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 5 of 7.
“These are pretty basic bars that have been amended into this bill in a multipartisan fashion, but the main point is that we believe on this side of the House that Canadian citizenship has value, and with that value comes responsibilities and rights. It does not mean a blank slate. There are expectations of Canadian citizens, regardless of how people obtain citizenship, and they need to be outlined, which is why we have amended this bill. There are adoptive provisions in this bill for people who are adopted that we agree with completely, but we need to make sure there is a discussion happening in Parliament, not just decisions made by judges, about the expectations and responsibilities of people obtaining Canadian citizenship. We feel that these amendments do that, and we know our colleagues in the Bloc agree.”
“None of our allies, the most developed economies and countries in the world, would have had a citizenship provision like the Liberals presented originally. As such, we amended the bill to add a citizenship provision so that people would have to declare that they do not believe in barbaric cultural practices, like, for example, female genital mutilation and other severe violence. We understand in this country that when someone wants to escape a terrible situation in the country they are in, when they are an immigrant, they need to leave the conflicts of the country they came from. That is not an unreasonable request, and we believe that should be applied to anyone who is obtaining Canadian citizenship from any path.”
“I was just talking about the example of my own family. Going forward, many generations that have lived abroad and have never spent any time in Canada at all, under the way this bill was presented by the Liberals originally, would automatically be citizens of this country. We believe that is a choice that has to be made with an understanding of the country that someone is a citizen of. This is very simple. People should take a citizenship test or knowledge test based on the citizenship guide. We expect other people applying for citizenship to take one. I do not think that is unreasonable. It is actually pretty normal to expect that. In fact, as Bill C-3 was originally presented, we would have been the only country in the G7 to grant citizenship in the fashion it noted.”
“By definition, they are a separatist party that wants Quebec to be a different country in and of itself, but even they can see how badly the bill, as it was presented to Parliament by the Liberals, devalued the value of Canadian citizenship. Even Bloc members are concerned about this, so they worked with us to defend language rights and expect people who are applying for citizenship through descent or by adoption to know one of the official languages. That is a fairly common-sense, reasonable request. I would expect most Canadians to believe that as well. Whether the Liberals do, I guess we will see, but I certainly think the vast majority of Canadians expect someone who is becoming a citizen of this country to know either English or French. We also know that an amendment approved at committee talks about having knowledge of Canada.”
“That 1,095 days is not an onerous length of time to expect someone, who was perhaps born abroad themselves and received citizenship, to spend in this country to pass citizenship to the next generation. (1205) There are language provisions. We have two official languages in this country, and I should just pause here to thank my colleagues on the citizenship and immigration committee, the member for Calgary Nose Hill , who was joined by the members for Saskatoon West , Markham—Unionville and Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill , for the excellent work they did in putting forward fairly common-sense amendments to this bill. I also thank my colleagues in the Bloc. Those folks are not typically standing up for Canadian citizenship.”
“If they expect their grandchildren and great-grandchildren to be Canadian, they will make sure they spend time in this country. Even if they choose to live abroad, which is of course their right, they will make sure those relatives have a connection to this country. What are the amendments we have put forward that the Liberals are so upset about? For citizenship by descent, an amendment was approved saying that citizenship would not be granted to persons when “neither of the person's parents who was a citizen was physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days during any period of five consecutive years before the person's birth”. That would be for citizenship by descent and by adoption.”
“This bill, in its initial form, was pretty bonkers; that is the first word that comes to my mind. I do not understand the concept of citizenship that goes on and on, with multiple generations that have no connection to this country and, in many cases, that have barely or never been here, generation after generation. I have family who have moved overseas, to anywhere from Europe to the South Pacific, and they are having children overseas. I know they are going to make sure those children have a connection to this country because they believe that being Canadian means something. It is not just words and a piece of paper. It is about a connection to this place, the actual physical space of this country, and the people who call it home and make up our nation as a community of diverse individuals.”
