Cheryl Gallant
Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“We see the Iranian Revolutionary Guard agents hiring contract killers to shoot up synagogues. We see hate marches in our streets. We see places of worship burned to the ground. Stubbornly, the Liberals still refuse to admit their mistakes on this file. They have admitted they were wrong about carbon taxes.”
“The Liberals were more than happy to deploy misinformation and disinformation around the use of a hate symbol to score cheap political points. The CBC worked hand in glove with the government to push this fake narrative.”
“Between 2021 and 2023, there were 238 recorded arson attacks on churches. There are regular hate marches through Jewish neighbourhoods. Liberals even claim their own communities are hotbeds of hatred, where white supremacist rallies are held on a regular basis.”
“However, when placed in the broader context of decades of Liberal political strategy that sought to paint all Conservative opposition as motivated by hate and the Liberals' continued desire to construct an entirely new bureaucracy to monitor Canadians' digital expression, this bill looks like a dangerous expansion of authority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the big-hearted constituents in the caring riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C‑9 , the Liberal bill to ban symbols of hate. The bill is back here because the other place has amended the legislation to include a new symbol to the Liberal hit list.”
“This example of the Liberals seeking to ban the symbol of the noose so soon after engaging in a bad-faith attack on a political opponent by claiming a lanyard was actually a noose does not stand in isolation. During the “freedom convoy” and the protests, we saw the Liberals deploy this exact same technique.”
The complete record
Every one of 290 lines we hold for Cheryl Gallant, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 6.
“Once America's Republican Party moved away from unwavering support for free trade, the regressive left saw its opportunity. The left has always bitterly opposed free trade. Older Canadians may remember the vicious attack ads the Liberal Party ran, erasing Canada's border during free trade debates. Trudeau nearly derailed the trans-Pacific partnership in order to include new clauses in the agreement similar to the anti-economic development policies he imposed on Canada. However, the worst was yet to come. After Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine, the Liberals forced that desperate nation to renegotiate its free trade deal with Canada. The Liberal goal was to impose carbon tariffs on Ukraine if the Ukrainians did not increase their own carbon tax to match Canada's.”
“During the decade of darkness, under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, Canada negotiated just three small deals: with Israel, with Costa Rica and with Chile. What followed was a decade of dynamism under Stephen Harper, and with Stephen Harper, Canada negotiated deals with Peru, Colombia, Jordan, Panama, Honduras, Korea, Ukraine, the 27 members of the European Union and the 11 members of the trans-Pacific partnership. Our Conservative Party built Canada into the freest trading nation on earth. Unfortunately, things began to change for freer trade after we left office, and the United States pulled out of the trans-Pacific partnership. Under Trudeau, free trade negotiations broke down with India. The deal Trudeau signed to replace NAFTA reduced free trade and even went so far as to ban the American Super Bowl commercials from airing in Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the hard-working exporters of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-13 , an act to bring the United Kingdom into the Pacific trade deal. As Conservatives, we support free trade and we support the bill; what we do not support is Liberal incompetence. The bill is a testament to Liberal mismanagement. It is a cautionary tale for Canadians, a warning that the Liberals may not be the crack trade negotiating team they claim to be. They have failed our farmers, they have failed our permanent residents and clearly they are failing to secure more free trade. We will start with trade. Under Brian Mulroney, Canada negotiated the Canada-U.S. free trade deal and its successor, the North American Free Trade Agreement.”
“Canadian intellectual property and the jobs that technology brings will be lost if the Brookfield Prime Minister gets his way.”
