Ted Falk
Provencher, Manitoba · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are losing sleep because of the Prime Minister . A new United Way report confirms that 40% say they lie awake, worrying how to stretch their paycheque to pay for food, gas and housing.”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister , Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. Just like he manufactured a Liberal majority government, he has now manufactured a full-blown Liberal recession. Instead of building the second-fastest growing economy he promised, he has actually shrunk it.”
“Excuses simply do not cut it for children with empty stomachs, moms with empty grocery carts and parents with hollow bank accounts. The Liberals need to admit their policies have failed, reverse course and position Canada for the win. It is time to get Canada back on track.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora for her excellent analysis of the situation we find ourselves in here in Canada, where the Liberals, and the Prime Minister in particular, refuse to acknowledge the data provided by Stats Canada that we are in a recession and are the only country in the G7 in a recession.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member in recognizing that there is an affordability crisis and that Canadians need relief. It would certainly provide a lot of relief to almost every single Canadian family to have the price of gas reduced by the amount of taxes being charged by the Liberal government.”
“Cash is the only form of payment that does not depend on Internet or the electrical grid. Cash does not fail. It works every time in every circumstance for every person. The framework this bill would establish would ensure that cash infrastructure remains resilient.”
The complete record
Every one of 196 lines we hold for Ted Falk, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from a group of individuals who say that choosing medical assistance in dying because of a lack of available services or treatments is not a real choice. Allowing medical assistance in dying for those with disabilities or chronic illnesses who are not dying devalues their lives, tacitly endorsing the notion that life with disability is optional and, by extension, dispensable. Offering medical assistance in dying as a solution for disability or chronic illnesses reduces incentives to improve treatment and care for people with those conditions. Canadians do not want an ableist health care system in which the lives of those with disabilities are seen as not worth living. Many disability advocates in Canada have expressed opposition to allowing MAID for people with disabilities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions this morning. The first petition is from a group of individuals who are asking the House of Commons to urge the Government of Canada to call for the end of persecution of the Falun Gong in China and to take strong measures to combat the Chinese Communist Party's transnational repression in Canada. The petitioners ask that the Government of Canada publicly call on the Chinese regime to end its persecution of the Falun Gong in China and transnational repression abroad, continue to impose sanctions on and pursue accountability for the CCP officials and proxies responsible for these human rights violations, and take stronger measures to protect the Falun Gong community, which is targeted by foreign repression.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is my friend, although I disagree with just about everything he said. He is a great defender of Liberal propaganda. What the member failed to mention is that the Prime Minister made a promise that the deficit would not exceed $62 billion. It is at $78 billion. It is indeed a generational budget, because it is adding generational debt for our children and our grandchildren, which they are going to have to worry about paying back someday. What he does not realize, or at least talk about, is that we are going to be spending more on servicing the debt than we are spending on health care transfers and our military. All these things contribute to inflation, which is going to make affordability an even bigger problem here in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the industrial carbon tax and the clean-fuel standard. I do not know if the member realizes the significance of their cost and what they are doing to add to the cost of living for such basic things as groceries and transportation. Does the member have no concern for the residents of P.E.I. about the increased costs and the increased number of people who have to go to food banks just to get by?”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe the member from across the way is genuine in his concern for the residents of the island, but the budget does not contain any provisions at all for the retraction of the clean-fuel standard or the industrial carbon tax, which both add significant cost for the people he represents. What are his feelings about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, all the Prime Minister has achieved is higher air miles, higher altitudes and higher tariffs. With 28 trips and enough kilometres travelled to circle the earth four times, Canadians expect more than just photo ops and hollow letters of intent. When he travelled to China, Canadians got higher tariffs. When he travelled to India, Canadians got higher tariffs. When he travelled to Washington, Canadians got higher tariffs. Why are Canadian families paying the price with higher tariffs for the Prime Minister to jet around the globe for photo ops and deals for Brookfield?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians want stronger paycheques, safer streets, secure borders and a self-reliant country. They cannot get that from the Prime Minister , who puts Brookfield, the company he chaired, first. When the Prime Minister met Donald Trump, he brought home nothing for Canada, only an $80-billion U.S. nuclear reactor deal for Brookfield, giving Donald Trump the jobs, the investment and a 20% stake in Westinghouse profits. Canadians get nothing. While chair, the Prime Minister directed Brookfield to avoid $6.5 billion in Canadian taxes through shell companies he established in Bermuda and in the Cayman Islands on top of a bicycle shop. The Prime Minister 's inflation tax and industrial carbon tax make groceries even more expensive, while Brookfield's CEO claims that inflation boosts its profits.”
