Michelle Rempel Garner
Calgary Nose Hill, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, non-citizens' committing serious crimes in Canada and then getting sweetheart sentences in order to avoid deportation, which the Liberals are letting happen right now, is undermining Canadians' desire for immigration.”
“Mr. Speaker, after a year, how can she put that falsehood forward in the House? People are getting sweetheart sentences in order to avoid deportation. There is a story every week.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives proposed a law that would ensure that non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada do not get sweetheart sentences so they can avoid deportation, but the Minister of Immigration voted against it. It is her job to maintain order in Canada's immigration system, but the system is clearly out of control.”
“Mr. Speaker, last year, the leader of the Bloc Québécois said this, referring to Alberta: “I am not certain that oil and gas qualifies” to define a culture. A leftist Canadian podcaster recently claimed, “Alberta has ZERO culture. None.”
“The people who try hard to beat the culture of self-determinism out of my province do so to their own detriment and to the detriment of the entire country. A stronger Alberta in a united Canada means acknowledging and giving thanks for Alberta's culture, and praying hard that Alberta will be lucky enough to get more of it.”
“Of all of the human virtues, these qualities are hardest to master, and there is no harder place to learn them than in front of the screens of millions of Canadians while sitting in the pressure cooker that is the Ottawa bubble as an elected leader. I see my colleague.”
The complete record
Every one of 546 lines we hold for Michelle Rempel Garner, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 11.
“A non-citizen in Canada should accept individual responsibility for defending the democratic institutions of Canada's constitutional monarchy, which is an ordered liberty rooted in the principles of peace, order and good government. In practice, this means they will defend shared Canadian rights, like freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of speech and freedom of the press; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of association; and the equality of women and men. All Canadians and those seeking to become one are expected to abandon any violent, extreme or hateful prejudices and to contribute to Canada. They are expected to respect the rule of law and accept the consequences for not doing so.”
“That was from the Globe and Mail. While it is tempting to blame judges for this state of affairs, the fault lies with the federal government. In spite of the increased evidence of leniency in sentencing due to consideration of immigration status in recent years, it has declined to provide more clarity to judges through legislation. That is why I introduced a bill to amend the Criminal Code and rectify this issue. The rationale for this change is straightforward: Anyone seeking residence or citizenship in Canada, as I said, has responsibilities as well as rights. The citizenship guide clearly states that citizens must obey Canada's laws and respect the rights and freedoms of others, and IRPA outlines the potential consequences for non-citizens who fail to do so.”
“The will of the court cannot be trusted if it is allowed to go unchecked, as it clearly has in all of these cases. My friends and colleagues, it is long past time for Parliament to exert its will and rein this poison in. (1815) To be very clear to every colleague here, the Supreme Court has been clear that the people of Canada who are concerned by crimes committed by non-citizens have every right, through their elected representatives, to provide guidance to sentencing judges. That is exactly what this simple, common-sense, non-partisan bill would do. Just this morning, the Globe and Mail editorial board said that judges in our current system are “protecting non-citizens from the consequences of their criminal conduct”, lamenting that no one seems to consider “whether Canadians would want these offenders as citizens” in the first place.”
“To be clear, this court ruling explicitly ruled that this consideration does not constitute a charter right, a remedy or a charter breach. In fact, this ruling does not even mention the charter once. Furthermore, the court ruling also made clear that “The flexibility of our sentencing process should not be misused by imposing inappropriate and artificial sentences” and that to do so would be “circumventing Parliament's will”. That is clearly not what is happening. Activist judges have twisted this ruling, as evidenced by the proliferation of examples I have given, beyond its scope in order to allow non-citizens who have been convicted of serious crimes to get more lenient sentences to avoid deportation. That is what is happening. Meanwhile, Canadians would not be given the same consideration, so we have a two-tiered justice system.”