“Two other official parties in this place have come together and moved some fairly simple, basic and agreeable amendments to a government bill. We sincerely hope that the Liberal government is going to approve them and move this bill forward in an adequate and appropriate way for Canadians. We know that the national identity of Canada is constantly under threat. We see commentary on all kinds of different ideals about postnationalism and globalism and what it means to be a Canadian citizen, and how being a Canadian and how Canada as a whole fit into that context. The biggest concern I am hearing from Canadians is with respect to the value of Canadian citizenship and what amount of value we place on being a Canadian citizen in an increasingly interconnected and interrelated world.”
“We know that is factually incorrect. In fact, my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill cited subsection 91(25) of the Constitution in her speech, which specifically discusses that Parliament has the power to make decisions regarding the provisions of citizenship in this country. The facts around that are clear. Whether the Liberal government is going to accept them and accept the amendments that were approved at committee remains to be seen. We know the government has made a lot of comments about being a listening government and about wanting to work together more collaboratively. The Liberals are often griping about previous parliaments and the fact that no one wanted to work together with them. We have an opportunity here.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and an honour to get up again to speak to Bill C-3 , now in its amended form from committee, on behalf of the great constituents of the wheat city in western Manitoba. I find the discussion that has taken place on Bill C-3 , since it came back from committee with amendments, fairly startling. We are going to get into a discussion about the amendments that were approved in a multipartisan fashion at committee, but some of the comments coming from those on the government side have been alarming. They say this bill was required by a lower-court decision so we should absolutely agree to everything the court said. Some members opposite have even commented that Parliament is not supreme in its ability to make laws on the citizenship question and once a court has made a decision at all.”
“Mr. Speaker, clearly the member missed her leader 's speech asking young Canadians to sacrifice, but here is a news flash: Because of the member's policies, they have already sacrificed enough. StatsCan data shows youth unemployment has climbed to nearly 15%, the highest it has been since 2010. Since the Prime Minister was sworn in, nearly 48,000 more Canadians have to rely on EI to pay their bills. This is not progress; this is Liberal decline. How can the Liberal Prime Minister look young Canadians in the eye and ask them to sacrifice more, when it it is his own Liberal MPs' failures that have taken away their jobs, their homes and their hope for their future?”
“Mr. Speaker, the young Canadian families I know would like to be able to feed their kids themselves, not on a government hand-out. On Wednesday the Prime Minister told a room full of students they need to make sacrifices, but young Canadians have already sacrificed enough under the Liberal government. They have sacrificed the dream of owning a home. They have paid the price at the pump and at the grocery store. They have endured summers without work and have a future saddled with debt. After 10 years of Liberal failure, Canadians have sacrificed enough. When will the Liberals finally get their spending under control and restore hope for young Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister told a roomful of students that they have to make sacrifices. Students and young people in this country have already sacrificed enough to the Liberals. They have sacrificed the dream of home ownership, they have paid the price at the pump and for the cost of food, and they have spent summers without jobs. Now the Liberals get up and say that their big achievement is three new apprenticeship Red Seals. They must be kidding me. Canadians have sacrificed enough over the last 10 years; they should not have to sacrifice more for Liberal failures. Will the Liberals get their spending under control in the November 4 budget and restore the promise of hope for young Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is exactly right; we are concerned about a lack of judges, a lack of Crown prosecutors across the country right now, and certainly in provinces. Time after time, cases are being pleaded down or in many cases completely thrown out because they hit the Jordan framework. If the federal government is serious about ensuring that victims within our Canadian Armed Forces receive the that justice they deserve and that this country should be providing to them, they need to be stepping up with resources to scrap their soft-on-crime Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 laws and putting additional resources into our courtrooms to ensure that the cases are heard in a timely fashion so we actually deliver justice for victims in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course the situation my colleague raises is a terrible one to be in. I cannot imagine the feeling of being trapped in a system someone feels is protecting, or is protecting, their assaulter, the person who committed one of these crimes against them. It is a terrible situation that members of our Canadian Armed Forces who are the victims of these types of crimes have been subjected to. We need to do better by them. Conservatives are certainly going to work hard. I know that my colleagues on the national defence committee are going to work very hard to ensure that if the bill proceeds, it does so in the most effective way possible to make sure that victims are protected and that they receive justice under the law.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think Conservatives have been pretty clear that we believe the military system as it currently exists has failed victims within the Canadian Armed Forces who have experienced sexual trauma. However, we are concerned about the capacity of the civilian courts to handle additional work, when they are not getting through all the work they currently have before them. Many perpetrators of violent crimes, including sexual assaults, are getting off based on the Jordan framework. While the current system is failing members of the Canadian Armed Forces, we do not want their hopes for better service to be dashed when military cases move into the civilian court system, because the civilian courts are currently not serving victims as well as they need to be either.”
