felt by young people in Westman, home to Manitoba's oil and gas sector and part of our robust agricultural heartland, areas of our economy that have been most depressed by Liberal government policy. That is not a lack of work ethics; it is devastating failure of government policy. To the people in gen Z, many of whom voted for the Liberals in 2015, it is a brutal betrayal that this is how their support is being rewarded: no chance of a debt-free future, no hope for a good job, and increasingly less likelihood of being able to own their own home.”
“Mr. Speaker, what a tragic situation we find ourselves in here in Canada today: record-low employment levels, the worst in 25 years; housing insecurity at dangerous levels; food prices out of control; money printing and deficit spending at unsustainable levels; and a doubling of the national debt in just nine years. Who bears the brunt of this disastrous policy? It is young people. As one of just a few members of Parliament under the age of 30 here today, I feel this keenly. It is my generation of Westman residents, the people I grew up with, who are trying to buy their first home and start their family but who are financially broke due to Liberal policies. Contrary to popular belief, young people in gen Z would work hard if the Liberals' disastrous economic policies would get out of the way so they could actually get a decent job.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was excellent. Something I would like to point out from the member for Winnipeg North 's comments is that he talked about 2008 and 2009 and its all being the Conservatives' fault that there was youth unemployment at that time. He never mentions the economic conditions that were going on at that time; I believe it was the worst recession since the 1930s, whereas the only excuse for having high youth unemployment now is failed Liberal policy. That is the only reason, and they cannot take accountability for it. I wonder if my colleague from Bowmanville—Oshawa North has something to add to that discussion.”
“Instead, the Liberals voted to keep punishing Canadians, refusing to scrap the fuel taxes on fertilizer and farm equipment that drive up costs and inflation. We cannot afford more Liberal failures. Conservatives will continue fighting to deliver an affordable budget so that Canadians can have an affordable life.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said Canadians should judge him by what they pay at the grocery store. Food Banks Canada did just that and gave him a D on poverty and food insecurity after both rose nearly 40%. That is not an inspiring achievement. Food inflation remains 70% above the Bank of Canada's target. Potatoes are up 16%, beef is up 33%, grapes are up 24%, and apples are up 14%. These are not luxuries. They are the staples every Canadian family relies on. About 25% of Canadian families are struggling to afford food, and food bank visits have doubled since 2023. However, it does not have to be this way. This week, Conservatives offered a simple solution: to stop hidden Liberal taxes on food.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a great reminder of an old proverb that should guide all of our work in this place, regardless of which side of the aisle people sit on. It is the exact message of my speech and indeed of our entire party and the opposition parties. If the Prime Minister has nothing to fear, he has nothing to hide. Let us see whether witnesses will come clean at committee and see if this fund through Brookfield, this blind trust, is actually being managed appropriately without the Prime Minister 's decisions and the decisions he and his cabinet are making benefiting him in any way.”
“Mr. Speaker, just to address my Bloc colleague's preamble, I think his intention of wanting to highlight ethics and bring it to a greater forefront in the ongoing discussion in this country is a very admirable goal. I want to commend him on that being part of his commitment to his constituents, and indeed to all Quebeckers and Canadians, when he came to this place. This is certainly something worth reviewing. I know that our opposition parties are working very closely together as members of the ethics committee. That is important, because as officially recognized parties in this place, we need to work together to hold the government to account. That includes on matters related to ethics. I certainly think this is worth reviewing by colleagues, and I commend him for bringing it forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is pretty rich hearing the member for Winnipeg North talk about backroom lines when he has been coming forward for 10 years straight, no matter which prime minister is in the chair, to defend the government on ethical standards, saying the Liberals have done nothing wrong until it is proven. I did not say anything negative about the current Prime Minister at all. I said he may be in a conflict; he may not be. Let us shine the light of ethical review on that. By the way, as you talked about putting partisan political interests first, what about when Canada is in a trade crisis and crime crisis and you prorogue Parliament to knife your leader in the back, go find a new one and call an election just to save the sinking ship of your political party instead of putting the needs of Canadians first?”
“It is a very simple ask from Conservatives. In fact the proposed amended motion actually sets out timelines. If we need to plan the government House business for the Liberals, we have set out the timelines for when this can be done, in the proposed amended motion, so they can plan their legislative agenda accordingly, because, Lord knows, they have not done it yet. There has not been anything from the Liberals. It took them all year to announce a November 4 budget, three-quarters of the way through a fiscal year, so we have set out the timeline for them. Let us get this through, get the witnesses called to committee and then get on with solving the rest of the Liberal challenges that are facing Canadians.”