“What about the value of Canadian citizenship or the responsibilities associated with being in our country? Being in Canada cannot just be about receiving the privileges and benefits of being in Canada, which are great. It also has to be about adhering to the responsibilities associated with that privilege, which includes adhering to the rule of law. There are many other examples that illustrate the trend of immigration status being considered in sentencing, with criminal lawyers now routinely arguing for lighter sentences so their non-citizen clients can evade deportation or a denial of citizenship under IRPA's current provisions. Let me explain why this is happening. Ever since the Supreme Court ruling in R v. Pham, the courts have been giving greater consideration to collateral immigration consequences when sentencing.”
“In October 2025, just last month, Roosevelt Rush, a non-citizen from Jamaica, had his cocaine trafficking sentence halved from an expected term, while already serving six years for fentanyl and firearms offences, because the judge wanted to help him avoid deportation. In 2024, in B.C., a non-citizen was convicted of fraud and received a six-month sentence, which a judge shortened from 10 months so he could avoid deportation. In 2024, a non-citizen from Somalia was convicted of assault with threats against police and had their jail time cut short to evade deportation too. It was a refugee who committed these crimes while getting the benefit of Canadian sanctuary. There is all this consideration for non-citizens convicted of serious crime to avoid deportation, but what about the victims?”
“A non-citizen in Canada on a visitor permit was convicted of twice groping an 18-year-old woman's genitals under her skirt as she stood at a bar to buy a drink. This person, this non-citizen, received a discharge from the judge so he could have a deportation appeal. In March 2024, a 24-year-old non-citizen from Surrey, B.C., received a conditional sentence of two years less a day for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon after stabbing a stranger. It sounds serious. What did the judge do? The judge rejected the Crown's four-year jail recommendation so the non-citizen would be able to avoid deportation.”
“A non-citizen from India pleaded guilty to no fewer than four counts of voyeurism, which left his female victims with intense fear and anxiety and emotional distress. He was sentenced to five and a half months jail. Why? Despite the judge admitting that six to 12 months would have been a more appropriate sentence, this was to avoid deportation. The judge even said this. In a 2024 Calgary case, another non-citizen from India was granted a conditional discharge for attempting to purchase sexual services from a 15-year-old girl. This was done to allow him to preserve his eligibility to become a Canadian citizen and avoid deportation. The judge cited in the sentence “the devastating collateral immigration consequences” of a harsher penalty. What about the victims'?”
“In recent years, there have been multiple instances of judges issuing sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes that were designed to allow them to evade deportation. The net effect of this practice in considering a non-citizen's immigration status in order to give them more lenient sentences to avoid deportation is to create a two-tiered justice system between non-citizens and those with Canadian citizenship. (1810) This is unfair and antithetical to the principles of fundamental justice, and it has eroded Canada's immigration consensus. Here are but a few examples of the rampant, excessive number of times non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault have been issued two-tiered, lenient sentences in very recent history, just so they would avoid the deportation consequences already set out in the law.”
“This is the section of the code where Parliament has exercised its right to provide guidance to the courts on how convicted offenders ought to be sentenced. My bill proposes to add a simple, one-line new principle, section 718.202, which states that a court, when sentencing a convicted criminal “who is not a Canadian citizen shall not take into consideration any potential impact the sentence could have on the offender’s immigration status in Canada, or on that of a member of their family.” This simple one-line provision ensures that provisions that are already outlined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are enforced when sentencing non-citizens convicted of serious crimes, like sexual assault. That is the how, and here is the why.”
“Later tonight, I and my colleagues will move many amendments to Bill C-12 in a further effort to do the same. Going back to this bill, to be fair to everyone and to prevent the further erosion of Canada's tolerance for immigration, we must ensure that non-citizens who commit serious crimes like sexual assault face the consequences that are already set out in our laws. At a bare minimum, non-citizens who abuse the great privilege of being in our country by committing a serious crime like sexual assault should face the deportation consequences that are already outlined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Here is how we can do that. The bill before us tonight amends the Criminal Code by adding a new general sentencing principle under section 718.”