“The Liberals have failed on the domestic civilian front, and we are very concerned they will fail again, as they have been failing, the victims within our Canadian Armed Forces. I think we have raised some significant concerns that the Liberals have failed to provide any reasonable answer for, and that is why it is important that we thoroughly debate the bill, both here at second reading and at committee. I want to be very clear that we want equal treatment for victims in the Canadian Armed Forces. We need to ensure that there is commonality across the board, and we want to make sure that victims are treated with the respect, the dignity and the justice they deserve.”
“We do not anticipate demand going down; in fact it would likely increase for civilian courts if they would be handling military penalties and cases. It could also mean that the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies under Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 , where people who commit violent sexual offences are allowed to serve out their sentence on house arrest, may be allowed to do for military cases as well should they all move to the civilian system. On a very small base, like the one in my constituency, there could be people living just down the street from their perpetrator on house arrest while their case goes through the court system and after conviction. We find that completely unacceptable in terms of the scope and impact it would have on the victims, who should be our priority.”
“What standards and what training and expertise requirements would the Liberals be putting in place to ensure that the military police keep their standards up and in fact improve them while investigating cases overseas? This can be challenging at the best of times when there are different jurisdictions and in many cases different nations and citizenships that are involved when such cases take place on multilateral operations, such as the ongoing deployment in Latvia. Soldiers from CFB Shilo in my constituency just completed a six-month stint in Latvia. Where does that leave the military police and their capacity? Current crime stats are on the rise domestically under the Liberal government; we know that is a fact.”
“The Liberal government has been silent on that front, which is a concern, because if the Liberals are promising that the cases would be heard in a more effective manner, they need to put the resources behind the bill and streamline the processes to ensure that the cases would not get thrown out because of the Jordan framework. Why would the legislation cover only domestic cases? I raise that again because it is an important point. The military police would be dealing with fewer cases overall, so that speaks to a potential lack of training or a lack of experience in dealing with cases as time goes on, yet they would still be called upon to do cases overseas.”
“That said, a couple of the concerns we have are about the civilian courts and their capacity to handle the cases. We understand that they may be, and in fact likely are, more experienced in dealing with these types of cases, but the courts are already backlogged. Time and time again, cases of serious violent offences, whether they be sexual in nature or cases of violent behaviour, run up against the Jordan framework, where the perpetrators are getting off on their charges because the courts cannot get through the process fast enough to have cases heard and verdicts delivered. If we would now be adding more cases into the civilian court system, what provisions would the Liberals be putting in place to ensure that the court system could handle the additional workload coming its way?”
“We know they are not the most expeditious when it comes to investigating concerns that are raised by Canadians, particularly by the official opposition, and when it comes to the legislation they put forward. (1645) We are putting them on the record now so that when the bill gets to committee, we sincerely hope, the Liberals may have some answers. I just previously raised a question for a Liberal member who, to her credit, admitted she had no idea what the answer was. I asked why the bill would treat crimes differently on Canadian soil than when our armed forces personnel are deployed. I credit the member for her honesty, but members who are speaking to the bill from the governing party, which put forward the legislation, should likely know the answers to questions before they get up to deliver remarks in the House of Commons.”
“We have so many systems now in this country that are focused on protecting the wrong people, and victims are left behind. This is just one example, but it is an important one that needs to be addressed. While we certainly support the recommendations and support addressing the system to ensure that there is justice for folks who have experienced this type of trauma within the Canadian Armed Forces, we believe that Bill C-11 requires careful study at committee. That is why we are putting words on the record now in debate. The government, which has taken so much time to deliver a bill on this issue, continues to question why the Conservatives are speaking to it. It is because we have important questions that the Liberals need time to answer.”