“Mr. Speaker, the talented scientists, engineers and technicians in Chalk River perform leading-edge nuclear research while also producing life-saving medical isotopes. Now the elbows-down Brookfield government wants to pay an all-American consortium $1.2 billion a year to manage Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. We know the Prime Minister has a financial interest in the consortium. Canadians have concerns about the American-owned monopoly having control over Canada's medical isotopes and unique nuclear analytic capabilities. The Competition Bureau has launched three investigations, yet the bureau has been forced to obtain court orders to get the information it needs from the secretive, self-serving Brookfield government. Canadians want the Liberals to stop blocking the investigation into the deal.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was concerned about jurisdictions and consultations, and supposedly about the environment. What about the electromagnetic forces of the offshore wind turbines that impact marine life, as well as the electromagnetic fields? Are projects like the wind turbines not really about Brookfield? Is prime minister Brookfield not in this for himself?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the member worked in the financial industry prior to becoming a member of Parliament. Could he tell the House of Commons what would have happened to him if he had taken an expense or a credit and put it into another column to make it look like there was extra money in the account, instead of money missing? How would a person who worked at his institution be treated after that? What would the consequences be?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to an earlier point. I was relaying what my constituent said to me when the government first announced it might allow people suffering from mental illness to apply for MAID. She told her doctor that as soon as it is available, she wanted to be euthanized because she could not bear being unable to eat, pay the rent or pay for heat.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think Canadians believe them. I know of older people who cannot pay their rent or electricity bills now. They are telling me that if this bill goes through, they are going to sign up for MAID because they are already depressed and do not want to continue living this way. They would rather die than suffer the way the Liberal government has been making them suffer.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that there are 600 pages of things I do not like in the budget implementation bill, but he was correct about something in the preamble of his question. He talked about accounting practices. What the Liberals have done is a perversion of quantitative easing. They are simply taking expenses and putting them in the asset column. That is cheating, and any other government would be taken to task on it and thrown out of office.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government does not know the difference between an investment and a purchase. It thinks buying a Lada is an investment. If we add up all the money the Liberals have spent since they became a government in 2015, when there was an actual surplus, it is $500 billion, with our national debt at $1.266 trillion. Each household owes $77,256. For any household that does not have the taxes to pay that back, this will be passed on to their children, including the students and children who are in the galleries today. They will be paying the debt we are talking about today.”
“The Harper government ran up deficits to fight the global financial crisis. The Trudeau government ran up deficits to fight a global pandemic. The Brookfield government is running up deficits to reward its wealthy backers. Canadians cannot afford this takeover of their democracy. We need an affordable Conservative government now.”
“While I would relish the Liberals' paying a steep price for their arrogance, we also know from history what would happen: They would just walk off into the sunset of a corner office in a fancy law firm or a boardroom. It would be Canadians forced to pay the higher taxes to the bondholders. It would be Canadians forced off their lands during a housing crisis. It would be Canadians who lose the farm their family owned for generations. When Liberals promise us a generational change, we should hide our wallets and lock our doors. The budget would cut benefits to veterans and students. It would lay off frontline workers. There would be all that plus billions of dollars in new debt for the biggest corporate welfare spending spree in history. The Mackenzie King government ran up deficits to fight the Nazis.”
“In a normal expropriation, people receive a notice of intent, and then they have the option to object and a public hearing is held. Now they would receive the notice and still be able to object, but there would be no hearing. The final decision would be made by the minister behind closed doors. Some Canadians listening to all this will think it has the makings of a second Pacific railway scandal. That would be delicious irony to fall on the party that gleefully tossed Sir John A. Macdonald down the memory hole, but erasing history has its consequences. If one of those consequences is the Liberals' sleepwalking into another sponsorship-sized scandal, then I am sure Sir John A. is smiling down on us.”
“The government kept the land and, in January of this year, announced that there would be no airport, but the lands would go to Parks Canada to be included in the Rouge National Urban Park. The current bill would make the Pickering land grab look like a picnic. The budget would give the unnamed rail corporation the power to issue stop work orders on any land it thinks it may need for the rail line. Once the government puts someone's property on the “maybe” list, it would have the first right of refusal for any sale. The rail corporation would have the right to issue stop work orders on any activity on the land, and the corporation would have the right to go onto their property at any time to ensure the work has stopped.”
“In the end, the government would have to take some other people's land and those whose land was needlessly expropriated would just have to watch from the sidelines. For a while now, I have wondered how the government was going to hit the ridiculous target of restoring 30% of Canada's developed lands to nature by 2030. One way would be to cut a straight line through the most developed and expensive lands in Canada, claiming it is for high-speed rail, then killing the entire project by blaming some turtles that are trying to win the Darwin prize. I said earlier that I do not need a crystal ball; that is because I have a history book. We have seen this all before. In 1972, Pierre Trudeau expropriated farmland in Pickering to build an airport. By 1975, the airport plan was on hold.”