“Rather, Canadians who are unhappy about immigration are pointing their fingers where the blame should be placed, at a federal government that has, over the past decade, brought too many people in too fast for housing, health care and jobs to keep up, while simultaneously legislating a doctrine of postnationalism that asserts that there is no Canadian national identity, which includes things like an equanimous judiciary, for non-citizens to integrate into. Canada is at a tipping point. The government must quickly act to restore the immigration system that it broke. If the government will not act, which it has not, then Parliament must. In the spirit of non-partisanship, I have used my private member's bill slot to correct one of the many areas the government needs to act on to fix the immigration system.”
“In fact, to save Canada's pluralism, the government must start admitting its errors with regard to immigration and working across party lines to accept common-sense solutions. Recent public polling shows that support for immigration among both Canadians and newcomers is at an all-time low. This opinion should shock and spur every person in this place to action to find ways to solve this problem. That is what I am trying to do with this bill today. Thankfully, the reason Canadians do not support immigration the same way they used to is not because Canadians are pointing their fingers at immigrants.”
“Removal from Canada for non-citizens after being convicted of a serious crime is a no-brainer to protect everyone, the value of Canadian citizenship and, frankly, every person who resides in our country and plays by the rules. After a decade of Liberal postnationalism and excessively high immigration levels, accepting this change would allow the government to demonstrate respect for Canadian citizenship by affirming that, at a minimum, the privilege of residing here for non-citizens depends on adherence to the rule of law. Everything that I have outlined and that I will outline tonight will show that beyond rote partisanship, there is no reason for the government not to support this bill.”
“moved that Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (immigration status in sentencing) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-220. Second reading She said: Mr. Speaker, should judges be allowed to use a non-citizen's immigration status to issue a more lenient sentence to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault, just so that they can avoid deportation? The answer is no. Tonight, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-220 , the one law for all bill, which represents and reasserts the principles already laid out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with regard to the deportation consequences associated with non-citizens convicted of serious crimes, such as sexual assaults, in Canada. The vast majority of people in Canada who have immigrated here abide by our laws.”
“Mr. Speaker, for those listening at home, that translates to “They do not know.” Global News also reported that an astonishing 450 people with assorted roles in Hamas now have ties to Canada. Last week, in response to an official request, the minister was unable to say how many non-citizen criminals and terrorists the Liberals have granted status to, and now Global News is revealing that the terrorist financier has already passed the citizenship test and is awaiting a final decision. How many other terrorists are the Liberals in the process of granting citizenship to?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday a shocking exposé by Global News outlined how in 2016 the Liberals allowed a Syrian national named Omar Alkassab, who is a financier of Hamas, to claim refugee status in Canada. On Tuesday officials revealed that the Liberals have launched a one-touch program that allows refugee claimants, when entering Canada, to self-declare whether or not they are terrorists. How many Hamas operatives and other terrorists have the Liberals granted refugee status to in the last 10 years?”
“Mr. Speaker, that excepts a Pakistani national who was convicted of raping his niece. He came into Canada while being on the U.K. sex offender list. It also excepts Simba's abuser. The government does not take the issue seriously. In fact it is so bad that this week the Liberals admitted that they did not even know how many convicted criminals they gave citizenship to. Seriously, they put that in an Order Paper question. I will give the minister one more opportunity. How many citizenships did she issue to criminals in Canada? Her department could not answer that this week.”
“Mr. Speaker, the problem is that we have an immigration minister who is so weak that she will not even stand up to answer questions like this. I asked about the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but she will not stand up, so I will ask again. The case I referred to is so disgusting. There have been so many cases like it: serious criminals and non-citizens who need to be deported. Will the immigration minister stand up and commit to strengthening the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make sure that non-citizens who are convicted of serious crimes are actually deported?”