“That is a very unfortunate reality, but it is the reality, so I felt it was important to get up and put a few words on the record in support of the fact that we need to do better by the people who put their lives on the line for this great country under our proud Canadian flag. It is very important to note that Conservatives have always said that members of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a safe and respectful workplace and that those who have not experienced that while wearing the uniform deserve justice. We have heard lots of Conservatives raise personal examples, some very personal, of where that has not taken place recently or over the course of many years and, sadly, many decades. It is time to deliver a system that works better for victims and does not protect the bad actors in our system.”
“There are over 1,100 employees in total, which is significant in western Manitoba. I am really proud to represent those folks, first as their member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and now here in the House of Commons. From a constituency service perspective, issues around sexual transgressions and sexual assaults within the military come to my constituency office far too frequently, as do the impacts of the lack of services that should be available to many who experience such devastating actions from their colleagues, their spouses or anyone else who chooses to perpetrate such deplorable actions. These are certainly not issues that I am a stranger to, sadly.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this chamber to put some words on the record about Bill C-11 . This piece of legislation is of national importance. It is well overdue given the time that has elapsed since the recommendations came forward in the initial report, which I believe was commissioned by a Conservative government, on the heinous acts and actions within our Canadian Armed Forces. It is past time that we address these issues in a serious way. The bill would impact my constituency of Brandon—Souris quite closely. I very proudly represent the hard-working Canadian Armed Forces personnel stationed at Canadian Forces Base Shilo, which includes the Second Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the 1RCHA and the many other serving and civilian personnel who operate that base, which has a huge impact.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague across the way to answer the question, if she can, about why the Liberals are splitting the treatment of crimes committed on Canadian soil from those committed when our armed forces personnel are deployed off Canadian soil.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to present my first petition as the member of Parliament for Brandon—Souris. It is e-petition 6573, initiated by constituent River Klassen and signed by hundreds of Canadians. It calls for action to address the morally bankrupt stunts of the longest ballot committee, which predominantly harm the ability of seniors and those with disabilities to cast their vote. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the procedure and House affairs committee to address the recommendations in this petition.”
“Why is the Liberals' only solution to getting anything done that they need to add another bureaucracy? That is a typical Liberal tradition. Why can they not just get the job done and get the treaties signed?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is really fascinating to hear the revisionist history from members across the way. It is very clear what the record of the Conservative Party is: We signed five modern treaties in a six-year period. I am sure it is quite embarrassing for them that they have been in government for 10 years and have been unable to get a single one completed. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: That is not true. Grant Jackson: Mr. Speaker, it is true. The member for Winnipeg North is leading this revisionist history, but those are the facts. One of them is in my constituency, with the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation. Why do the Liberals prioritize a list of cycled-through ministers on this file? Some of them have failed upward. Others have left in disgrace. Meanwhile, nothing has been done on this file.”
“We will lower costs, put violent criminals behind bars, not out on bail, and reward hard work so that young Canadians can once again believe their dreams are possible. The Conservatives are here for the young people in this country, this generation and the next, to restore hope for a bright future in Canada, the true north strong and free.”
“Mr. Speaker, instead of a mid-life crisis, we now have a crisis of the young. That is what researchers across Canada are saying about the happiness of Canadians. After 10 years of the Liberal government, Canada has fallen to its lowest point in global happiness rankings, and no one feels that more than young Canadians. Once full of optimism and opportunity, our country has dropped to 58th in the world for life satisfaction among people under 30. That is what happens after years of Liberal mismanagement and prime ministers who chase photo ops and celebrity moments instead of solid policy at home. We have a housing crisis, record food prices and taxes that punish hard work. The Conservatives will turn this around. We will build homes, not bureaucracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is just a bit shocking, the conversation coming from the Liberal side about how they are moving swiftly and the Conservatives are responsible for delays when, in fact, that member sits with several rows of MPs who were part of a team that prorogued Parliament to avoid taking any credible action on this issue after months of filibustering prior to that. I wonder how that member can square the circle of sitting with members who actually prorogued Parliament to avoid taking any real action on this issue, while claiming they are acting swiftly to get something done.”