“Mr. Speaker, the current government is the most expensive in Canadian history. Every dollar that the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians. The more he spends, the more things cost. The Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would keep the deficit at less than $62 billion; instead, it is $78 billion. He told Canadians that he would get rid of the consumer carbon tax; instead, the industrial carbon tax is set to rise and make food even more expensive by driving up the cost of fuel, fertilizer and farm equipment. Why is the Prime Minister increasing the industrial carbon tax, and why does he want to make food more expensive?”
“In light of that, does the member have any confidence that our Prime Minister will get us a favourable deal with the Americans when CUSMA is up for renewal?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Calgary Signal Hill gave a great speech, and I thank him for his great understanding of trade deals and for the work he has done for our government in his previous work. Our Prime Minister billed himself as a world-class deal maker, but he has not brought us a world-class deal yet. He had an opportunity to get some simple concessions out of the U.K. as far as allowing our pork and beef industries to access the markets, but he failed to do it. In fact the Liberals are suggesting that the ongoing discussions will create some kind of deal, and then we will continue to talk this thing through. Well, talk is cheap, and deals are made before the ink is on the paper; that did not happen. I think our Prime Minister will go down as a global concession maker instead of a deal maker.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his interpretation of the bill. The previous speaker, the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville , mentioned that there is ongoing dialogue about the issue of our farmers' not being able to participate fully with their cattle and hogs, their beef and pork. He said that there had not been any concessions in allowing the U.K. to be part of the CPTPP and that there would be ongoing discussions. Once the ink is dry, is it not too late to make a deal? Should the deal not have been made before signing it?”
“Madam Speaker, when we make trade negotiations or trade deals, it is an opportunity to actually make a deal. I am wondering what we got in return for signing on to this U.K. deal and allowing them into the CPTPP. I am thinking particularly of our beef and pork industries for cattle and hogs. Did we get any concessions? There are trade barriers there right now. Did those trade barriers get eliminated?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from Saskatchewan for her observations about the damage being done by these supervised injection sites. It is reprehensible and abhorrent that some of these sites are located next to schools where children are exposed to that kind of activity. They also have to be careful that they avoid used needles and other debris and carnage from that kind of activity. I think that needs to be addressed. I do not think there should be any supervised injection sites at all in Canada. I think we need to treat people. We need to give them hope. We need to help them out of their addiction—”
“Madam Speaker, of course, we were very disappointed in the Liberal government's failure to hire the 1,000 CBSA officers that were promised and would have strengthened our security at our borders. Would we support expanding the authority that CBSA officers have in between ports, as they only have jurisdiction within a certain perimeter around each port of entry? I think that should be looked at and considered. It is not a bad idea. We need to strengthen our borders.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Victoria for acknowledging many of the things I said in my speech. The lack of accountability, the lack of real consequences for repeat violent offenders and doing things like putting injection sites next to schools are all creating many problems in society and in our communities. I applaud the member for his recognition of the things I identified in my speech. Together, I hope we can move legislation forward that will protect Canadians better, while not intruding on their privacy.”
“It would strengthen institutions while breaking public confidence. It calls expanded surveillance “security” and judicial leniency “reform”. (1625) As Conservatives, we will defend Canadians and ensure the government, once again, serves them rather than manages them. Canada deserves order rooted in freedom, justice grounded in truth and leadership that governs with courage instead of suspicion. That is what Conservatives will restore.”
“Leadership demands drawing lines, and the first line must always be to protect the innocent. Canadians are watching a government that punishes the law-abiding citizen while excusing repeat offenders. It expands bureaucracy, weakens enforcement and governs through regulation instead of principle. The Conservatives stand for something different. We stand for a nation where law protects the innocent, not the offender, where privacy belongs to the citizen, not to the government, and where power is exercised under restraint, not carelessly or impulsively. Real leadership defends the public without breaking its confidence. Real justice distinguishes guilt from innocence instead of confusing both through bureaucratic process. Bill C-12 fails every one of those tests. It would add layers of control but no layers of accountability.”
“The measure of justice is not leniency but credibility. Every time the government offers comfort to those who destroy others' lives, it destroys the authority of law and the safety of the public. If the government will not restore the proportion between crime and punishment, Parliament must. The government's tolerance of so-called safe consumption sites near schools is a direct failure of responsibility and is abhorrent. No responsible nation permits narcotics facilities near schools and describes it as public health policy. These neighbourhoods deserve order, not policy experimentation presented as compassion by a woke government. What the government calls harm reduction has become harm relocation, shifting the crisis from alleyways to doorsteps and from addicts to families.”