“Mr. Speaker, non-citizen Abraham Daniel Abraham was convicted of criminally abusing his dog, Simba. Abraham repeatedly punched and kicked Simba and tied him to a pole so high that his front legs dangled off the ground. Simba could not lie down or sit and was left crying and yelping, yet Abraham remains in Canada with no deportation guarantee. That is disgusting. Why has the immigration minister not strengthened the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make sure non-citizens convicted of serious crimes, like Simba's abuser, are swiftly deported?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians that they need to sacrifice more to pay for the Liberals' inflationary deficit, but the Liberals sure are not sacrificing much. Yesterday, an Ottawa gossip rag feted the Liberals for attending a lavish deficit cocktail party hosted by rich Ottawa insiders, lobbyists and media firms, who were thrilled with the billions of tax dollars for their wealthy clients and owners. Will the Liberals apologize for popping champagne corks with rich lobbyists to celebrate a massive inflationary deficit while Canadians cannot even afford a case of beer?”
“How can we continue to respect how Canada operates if that is not in place? My colleague mentioned that we have travelled with the Inter-Parliamentary Union before, and travelling with her has given me a lot of insight into why French language rights are so important in Quebec. She helped me rediscover my family history, too, and how language rights have impacted me. I have to say that, by rejecting this amendment, the Liberals have sent a strong signal that they do not give a rip about language rights and they do not believe that language is an integral part of Canadian national identity or the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are the practical aspects of the rejection of the language amendment, and then there is the more macro-level impact. Practically, by rejecting the language requirement, somebody could be an adult, gain citizenship through descent, and not be able to speak one of Canada's official languages. My colleagues opposite are mocking that. To me, that goes to the macro-level narrative, which is that the Liberals do not believe there is a national identity, and they do not believe in the importance of language rights. By rejecting this amendment, they are sending a signal that it is okay to gain citizenship by descent, as an adult, without being able to speak one of Canada's official languages. How can we be unified as a nation if there is not a requirement to speak one of Canada's two official languages?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is big talk from somebody who ran for a party that has pulled down all the statues of the leaders of our country. That is tough talk from a guy who ran for a party that was rooted in postnationalism and that supports disgusting rulings, such as no mandatory minimums for child pornography. Do they have no shame? Those guys do not have any shame, but Conservatives will always fight for our country, for shared national identity, which is rooted in things like respect for the rule of law, for responsibilities associated with Canadian citizenship, for affordable budgets and for an affordable life. That is what we are fighting for, and I think my colleague opposite needs to check himself on the shame meter today.”
“We have to get back to our roots in so many different ways to restore those ties that bind us together as Canadians and that allow a pluralism to flourish. If we do not do that, the collapse of the country is inevitable.”
“Mr. Speaker, Parliament is supreme. We have the right to make laws in this place. That is what parliamentarians need to re-embrace after a decade of Liberal governments acquiescing to the courts' nonsensical rulings, such as the ones they should have appealed that precipitated this bill and the Supreme Court ruling that said there should be no mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography. Across political stripes, we had Premier Wab Kinew of the NDP in Manitoba say this was a ridiculous ruling and the UCP premier in Alberta saying that the ruling needed to be appealed. Part of Canada's national identity and protecting our pluralism has to be protecting Canada's democratic institutions, which includes the supremacy of Parliament. It includes our challenging court rulings.”
“It would further erode the fact that we have two official languages in this country, and again, it would erode that principle of national identity, which Canadians need for newcomers to integrate into our shared social and economic—”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that Canada needs to have a strong national identity that is clearly defined and supported in shared symbols by a government that rejects postnationalism, which the government has not done. I want to talk about language because the government gutted a language requirement amendment from the bill, which the Bloc and the Conservatives worked on together. Briefly, my maiden name is Godin. I am speaking English in the House of Commons because of laws in Manitoba that prevented my family from being able to learn the language. My family history was robbed from me. Part of my identity was robbed from me, and now we have a government that is rejecting that new citizens should have to learn one of Canada's official languages. It would further erode Canada's national identity.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to stand here to reject Liberal postnationalism, to reject everything the Liberals have done to erode the value of citizenship and the value of our democratic institutions, and to fight. I will stand here to fight for what is right. My colleague opposite has a lot of shame to wear for all the years he has stood by to actively help erode our national identity, our military and our national institutions. He stands up in here day after day to say, “It is okay the Liberals upheld this court ruling.” The Liberals have not even talked about the child pornography ruling. I have been out in the community. I see a Canada that has been reft apart by levels of crime I have never seen before, by hunger, by loss of affordability and by a loss of a Canadian national dream.”