“Madam Speaker, Samaritan House Ministries' food bank in Brandon is Manitoba's second largest, and under the Liberals, it is distributing between 60 and 80 food hampers a day. For context, that is 15,529 hampers by the end of August in a city of only 55,000 people. The Prime Minister once said that Canadians would judge him by the cost at the grocery store. Well, for families in the wheat city, the verdict is in and they are lined up at the food bank. The Liberals have a chance to admit their mistakes and reverse course by voting for our Conservative motion to end their taxes on food. Will they do so?”
“Madam Speaker, after 10 years of the Liberal government, Canadians cannot afford to eat because of the Liberals' tax hikes on food. Their food inflation tax is fuelled by money-printing deficits, the industrial carbon tax on fertilizer and farm equipment, their second carbon tax, hidden as fuel standard, and a plastics ban. Here are the consequences: Chicken is up 11%, soup is up 26%, white sugar is up 20% and beef is up 33%, with overall food prices rising 48% faster in Canada than they have in the U.S. since the Prime Minister took office. Every dollar the Liberals spend comes out of the pockets of hard-working Canadian families. When will they stop—”
“I encourage all folks to come out and show their support. It is not every day that we have a local wearing the maple leaf on the world stage. We are so proud of Emily, and we know she will represent us well.”
“Madam Speaker, tomorrow team Canada takes on England in the 2025 Women's Rugby World Cup final. In the starting lineup is Emily Tuttosi, who hails from our community in Westman. Emily and I grew up together, attending Souris School. In fact I was one of the VPs when she was student council president. That is a few years ago. Now ranked 15th out of the best 50 rugby players in the world and consistently mentioned as the best hooker in the world, yes, that is a real position in rugby, Emily takes in her second world cup and receives her 41st cap playing for Canada tomorrow. Emily is living proof that when kids from small towns dream big and work hard, they can achieve big things. Souris Sabres rugby coach Brian Yon and many community members are hosting a watch party at Souris School gym tomorrow. Doors open at 9:30 a.m.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister is so out of touch. She does not understand that those kids are still hungry every evening, every weekend and every summer holiday. Their parents cannot afford to put food on the table, because the Liberal government's inflationary deficits have been driving up food costs 48% faster in Canada than in the United States since the Prime Minister took office. The Prime Minister asked to be judged by the cost at the grocery store, and we are well past judgment day. Money-printing deficits plus record-high food bank use plus Canadians skipping meals equals an F for the Liberal government. Will the Liberals vote for our Conservative motion to cut their inflationary taxes on Canadians today?”
“Mr. Speaker, to my fellow colleague from Manitoba, her riding of Winnipeg Centre is certainly facing the brunt of the fentanyl crisis. I used to drive through her constituency to get to work at the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. I think we know, or it is universally accepted, that a lot of these drugs are coming into Canada across the border. That is under discussion here. If the member from the NDP thinks that the bill should be completely withdrawn, does she have any solutions as to how to deal with the crisis of drugs coming across our border, or is she content to just let that continue?”
“With more spending, more debt and more bureaucracy piling up every year, when will the government finally show restraint and put Canada back on a responsible fiscal track, or is that just another broken Liberal promise?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are paying the price for the Prime Minister 's reckless spending, which has skyrocketed 8.4% since he took office. Spending on high-priced consultants is up by 37% to $26 billion, while spending on the bureaucracy itself is up another 6% to $63 billion. Experts are clear that the spending is out of control. Yesterday, at committee, the top financial watchdog stated, “At this point, it's impossible for us, and for you as parliamentarians, to assess the likelihood or probability of the government hitting any fiscal target.” Yikes. It does not stop there. The watchdog went further, slamming the Liberals' lack of accountability, saying, “I don't know that the government currently has fiscal anchors, which...causes...a considerable degree of concern”. No kidding. Canadians are concerned as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague, along with other colleagues from British Columbia, has more first-hand experience with this than I do. From what I have read, it has been just devastating. The result of that policy by the NDP government, enabled by the federal Liberal team, has been devastating for families and for communities. It has been a total train wreck, in my opinion. I did everything I could as a provincial politician to urge the NDP government in Manitoba to not follow suit with that disastrous policy. Thankfully, to date, it has not done so. I would strongly support any initiative that recriminalizes those types of substances. Hopefully, no province will ever try that disastrous experiment again.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is certainly the case. Obviously, we know that many areas of eastern Canada as well as farther west of me are very inaccessible along our border. Even in Manitoba, the area is so large that despite it being accessible, the RCMP is far too short-staffed to be able to patrol all of that area at any given time. Absolutely, we believe in expanding jurisdiction there. We think that would be an important solution to part of the issue with Canada's border.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think I heard a question from the parliamentary secretary. I too have met with chiefs of police in my home province. As I said in my speech, there are some provisions in this bill where the Liberals did get a few things right. Members know the whole thing where a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. They did get a few things right in this bill, but they also got lots wrong. While we are going to propose constructive criticism and amendments to this piece of legislation, we are also going to call the Liberals out where they got it wrong. That was the premise of my speech today. We hope the Liberals are going to correct what they got wrong and actually do a better job of fixing a system that they broke, just like countless other systems across the federal government.”