“Again, with the bill, the entire high-speed rail line would be approved automatically and without an actual route. Then the bill states that the entire rail line would be exempt from the dreaded unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act. However, each segment of the rail line would be subject to the Impact Assessment Act. We can see where this would go, because we have seen it all before. Once the Liberals determined the route, they would begin expropriating the land; then they would find a turtle or a frog on the land. The activists and proud socialists would demand that the Liberals adjust the segment of the line. If it is a Liberal riding, the line would move; if it is a Conservative riding, they would plow through.”
“If anyone's home is in the way, they will expropriate it. They just need to delete sections 8 through 12 of the Expropriation Act to get it done. In fact, they are so confident in pre-approving the rail line without knowing the actual route that the government is amending the Canada Transportation Act to remove the ability of the government to amend the approval. (1340) I want to remind Canadians that half the bill is the government repealing decisions made by the Liberal government. Now the Liberals want to tie their hands to prevent any future government from correcting this mistake. There is a big difference between cutting red tape and throwing all the tape out the window. If any of this sounds out of character for the tape-happy Liberal Party, we should not worry; they return to form on the next page of the legislation.”
“This means that any investment it attracts comes at the expense of real opportunities for growth. That is not just a fact; it is a basic physical reality. The Brookfield government can try to ignore reality, but eventually reality will hit it like a freight train. Unfortunately for anyone who owns property between Quebec City and Toronto, the government plans to hit them with a high-speed train. Justin Trudeau launched the largest expropriation of private property in Canadian history with his gun grab. Now, even that legacy is not safe. Buried in the budget bill is the biggest land grab in a century. Canadians might be shocked to learn that when the bill passes, the high-speed rail line from Quebec City to Toronto will be automatically approved. The Liberals do not know where the rail line will be built, but it is already approved.”
“In an act of corporate synergy that would make McKinsey & Company proud, the Brookfield government is leveraging the Canada Growth Fund to catalyze the clean electricity tax fund. In plain, human language, the Liberals are giving companies such as Brookfield cash handouts from the Growth Fund and then allowing the companies to get tax credits for spending the handouts. Companies such as Brookfield will get a shiny new asset to put on their balance sheet and a little spending money on the side. Canadians get a bigger tax bill and higher electricity prices. I do not need a crystal ball to tell members that this is going to fail to increase economic productivity. It will not leverage, catalyze or spur any private investment; it will destroy private investment. If there were a real business case, it would not need subsidies.”
“The budget is giving the Canada Infrastructure Bank $15 billion more. Maybe it is just a coincidence that the Clerk of the Privy Council was the former head of the Infrastructure Bank, but the Liberals are increasing its funding despite its failure to achieve its goal of using public money to attract private investment. We know the bank failed, because the government keeps telling us that it failed. Every Liberal budget has acknowledged the lack of private investment and the damage it is doing to our productivity. The Infrastructure Bank failed so spectacularly that the Liberals created the Canada Growth Fund, with the identical mandate of using public money to attract private investment.”
“Based on the 600-page budget implementation bill, what the Prime Minister thinks best are massive piles of corporate welfare. Here is one example, from page iii of the budget bill: “providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying corporations and trusts for investments in certain clean electricity property”. If any Canadians watching are wondering who the biggest investor in clean electricity is, I will give them a hint: It starts with “Brook” and ends with “field”. Last year, the clean electricity tax credit cost the treasury $22 million. This year, the tax credit will cost $1.5 billion; next year, it will cost $3.8 billion. By 2028, the government projects that it will cost $7.2 billion. That is 328 times what it cost last year for just one tax credit that will mostly flow to one company: Brookfield. There is more.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the right-all-along people of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. I would like to begin by congratulating my Liberal colleagues on their resilience. To be able to eat such a huge slice of humble pie and not choke on their own hypocrisy is impressive. Nearly half the omnibus budget bill is just repealing Trudeau-era policies. For my colleagues across the aisle to have to admit to being wrong about so much without showing a single sign of humility really speaks to the resilience of Liberal arrogance. They admit they were wrong about the consumer carbon tax, the boat tax, the digital services tax, the capital gains tax and more, yet they still swagger into this chamber with the absolute confidence that this time they are right and know what is best for Canada's economy.”
“We need to cut competition-killing regulation, enforce the competition promotion regulations and then just get out of the way so Canadians can build a brighter future.”