“The value of Canadian citizenship, our national identity, is worth something more than what is in front of us today, so I implore colleagues to vote against the bill, protect our heritage and protect the value of Canadian citizenship.”
“However, what the Liberals would do today in the bill before us, especially by gutting the amendments the Conservatives put forward, is entrench the sense of postnationalism in the country, further erase our national identity, erode our pluralism and further devalue Canadian citizenship. Oftentimes in the House, we are tasked with the mundane details of program spending or of different types of policy, but we have to be tasked and seized with restoring Canada's national identity and with restoring and protecting the value of Canadian citizenship. I implore colleagues to vote against the bill, to make the Liberals go back to the table and come forward with a bill that is narrow in scope. There are tools at their disposal that they could use to challenge court rulings, but they have chosen not to.”
“What we have seen with the Liberal government is the denigration of Canada's democratic institutions, the Supreme Court ruling this week on child pornography, and censorship bills that take away our ability to speak truth to power. These are all things that erode Canadian sovereignty and support postnationalism. There has never been a more important bill to oppose than this one. For people who might have been affected by the small number of lost Canadians, there was a bill in front of the Senate years ago that would have addressed the issues, but the Liberals expanded the legislation far beyond the scope of what our colleague in the Senate tried to do. The minister already has powers to rectify circumstances of citizenship.”
“We have been in a period of time, especially with the trade situation we find ourselves in with our neighbours to the south, when the Prime Minister is talking about the need to have nation-building initiatives and whatnot, but he cannot even talk about what Canada's national identity is. The only thing I have heard the Prime Minister talk about with respect to that is the fact that we are not American. What are we, then? There are very clear definitions of what it could mean to be Canadian, even in Canada's citizenship guide right now. There is not a cohesive definition, but certainly on this side of the House we could manage a definition that was rooted in pride, in democratic institutions and in how to maintain pluralism and multiculturalism through respect for the rule of law.”
“If somebody is to be a citizen of this country, they should be able to speak one of Canada's official languages. They should have a clear and demonstrated ability to understand that the responsibility of Canadian citizenship is to uphold our democratic institutions. How can we measure that? We can do so through a citizenship test, but the Liberals gutted that amendment we made at committee. The fact that the government put a bill forward after not challenging a lower-court ruling on something as vital as the value of Canadian citizenship and who should be eligible for that is bananas. It says that the Liberals do not give a rip about Canada's national identity, and it reconfirms the current Prime Minister 's continuation of a postnational doctrine.”
“The reality for the current Liberal Prime Minister is that his government must reverse the many changes his predecessor made under the Liberals' aggressive postnational doctrine, in order to rebuild Canada's national identity, prevent pluralism's collapse and retain Canadian sovereignty. How can we talk about things that are in the national interest if the government cannot define what the national interest is? If the current Liberal Prime Minister fails, the effect will be the same as if he were to tip over the art installation in the National Gallery I spoke about, a shameful and purposeful squandering of an intricate and delicate masterpiece. That is why I stand here and oppose the bill. There should be no citizens of convenience.”
“His new Minister of Canadian Identity managed an arguably worse response, offering pithiness like “I won't stand here and pretend that I can tell you what [a] Canadian...is or should be.” (1035) It is telling that neither of them could define Canadian identity as rooted in shared respect for things like the rule of western-based law, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and equality of opportunity. Nor could they talk about the supremacy of this place and the fact that we here, who represent all the Canadians in this country and abroad, have the right to challenge court rulings and to set law; that is a core part of what we do to strengthen Canadian national identity.”