“We want to know this: Is this now the Liberals' falling into the same old habits of defending the Prime Minister, obfuscating the picture and trying to hide as much as possible, or does the new Prime Minister, the member for Nepean , actually have nothing to hide? Canadians deserve clarity on that, and it is not an unreasonable ask for Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois, or anybody else in this country, to be making. The Liberals can continue to stand up and say this is a total waste of time, but it will reflect poorly on them in the future, just as their defence of their actions in the WE scandal, in the SNC-Lavalin scandal, in the Aga Khan island cover-up, in the green slush fund cover-up and in all of the Liberal cover-ups has reflected badly on them in the days that have followed since they said, “nothing to see here”.”
“That was until it came out that he actually should not have accepted a vacation worth several hundreds of thousand of dollars, on a private island, from a family friend who wanted stuff from the government. Then the Liberals were pretty quiet about it. Then we got into SNC-Lavalin and the government's actually interfering in the prosecution of a private corporation in this country, full of Liberal insiders and friends. There was nothing to see here; the prime minister had done absolutely nothing wrong, but the Liberals fired two of their colleagues over it. Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott got turfed; they bit the dust for Liberal defence mechanisms to defend the prime minister and his office. Then of course it came out that the Liberals had breached ethical activity in those instances.”
“I pointed out in a question earlier that the members opposite stood up for years, debate after debate, and defended Justin Trudeau, saying there was nothing to see on the WE scandal, that he had done nothing wrong. They were shelling out contracts to WE. They hired the prime minister's family members so they could make some money. The Liberals said there was nothing to see, until of course it all came to light that the Liberals had actually done something wrong, and then they were pretty quiet about it. Then we got into the Aga Khan's island, and there was nothing to see here; the prime minister was a wonderful guy with nice hair, and there was nothing wrong.”
“Maybe he is and maybe he is not. We would like to have a discussion about it, and the Liberals are going to tell Canadians that it is a waste of time. I do not know. I guess we will go to the doors sooner rather than later and have that discussion with Canadian voters, and I am curious to hear. I am not sure that the feedback is going to be quite what the Liberals think it is going to be, despite their set talking point. I am not sure whether the individuals listed in the proposed amendment to the motion have already texted the Liberal MPs, saying they do not want to come to the committee and asking them to say whatever they can to make their appearance not happen, or whether this is just standard operating procedure for the Liberals.”
“(1750) Bill C-222 from the member for Oxford has been on the books for a month. The government could have passed it already. The bill could be over in the other place. It might have even received royal assent by now if the Liberals were actually serious about getting something done with respect to crime. It is baffling to the vast majority of Canadians, and certainly the ones I represent, that the Liberals' whole argument is “Oh my gosh, the Conservatives are really holding stuff up.” No, there was legislation on the books regarding these issues, and the Liberals did not pass it. In fact they did not prioritize it, and they voted against a motion that would have expedited the passage of it. Now we want to talk about ethics, because there is potentially the most conflicted Prime Minister in Canadian history sitting in office.”
“The Liberals looked around like they did not know what to do for the rest of the session, as there was no other legislation ready to go. What were they doing when they prorogued for months at a time to run around and find a new leader to salvage the sinking ship of their political party? They did not think of coming up with any new ideas, other than two Conservative platform ideas, to put into legislation. We came back here in September, and it is the same story. We have been talking about crime for eight years and the fact the Liberals' bail system has destroyed community safety across the country. It took them another month and a half to get a bill together. Where were they all summer? Now they are going to tell us that we are holding up that debate and holding up getting those bills passed.”
“I do not think it is really that unreasonable, nor do I think most Canadians would think it is really all that unreasonable, for the Prime Minister 's successor, as well as a number of his current staff, to come to explain exactly how this blind trust works and what exactly the implications are for his finances when he makes decisions. It is not that these people coming to committee would be holding up the work of government. That is a convenient excuse for the Liberals, who have dithered away, as my colleague from Calgary said, the first weeks of this Parliament. We passed Bill C-5 because we agree it is finally time for the Liberals to get something built in this country after 10 years of getting nothing done. Tax cuts are always a good thing, so we voted in favour of that too.”
“Many of those members are still in the front two or three benches advising the Prime Minister on policy issues, but that he should somehow not be held to a standard, that we should somehow not be improving things in this country is a bit baffling. That is the only argument the Liberals have. I digress, but here we are. We moved this amendment. I think it is pretty reasonable. The third report is coming from the Standing Committee on Ethics. We are asking for some witnesses to come to have a discussion to better address the concerns posed by the unprecedented extent of the Prime Minister 's corporate and shareholding interests “provided that, for the purposes of this order...the following be ordered to appear as witnesses”.”
“We talk about a lack of accountability and credibility. I asked the member for Winnipeg North this question earlier. I am still struck by the fact that his only response to me, perhaps suggesting the Liberals have a credibility issue on these topics, is to go back and talk about things that happened 20 years ago. Maybe he is accurate on that, maybe he is not, but that is the big comeback, that the bar is set at a certain level so it is fine if we are just as low. That is not really much reassurance for Canadians who have a deep concern about the significant ethical failings of the Liberal government over the last nine and a half or 10 years.”