“Madam Speaker, my favourite Liberal talking point is when the Liberals compare Canada to the other G7 countries. It feels like when a teenager comes home drunk for the first time and protests, “Well, all the other kids were drunker.” It is a bit like their claim that inflation was not their fault because there was inflation in other countries. I guess it was just a coincidence that all those other countries were running big deficits too. I know that for some people, when a bunch of governments enact the same policies using the same propaganda, it can look nefarious. The truth is that these corporate progressive types are not very creative. They copy each other's policies and slogans in a desperate attempt to sell us the same corporatist, technocratic agenda. We do not need Liberal protectionism, mandates or subsidies.”
“There is no conspiracy; it is just a bunch of executives from public services playing a game of musical chairs with executives from global companies. They sit around in a circle like a bunch of good old boys, patting themselves on the back for being so clever. Then, they all fly home to implement bad policies or invest in bad companies. When it all fails, they use even more taxpayer dollars to bail each other out. The Prime Minister 's friends get six- and seven-figure salaries, while Canadians get laid off. The real Liberal Party slogan should be “spend less on Canadians; invest more with their corporate friends”.”
“His is not much different from the résumé of our Prime Minister , who moved from an investment bank to a finance department, from central banks to investment firms. While some in the media have focused on the Prime Minister's significant conflicts of interest, when we look at the strategy he took at Brookfield, how could it not be? Under his watch, Brookfield targeted companies at the nexus of business and government. As CEO, he would invest in something such as a modular homebuilding company. Then, as a former central banker, he would lobby governments to build more modular housing. Now he is Prime Minister and holding photo ops in front of modular housing, which he will fund with our tax dollars. This is what so many people get wrong about the World Economic Forum.”
“Their slogan should have been “more spending, fewer services”. Canadians are rightfully asking where their tax dollars are going. Despite the Liberals' best efforts to silence the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the truth is out. The Brookfield Prime Minister has reclassified corporate welfare as an investment. That is not a surprise, considering who he has running the government. Canada's Clerk of the Privy Council lives in a turnstile. One year, he is the top finance bureaucrat, bringing in corporate welfare for the electric utilities; the next, he is the CEO of an electric utility. One year, he is running Montreal's transit company; another year, he is head of Trudeau's Infrastructure Bank, giving money away to Montreal's transit company.”
“Government is the single most expensive purchase we make, yet the Liberals have the gall to stand here and tell us that making government more expensive is an affordability measure. I am not shocked. This is the same party that ran on the slogan, eat cake and have it too, but the brazenness with which they trick Canadians is shocking. The Liberals promised a generational change, but what they meant is that it would be a generation before anything changes. They promised no cuts to the public service, but now frontline workers are being laid off and Canadians are left on hold. They promised no cuts to transfers for people or provinces, but now they are cutting veterans' benefits and student grants. Despite those cuts to people who did not vote Liberal in the last election, the Liberals are posting one of the biggest deficits in history.”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the fiscally sane people of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. Recently, I asked this reckless-spending government's minister if he could cancel the Liberals' plan to hike the price of fuel in the budget. Well, the budget is out, and the tax is still on. This tax is just one of many the Liberals have brought in that are hidden and quietly eat away at the purchasing power of Canadians. The response from the Liberal Secretary of State , put up to shield the minister , shows how the Liberal Party, at its core, does not get it. Canadians spend more on taxes than anything else. They spend more on taxes than they do on housing.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians spend more on taxes than anything else. They spend more on taxes than they do on housing. The government is the single most expensive purchase we make, yet the Liberals have the gall to stand here and tell us that making government more expensive is an affordability measure. The Liberals had a chance to lower food costs for Canadians by scrapping the industrial carbon tax. Instead, they chose to make food more expensive by increasing the tax. It drives up the cost of fertilizer and farm equipment. The Liberals promised Canadians they could have their cake and eat it too, but the price of baked goods is up nearly 6% over last year. Now we know the Liberals' plan. They will ban plastic food packaging, removing thousands of products from store shelves. It is not unaffordable if it is unavailable.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can see from the parliamentary secretary's recycled talking points that the Liberals do not listen. I accept that the arrogant Liberals will never listen to Conservative voices, but I quoted the words they wrote back to them. They still pretend like somehow this is all imaginary. We get it. They will not listen to Canadians who care about affordability or even reality. Maybe our self-professed economic genius of a Prime Minister could explain to the parliamentary secretary what happens when someone has to borrow just to make their interest payments. The government has put us into a debt spiral. Claiming we are the best off in the G7 is like claiming to be the least intoxicated person at an Epstein party. Canadians deserve an affordable budget for an affordable life.”