“Logic dictates that if the Liberal government continues eroding the western democratic values that once but arguably no longer underpin Canada's rapidly disappearing pluralistic national identity, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and equality in the application of the rule of law, then collapse is what should be expected of Canada's once-vaunted pluralism. People looking for a remedy from the Liberal Prime Minister who sits here today will be disappointed, as evidenced by the fact that he put forward a bill like the one that is before the House and then gutted amendments on things like language requirements. The Prime Minister has long been an adherent to the World Economic Forum's globalist brand of postnationalism, and the best definition of Canada's national identity he managed to muster was that we are not the United States.”
“In the early 1900s, a Canadian national identity had taken root in spite of high levels of immigration; it was forged in the crucibles of battlefields like Vimy Ridge, where people of many backgrounds fought together as Canadians, united by the shared values of democracy, rule of law, bilingualism and loyalty to the Crown. To be Canadian then was to embrace English or French as a primary language, respect parliamentary institutions and demonstrate civic duty through collective efforts in war and in nation-building. Fast-forward to today. Our domestic efforts have failed to build critical national infrastructure and have allowed our military to atrophy to the point of near non-functionality. Our foreign policy rewards the tactics of terrorist organizations and abandons western allies in times of crisis.”
“If Canadians want to reverse the pluralism-destroying course that Liberal postnationalism has set us on, every member of the House, regardless of political stripe, must acknowledge that postnationalism has eroded Canada's national identity to the point of non-existence. That state of affairs is likely the biggest threat to our sovereignty today; no other nation is. History proves this conclusion correct. For a civilization to survive the test of history, it needs some sort of cohesive shared identity; without it, collapse occurs. There are even examples to be found within Canada's own evolution in the 20th century.”
“Without a government's prioritizing, above all else and especially over partisan ideology, the safeguarding of principles like freedom of speech, secularism and the equality of opportunity, multiculturalism will inevitably destroy a peaceful and democratic nation. The proof is in the pudding. Today in Canada, after decades of postnational identity's destroying policies, less than half of Canadian youth say they would fight for our country. This marks a startling shift from generations ago, when Canadians fought in great wars for what seemed to be immutable freedoms. Diasporic conflicts now erupt on Canadian streets, hate crimes against ethnic and religious groups have surged and the once-strong Canadian consensus on immigration has been solidly broken by the government.”
“They supported activities that established the Canadian flag as a symbol of shame as opposed to a representation of patriotism. They worked to erase Canada's founders from places of prominence. Thus, Canada's political left has profoundly succeeded in transforming Canada into a postnational non-nation, free from the trappings of cohesive national identity. People who might argue that this was a good thing are very wrong. What Justin Trudeau overlooked in his Liberal government's zealous pursuit of postnationalism is that his father's multicultural vision could thrive only under robust western democratic institutions.”
“For example, they embedded divisive, quasi-racist hiring policies into federal funding for educational institutions, they allowed Canada's publicly funded national broadcaster to consider abandoning objectivity for racialized narratives, and now they allocate news funding based on whether or not outlets sufficiently highlight ethnic, religious or other group differences. Rather than enlisting newcomers to help strengthen a cohesive national identity, such as by constructively addressing the nation's historic injustices while simultaneously celebrating its positive achievements, the Trudeau Liberals actively erased symbols of shared historic Canadian identity from public view. They redesigned the Canadian passport to replace images of Canadian national heroes like Terry Fox with inert objects like a wheelbarrow.”
“The Trudeau Liberals have also normalized the practice of importation of conflicts from newcomers' countries of origin, rather than primarily encouraging the shedding of those quarrels in favour of a pluralistic, united Canadian identity rooted in western democratic values. This phenomenon is best exemplified by the Trudeau government's tolerance of diasporic lobby groups' influence in elections and in Canadian institutions while simultaneously turning a blind eye to groups who sought to plant international conflicts and even terrorist principles in Canadian soil. Despite clear evidence of rising foreign interference in elections, the Liberals have yet to implement a foreign agent registry. (1030) The Trudeau Liberals have also prioritized cultural and ethnic differences over a shared ethos of equality in hiring and storytelling.”