“They ask for a justice system that protects the innocent, restrains the violent, re-establishes moral clarity in law and provides appropriate punishments for criminals. Even for serious violent offences, Bill C-12 would continue to permit house arrest. A criminal who has shattered lives should not complete punishment on the couch in his living room playing Xbox. The government calls this rehabilitation. In truth, it signals that consequences have been replaced by convenience. When justice no longer imposes real cost on wrongdoing, crime becomes just another risk of the trade for those who profit from it. For those who are accountants and listening today, criminals do a cost-benefit analysis as well and have obviously determined that under the Liberal justice system, the cost is worth the potential benefit. This is so wrong.”
“The government imposes restrictions on law-abiding hunters and farmers while failing to strengthen penalties for those who commit crimes with illegal firearms, which is by far the vast majority of gun-related crimes. This inversion of justice reveals a deeper problem: the failure to connect law with consequence. Deterrence works only when punishment is certain and proportionate. Without it, every sentence becomes a suggestion and every criminal learns that Canada will forgive what it refuses to prevent. A government that governs without moral distinction cannot preserve order. When there is virtually no distinction between crime and compliance and they are treated alike, the rule of law decays. Canadians do not ask for vengeance; they ask for accountability.”
“True public safety begins with control of the border and certainty of punishment. Those who traffic fentanyl, smuggle weapons or endanger lives must face penalties appropriate to the crime and ones that will keep our citizens safe. A government that fails to enforce its own law creates conditions for chaos. A nation that cannot or will not secure its border cannot guarantee the security of its people. On sentencing, the failures are unmistakable. Bill C-12 leaves untouched the absence of mandatory prison time for those who traffic in fentanyl, an offence that destroys Canadian families and communities every single day. It introduces no new mandatory penalties for gang members who commit crimes with illegal firearms.”
“We will ensure there are no hidden regulations that would turn oversight into surveillance. We are not a passive opposition; we are now the country's safeguard in Parliament. Canadians may have elected the Liberal government, but we will still protect them from its overreach. We will defend their right to live free from suspicion, to transact without intrusion and to remain citizens, not data points in a government database. Bill C-12 would do nothing to correct the failures of the bail system, which releases violent offenders back into our streets. A government serious about justice would not tolerate repeat offenders moving drugs and weapons while communities bear the costs. The reality is that Canadians are living with the consequences of a system that mistakes leniency for progress.”
“The bill would empower officials to require any person to provide any information relevant to the minister's determination. These are not targeted, investigative powers; they are open-ended instruments of surveillance disguised as administration. Canadians should believe the Liberals when they say things like this. The Liberal project has been to replace accountability with administrative control, one regulation, one surveillance clause and one warrantless power at a time. Now the government has returned with Bill C-12 , revised in wording, but unchanged in purpose. Canadians have learned what that means: less privacy, more bureaucracy and another significant overreach into their lives under the banner of safety. (1620) We will examine every line, every clause and every authority that Bill C-12 would grant.”
“Until the government can provide the security and protection of our freedoms and sovereignty, Canadians will be the ones who bear the consequences of bad Liberal policies, policies they never asked for. Years ago, Justin Trudeau said that he admired what he called the “basic dictatorship” of Communist China. Those remarks were not casual. They revealed a mindset that efficiency matters more than consent, that control is strength and that democracy is a hindrance to decisive rule. Yet again, the Liberal government is demonstrating that it still thinks like Justin Trudeau. Bill C-12 carries the same impulse. Translated into law, it hides coercion in the language of administration. It expands government access to personal data, centralizes authority in ministerial hands and calls this intrusion public safety.”
“Rather than protection, it is control over them, and Canadians deserve better than governance by surveillance. Law-abiding Canadians should not forfeit their freedoms to pay for the government's negligence at the border. Years of weak enforcement and negligent immigration management have left Canada vulnerable to the very criminal networks that the bill claims to confront. Rather than tightening entry controls, the government has turned inward, treating every citizen as a potential suspect. Bill C-12 is not a defence of sovereignty, but an admission that the government has been unable or unwilling to control those who seek to enter illegally, so it will instead attempt to control its citizens.”
“The withdrawal of Bill C-2 proved that a determined opposition can still discipline a government that has grown careless with its authority and abuse of power. When drafting Bill C-2 , the government did not consult the Privacy Commissioner before proposing to grant itself warrant-free access to Canadians' financial and digital records. The text of Bill C-2 , and now echoes of it in Bill C-12 , envisioned power to retrieve information from banks and telecommunications providers as the “Minister considers necessary”. Wow. There would be no court order, no independent review and no safeguard against those kinds of abuses. A government that can reach into private accounts and call it protection is not defending citizens; it is blatant overreach.”