“Pierre Trudeau needed NDP support for a minority government. They ramped up spending while suffocating the economy in protectionist measures. Justin Trudeau needed NDP support for his minority government. They ramped up spending while suffocating the economy in woke measures. They always seem to claim that they see a light at the end of the debt tunnel. That is just the headlights of reality hurtling toward them like a freight train. The government can pretend its expensive fuel regulations, costly food packaging ban and economically damaging industrial carbon tax are make-believe, but for Canadians paying the bill, these taxes are very real.”
“It keeps saying that its solution to food insecurity is a government-run program for food. Canadians do not want handouts. They do not want to need food programs. The only thing worse than forcing people to rely on food programs is making children pay for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. That is probably something we should teach kids in schools. The Liberals borrowed money to fund their new social programs. This means that children eating those Liberal unfunded lunches will be on the hook for the bill in the future. When those kids graduate from school, instead of a diploma, they will receive a tax bill. Borrowing money for today's handouts is the exact opposite of an investment. Instead of generating a return on the money, we pay interest on the debt. Canada has been here before.”
“For the benefit of Liberals listening, here is a direct quote from the Liberal regulations: “It is expected that increases in transportation fuel expenses will disproportionately impact lower and middle-[class] households, as well as households currently experiencing energy poverty or those likely to experience energy poverty in the future.” The government wrote those words. It knows for a fact that its regulations make fuel more expensive for Canadians. Those extra costs are not imaginary. They are real. They will disproportionately harm Canadians with lower and middle incomes. The Liberals do not care about lower and middle-income Canadians anymore. The Liberal Party's base looks like its cabinet: affluent and privileged. That party has completely lost touch with average Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the very real taxpayers of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. I want to state very clearly that Canadian taxpayers are real, despite the gaslighting by the Liberal secretary of state in her reply to my question on food prices and fuel taxes. The Liberal Party introduced a new fuel regulation that requires all gasoline to be diluted with even more ethanol. Those regulations clearly increase the cost of fuel. The Liberals claim that this price hike is imaginary.”
“Mr. Speaker, the new fuel tax will put more ethanol in our gas tanks, so we will have to visit the pumps more often. It will also cut supply, so fuel will cost more. When fuel goes up in price, the cost of everything goes up. The Liberals have a chance to kill the new fuel standards tax with the budget. Will the Liberals use the budget to kill the new fuel tax?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not satisfied with 2.2 million Canadians visiting a food bank a month. The new fuel tax will chew up any savings at the gas pump. Grocery prices have not come down since COVID. Now we will never get a break at the cash register. Will the Liberals kill the new fuel standards tax so people can afford to eat?”
“Mr. Speaker, here we have somebody who, along with the former prime minister, asked to defund the police. What we are promoting in our amendments is that there be a security check, a background check, to make sure that people who have committed crimes in other countries do not come into Canada and automatically become Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe that is what my speech was all about: having a value to citizenship. It is not something a person can buy from some consultant who has no scruples; it is something a person works for and earns. My grandparents and my mother came from Holland. It took studying and learning the language, and they were quite proud to finally be accepted as Canadians. The rest of the people who want to be Canadians should be too.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. We will vote with the Bloc on a case-by-case basis, or with the government if we feel that the legislation warrants it. However, what the Liberals have re-established is the NDP-Liberal coalition so they can pass anything they want, regardless of what the rest of the House deems proper.”
“Mr. Speaker, the point of this debate is that people who are applying for Canadian citizenship must have an established connection to Canada. That is the basis on which we are debating, and we are aiming to improve the bill by amending it with those conditions. Without further ado, we should get the bill passed with amendments, not without.”
“All it takes is for the Liberal Party to listen to what Canadians are saying and work with us to fix the system. We believe in a system that rewards genuine connection and commitment. We believe in a system that reflects the values of Canadians. We believe in a system that respects our democracy. Citizenship is not a gift to be handed out lightly; it is a bond between the individual and the nation. lt must be earned, it must be respected and it must be protected. That is what our amendments would do. That is what Canadians expect. That is what we will deliver.”