“It is in fact shocking that the entire argument from the Liberals today about this report and the subsequent amendment coming from the ethics committee is that they want to talk about the fact that this is not a priority for Canadians. I am shocked. I heard a lot about the Liberal ethical challenges on the doorsteps of Brandon—Souris during the last campaign. I am surprised the member for Winnipeg North did not. Perhaps I need to do some doorknocking in his constituency as well, just to remind them of the exact record of the Liberal government. I would like to note, before I get started, that I plan to split my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan . I understand the members opposite will be very excited to hear from him, particularly given the new situation and the agreement we just came to.”
“Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member for Winnipeg North inviting my colleagues to join us in friendly Manitoba. I look forward to that debate taking place on a university campus. Maybe they will come out to Brandon, to my constituency. It would be good to get a few Winnipeg Liberals outside the Perimeter Highway every once in a while to understand the needs of rural Manitobans. I would be glad to take the member back to my alumni university and have him listen to some of the constituents out there, who I am proud to represent, and the challenges they find not just with the Liberal Party's conduct overall, but also particularly with respect to ethics.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of noise coming from the other side of the chamber about whether this debate on ethics is ethical and whether it is blockading the priorities of Canadians being discussed in this place. I think my colleague has answered that question very well. I wonder if he would like to comment on whether it was ethical for the Liberal government to prorogue Parliament and have the least number of sitting days this year since the 1930s, if I understand the math correctly, in order to put the priorities of the Liberal Party and its political health first instead of the needs of Canadians.”
“Will the member for Winnipeg North please acknowledge that Manitobans and Canadians likely have a few question marks around the Liberal government’s ability to police itself on ethics?”
“Madam Speaker, on that matter of privilege, I thank the Green Party leader for clarifying what she said. I think that is a very honourable intention. Getting back to my question, the member for Winnipeg North must be looking in a mirror when he is talking about the lack of credibility and accountability on ethics. This is the member who stood behind a former prime minister who said he did nothing wrong in WE scandal until he was found guilty, nothing wrong in the SNC-Lavalin scandal until he was found guilty, nothing wrong with Jody Wilson-Raybould or Jane Philpott until he was found guilty, and nothing wrong in the Aga Khan island incident until he was found guilty. Are we supposed to take the member for Winnipeg North as the fountain of all credibility and accountability on ethics? I do not think so.”
“Madam Speaker, there is a lot of confusion in that speech and what is going on over there. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is taking direction from the Green Party leader . We are not sure what is going on, but when the member for Winnipeg North gets up and talks about a lack of accountability and credibility on issues involving ethics, he—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to second the motion brought forward by my colleague from Barrie. I want him to expand a bit on what he was just talking about. The member for Winnipeg North 's questioning the motivation is a bit concerning. I find his insinuation to be a bit shocking, given that we all should be upholding the provision of ethical government, even if it is self-reflective of the Liberals. I wonder whether my colleague could comment a bit on that and on why we should have ethical government here even if the Liberals do not like it.”
“Mr. Speaker, very briefly, it was a mistake not to appeal that court decision at the lower court level when it was rendered. There could have been a much better framework put out than Bill C-3 . Unfortunately, the Liberals just threw up their hands because they seem to prefer not to make challenging decisions and to blame the courts when things do not go their way. We have seen that with other issues, and we are seeing it again with immigration. That is the weak way out. We believe there is a better path. Colleagues such as the hon. member have done an excellent job of putting that forward with these amendments to Bill C-3 .”
“There are a lot of provisions, which is why one of the amendments in the bill is a requirement of the minister to report where these people are registering and how many people have obtained citizenship through the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think our concern is certainly the 150,000 people at a time when our immigration system is already overwhelmed. There is no question that the Liberals have absolutely broken Canada's immigration system. Even they recognized that under Justin Trudeau and decided they were going to make some public statements about curbing the flow of immigration into the country. Now they are waffling on that, walking that back and trying to pretend that the last eight years of their record did not happen. We are concerned about the impact on our housing system and our health care system. As my colleague mentioned, where people choose to register as citizens, if they choose to spend time here, will have an impact on those systems.”
“Mr. Speaker, for starters, on the lost Canadians piece, I would say to my colleague across the way that we agree with those provisions, and this is why we did not amend that part of the bill. That provision stands. I think our Conservative comments at committee stand for themselves. With respect to his example of someone who is globe-trotting and here for school, away for school, here for a job, back for a job, etc., that person would still have spent the amount of time required by the bill in the country with their going back and forth, whether it is for school or for work. Their children would have citizenship under the provisions of the bill. That is already clear in the bill. We do not think that 1,095 days out of a five-year period is an unreasonable expectation. We certainly hope the Liberals will support that.”
“Being a Canadian citizen matters. It has value in the world, and we understand that folks who want to be Canadian citizens would be affected by the provisions of this bill, so let us make sure they are joining the citizenry of this country in the right way.”