“On immigration, the Trudeau Liberals narrowed the age range for mandatory language requirements in citizenship applications, thus diminishing shared language roles in the Canadian identity for newcomers. They eliminated in-person citizenship oath requirements. They sought to erase references in the Canadian citizenship study guide to practices like female genital mutilation as abhorrent, arguably normalizing their importation into Canada. They turned a blind eye to judicial rulings, allowing immigration status to factor into sentencing violent criminals, valuing the process of entry into the country over the responsibilities associated with citizenship. They allowed Canada's compassionate asylum system to be abused and made a mockery of. Thus we have the bill we have in front of us today.”
“Culturally, Harper's government focused on heritage spending on platforming nation-building victories like the War of 1812. However, all those reforms were reversed and far exceeded after former Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau took office in 2015. Essayists discussing Trudeau Junior's famous 2015 postnationalism statement that “[t]here is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” often forget that he did not just say those words but that he also operationalized them through a decade of socialist-oriented, postnationalist policies, so much so that his fervent focus on abolishing Canadian national identity may be remembered as the most enduring aspect of his legacy.”
“It contains the globe within its borders, and Canadians have learned that their two international languages and their diversity are a comparative advantage and a source of continuing creativity and innovation. Canadians are, by virtue of history and necessity, open to the world. Former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper's government pumped the brakes on postnationalism during its tenure. On immigration, former prime minister Harper's government prioritized national identity with stricter language requirements for citizenship and a tougher citizenship exam. Regarding Quebec, it enshrined a key nationhood motion, which included the phrase “within a united Canada”. Economically, Harper attempted to ease western alienation by bolstering Canada's natural resource industries.”
“Former Liberal prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau set Canada on a postnational course with the 1971 multiculturalism policy, which encouraged newcomers to retain their cultural differences rather than embrace a shared Canadian identity. The erosion of Canada's national identity was further normalized in the 1980s by the Liberal government's national energy program, which deepened economic divisions between western and central Canada. The aftermath of the 1995 Quebec referendum further contributed to the erosion of Canadian national identity by entrenching exclusive Quebec nationalism. Then, in 2000, former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien stated the following in a speech: Canada has become a postnational, multicultural society.”
“That is the Canadian national identity, right? Well, it is not today, not after the Liberal government. While that might be the prevailing romantic notion of Canadian identity held by some colleagues who have eroded it over the last decade, it is no longer accurate to describe it as reality, and admitting the truth is the first step in addressing the problem. For people requiring evidence, it abounds in our country's recent political history. Canada's political left has long led the global postnational movement, best described as the purposeful erosion of national identities in favour of supernational organizations and globalism.”
“Thus, in 2025, our country Canada is perhaps most aptly described as lines on a map, home to tens of millions encouraged by their federal government to prioritize differences over similarities, to reject nationhood for globalism, to take from the country before giving back and to self-flagellate over historical feelings rather than build on the nation's strengths for future resilience. (1025) Upon hearing that statement, many of my colleagues will have a visceral reaction. That is good. How dare anyone question whether Canada still has a national identity. We are a multicultural nation based on the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and equality of opportunity. Canada is the place where newcomers can retain their cultural identity while plugging into a sense of peaceful, pluralistic Canadian nationhood.”
“In 2025, what does integration into Canada mean, anyway? What is the value of Canadian citizenship? That ambiguity belies the actual problem. Canada's sense of national identify has been eroded by the government to the point of non-existence. Immigrants cannot be expected to integrate into something that is not there. In recent decades, successive Liberal governments have used legislation and regulation like the piece in front of us today to segregate Canada along regional and ethnocultural lines.”