“lt would also restore citizenship to lost Canadians who were excluded due to outdated laws or administrative errors. We support restoring fairness to those who were wrongfully excluded, but we must not create new problems in the process. The government's approach is to expand access without ensuring accountability. This Liberal approach has real-world consequences. When Liberals undermine faith in our immigration system and Canadian citizenship is eroded, it erodes our sense of solidarity. It undermines trust, not just trust in the system but also trust in one another. Societies high in trust are low in crime and chaos. We used to be that society. We used to be a haven in a dangerous world. We can be that beacon of hope once again.”
“If he has already accumulated three years of residency in the last 40 years, all six children would be instant citizens the day the bill comes into effect. It should warm the hearts of Canadians to know that the NDP is fighting for the rights of billionaire nepo babies. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Musk kids would be joined by 150,000 other instant Canadians. This would not be not a hypothetical scenario; it would be a real and immediate consequence. It is a policy failure waiting to happen. The Ontario Superior Court ruled in 2023 that the first-generation limit was unconstitutional. The Liberals refused to appeal the decision. lnstead, Bill C-3 is their response. The bill would remove the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent.”
“We will stand up for the integrity of our citizenship laws. We will stand up for the values that unite us. What would this mean in practice? Let us consider Elon Musk. His mother was born in Canada. He was born in South Africa. Based on available reports, he spent just under three years in Canada between 1989 and 1992 before transferring to a university in the United States. Since then, he has fathered 14 children that we know of. Eight of those children were born to Canadian mothers. They are already Canadian citizens, regardless of what happens in the legislation. It is the other six children who would be impacted by the bill. If our common-sense amendments are rejected by the Liberal-NDP coalition, Elon could secure citizenship for his children by vacationing in Canada for a few months.”
“We require a security screening; this protects Canadians from people who may pose a threat. It is a basic safeguard in any responsible immigration system. These are not radical ideas; they are common sense. They are supported by a majority of committee members. They are supported by Canadians across this country. Unfortunately it looks like the socialist coalition is back. After Canadians rightly punished the NDP for propping up a long-despised government, it lost party status. Now the socialists are cooking up a backroom deal to keep the investment banker in power. They want to roll back our common-sense amendments. They want to pass a bill that would open the door to instant citizenship. They want to ignore the lessons of history. They want to ignore the will of Canadians. We will not let that happen.”
“They reflect the expectations of Canadians and would ensure that new citizens are prepared to participate fully in our society. Our amendments introduce a substantial connection test: A parent must have lived in Canada for 1,095 days before a child's birth or adoption. This would ensure that citizenship is passed on by those who have truly lived here. It is not enough to have visited Canada decades ago. Citizenship must reflect a real and recent connection. We also require language proficiency. It is not a barrier; it is a bridge to integration. It helps newcomers succeed in school, work and civic life. (1620) We require a citizenship test; this ensures that citizens understand our values and our institutions. It fosters a sense of belonging and shared purpose.”
“The government must work through the legislative process, and it must respect that democratic process. The Liberals cannot claim to defend Canadian citizenship while ignoring our parliamentary democracy. The government must adopt the bill as amended. Under our proposed changes, in order to gain citizenship, a parent must have a real connection to Canada by living here for at least three years within a five-year period. The Liberals want it to be three years across a lifetime. That is a loophole, not a standard. We have also proposed that to gain citizenship, applicants must have some proficiency in either English or French, be able to pass a citizenship test and complete security screening. These are reasonable measures supported by a majority of committee members.”
“They claim it is about fairness and inclusion, but fairness must be balanced with responsibility. Citizenship is not a souvenir. It is a commitment to Canada and a pledge to uphold our laws, respect our institutions and contribute to our society. The Liberals' version of Bill C-3 would allow citizenship to be passed on with minimal connection to Canada. That is not fairness; it is recklessness. It devalues the meaning of citizenship. It sends the message that Canadian identity can be inherited without engagement. As Conservatives, we cannot sit by and watch the Liberals vandalize the integrity of Canadian citizenship. Canadians, in their wisdom, decided not to grant a majority mandate to an inexperienced, rookie Prime Minister who just happens to be a citizen of three separate countries.”