“With some of these provisions, they have finally got it right after a decade of failing Canadians on protecting them and securing the border. Now they are saying to trust them. Well, gosh, they have had 10 years to fix the immigration system; that has been a disaster. They have had 10 years to fix the criminal justice system; that has been a disaster. Why should Canadians believe today that the Liberal government's record is going to be any different in fixing the problems it created on Canada's border?”
“This is huge in my riding, which is all very accessible along a very rural area that does not have high levels of population. These scanners can also see through walls of containers or vehicles to spot drugs, guns and stolen cars. We have fought for tracking departures so government officials know which deportees are in Canada illegally, toughening penalties for repeat violent offenders, ending catch-and-release bail and house arrest for violent criminals, and the list goes on. The Liberals, which I have heard already today, have gotten up and said the Conservatives have no solutions. We have been proposing these solutions for 10 years, and there has been no action from the Liberal government to implement a single one of them.”
“Again, this is the Liberals making a mountain where they should have taken a scalpel in terms of how to deal with these serious, prolific traffickers who are utilizing Canada Post. It needs to be referred to the proper justice officials, not to our everyday postal workers and the folks working in the distribution centres. While Conservatives have been ignored by the Liberal government and its failures, we have consistently fought for practical, effective policies that secure our borders, protect our communities and uphold Canadians' rights, including adding thousands of border agents; extending CBSA powers along the entire border, not just crossings; and installing border surveillance towers as well as truck-mounted drone systems to spot border incursions.”
“Nobody thinks that is a good idea, even the Canada Post workers I talked to in my constituency when we knew this bill would be coming up. It is way overboard. They have no reason for it to be done. RCMP officers think it is ridiculous. There is no question that there needs to be a solution and a proposal put forward to deal with trafficking of illegal substances through Canada Post, but it makes perfect sense for these systems to be operated through the court system and with trained investigators and police officers opening up this mail, searching for illegal substances, because if they actually find some, they are the ones who are trained to handle it, not Canada Post workers.”
“There are still no new mandatory prison times for gangsters who use guns and commit crimes, despite the Liberals' campaign against legal firearms owners. House arrest is still permissible for some of the most serious offenders in these areas. We are deeply concerned by the Liberals' further restrictions on Canadian civil liberties, including the ability to open mail without oversight and to compel Internet companies to hand over private information, and warrantless searches. I would just like to pause here for a minute. I do not know that anybody in my riding, even the Canada Post workers I represent, think it is a great idea for them to just be able to open up mail at will. This is what the Liberals, despite what some of them have said today, are proposing in this piece of legislation.”
“Now they are scrambling and have put forward this omnibus bill that falls well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other areas. While we are prepared to support some elements of the bill, we are very concerned with others. The bill fails to address bail reform, which is a topic that comes up often in this Parliament. Catch and release is alive and well for those who are trafficking fentanyl and firearms across our border, using our porous border to victimize Canadians. These are illegal firearms, not the legally held firearms that so many of my constituents have taken the courses for, have trained for and responsibly own and use. There is no mention of sentencing provisions. There are still no mandatory prison times for fentanyl traffickers who are profiting from this weak, porous border the Liberals have created.”