“Behind the new title lies the same design: more intrusion, more bureaucracy and less freedom for Canadians. Conservatives will stand as the barrier between Canadians and any act that weakens their privacy or erodes their freedoms, and mistakes government control for public safety. Bill C-12 must be fixed. When Conservatives forced the government to withdraw Bill C-2 , it was more than another Liberal failure. That bill sought to give cabinet sweeping authority to collect and share potential personal data without judicial oversight. By stopping it, we reminded the government and our country that freedom in Canada is not a privilege granted by the government but a charter right, which we will not tolerate being trampled on by the Liberal government.”
“Madam Speaker, before I dive into my comments on Bill C-12 , I want to acknowledge that I was here 11 years ago on this date, October 22, when Parliament came under attack by a lone gunman. I want to publicly thank the Parliamentary Protective Service and the RCMP for the safety they provided to all members of the House. I also want to acknowledge that, during that same series of events, Corporal Nathan Cirillo lost his life while being part of the ceremonial guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Constable Samearn Son took a shot to the foot here in Parliament, and Constable Curtis Barrett was able to neutralize the threat. I want to acknowledge those individuals as well. The Liberal government is asking Canadians to believe that Bill C-12 is different from Bill C-2 and is a new safeguard for the country. It is not.”
“Mr. Speaker, it was interesting listening the member's speech. He spoke eloquently, but he did not have a basic understanding of finances when he referred to deficits and the accumulation of debt as being the same thing. They are absolutely very different from each other. I would hope that he would educate himself on the difference between deficits and debt. The government has signalled that it is going to make a significant departure from the way it has historically and traditionally presented finances and budgets here in the House and to Canadians. It is going to use an asset-based, or capital, budget versus an operational one, which is the way it has traditionally been presented. We know that figures do not lie, but we also know that liars know how to figure.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I take exception to the language that the member on the opposite side is using. We all know what the reference to the Prince of Darkness is. He does too. I would ask him to withdraw that statement.”
“American tariffs have doubled and the Prime Minister is bragging about pushing $1 trillion of Canadian investment to the United States. That is not a plan for growth. It is a plan for surrender. Why is the Prime Minister giving Donald Trump $1-trillion jackpot?”
“Mr. Speaker, have you ever dreamed about winning the lottery? Well, Donald Trump hit the jackpot. Yesterday, the Prime Minister committed $1 trillion of investment to the United States. That is on top of the $500 billion that fled from Canada in the last five years and the $50 billion that left just this year under the government. Let us put this into perspective. That is the equivalent of doubling our national debt. Canadians are left with less investment, fewer jobs and fewer wages. When the Prime Minister said that he was going to “build, baby, build”, Canadians thought he meant Canada, but what he really meant was closing mines in Quebec and opening them in Pennsylvania, shutting down mills in B.C. and opening them in Washington, and shutting down auto plants in Ontario and opening them in Michigan.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for an excellent speech. I think she clearly identified some of the issues and concerns she has with this legislation. Earlier today, we had the Liberals vote against being tough on crime and instead, support their soft-on-crime approach by voting against the jail and not bail motion that Conservatives put forward. The member identified that she does not necessarily have confidence that victims of sexual violence and assault in the military will receive justice in our courts. Does the member think that because of the Liberals' failure to pass legislation that is effective and brings justice to victims?”
“Mr. Speaker, loose lips sink ships. In a stunning display of incompetence, the public safety minister admitted that spending $750 million on a gun grab will not work. The same minister has lost track of 600 foreign national criminals and failed to hire 1,000 additional border guards. Canadians want a government that can keep them safe, but instead of protecting Canadians, the Prime Minister would rather protect the public safety minister and their flawed ideology. The ship is sinking. Will the Prime Minister fire the Minister of Public Safety ?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the member misrepresented what the bill really does. What the bill really does is expand surveillance and data collection from individuals without requiring a judicial warrant. She said it would require one. That is not what the bill says. Could she clarify her comments?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for all the tremendous work she has done in Parliament over the years, especially on the piece of legislation before us. She has really shown her expertise in this area and on this file. The member is absolutely right; our immigration system has been severely broken by the Liberals. They are not taking into consideration the reality we live in Canada and that many things are broken that need to be fixed. Our eyes should be on that.”
“If the bill is not defeated entirely and something better brought forward, then it needs some significant amendments at committee that would really refine the scope of the bill to include lost Canadians, as is the intent.”
“Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île and for the work he does in Parliament. The question is very good: Where would Bill C-3 not be fair to someone? Bill C-3 would extend citizenship to people whose parents have been here only 1,095 days. They themselves may never come here, never want to come here, never contribute to our Canadian society, never be part of our communities and not even necessarily know either of our two official languages, yet they could be full Canadians. Right now there is a group of people called lost Canadians, who are affected by previous legislation, which the bill also captures, but it could do it with a lot less broadening than in its current state.”
“Madam Speaker, the bill is about providing citizenship to multi-generational people who have never lived here, who have no intention of living here and who have never been in Canada. Under the bill, to become a Canadian citizen, a person would not be required to have spent a day in Canada. The parents are required to spend 1,095 days in Canada over their lifetime. However, a person could conceivably, in the bill's current form, receive Canadian citizenship without ever having spent a day in Canada, and they could use their Canadian citizenship for travel purposes, for coming here in the event of a medical emergency, for cheaper education or to take advantage of our social system here, because they would be a Canadian citizen. The bill is seriously flawed, and the member should actually take notice of that.”
“Finally, it is about people coming from different backgrounds, different languages, and different countries and cultures, all uniting meaningfully with common vision for the country we love. God keep Canada, the true north, strong and free.”
“The Liberals are proposing that we streamline multi-generational foreign residents to claim citizenship with minimal presence in the country. We would be extending multi-generational access, generation after generation, when a parent has to spend only 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada, and with no criminal record check. One immigration lawyer asked what kind of evidence would be required to demonstrate one's physical presence in Canada. Citizenship is not about having minimal connection to Canada or joining a club for convenience; citizenship is a commitment to Canada, to its people and its values, and it carries rights and privileges but also carries responsibility.”
“Worse yet, CIBC says that unemployment matches levels that are typically seen only during recessionary periods, and our youth are the ones who are suffering the most. Over 17% of students are returning to school this fall having failed to secure a summer job. For younger students, aged 15 to 16, unemployment rose to a rate of over 31%. We have some catching up to do, which is one of the reasons Bill C-3 is just not doable in its current form. Ministers have expressed that they are open to edits and changes, but the bill has massive flaws. There is an old proverb that reads, “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.” Conservatives want better legislation. We want legislation that will be passed and that will be successful.”
“I note that this is all happening after we were promised less spending during the election, and from what we know right now, deficit spending looks to be 100% bigger than what we were promised. This is important, because the proposed cost implications of Bill C-3 to Canadians, related to health care, pensions and education, are not even considered a factor. That was discovered in the technical briefing. Canada is already challenged economically. Again, the election promise was that we would have more investment, but just last week, we discovered that $62 billion of net investment has left the country since the Prime Minister took office. The National Bank says that this is the biggest net outflow in any five-month period in Canadian history. Unemployment, the cost of living, the cost of homebuilding, tariffs and crime are all up.”
“I know there were announcements made on the weekend by the Liberal government, but as far as I know, announcements so far are not translating into shovels in the ground. Either way, we simply do not have enough homes for Canadians. In the previous version of the bill, the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that 115,000 new Canadian citizens could immediately be added to Canada at a cost of $21 million just for the processing, that being only one estimate. Ryan Tumilty of the National Post wrote that, in fact, the government has no idea how many people would automatically be granted citizenship if the legislation is passed, because there is retroactivity to the current legislation.”
“(1235) When people come to Canada, we want to extend the Canadian promise that envisions hard work being rewarded, food and homes being affordable, streets being safe, borders being secure and all people coming together, united under a proud flag, and that is why getting the legislation right is so important. Right now we have the second highest unemployment in the G7, the worst household debt and, in some regions, the highest house prices. To top it all off, our food prices keep going up and up. Throughout the election, we were promised that we would “build, baby, build”, doubling homebuilding, but instead we are being told homebuilding will fall by 13%. Already in Toronto and the GTA, homebuilding has fallen by half.”
“From this legislation, we became aware of lost Canadians, who are people who either had Canadian citizenship and lost it or thought that they were entitled to Canadian citizenship but never received it. Senator Martin's Bill S-245 could have addressed these concerns. Instead, the government is trying to rush through a bad bill when so many other factors need our immediate attention. Not considering factors such as housing, inflation, homebuilding, job security, natural resources, crime and even our drug rate is not being honest to newcomers to Canada.”
“This would primarily be done by eliminating the requirement for strong ties to Canada. Where Bill C-3 could have maintained a focused and targeted approach like Conservative Senator Martin's Bill S-245 did, this bill, Bill C-3, proposes sweeping changes that would dramatically impact the face of citizenship. To give a bit of context on this, back in 2009, the Conservative government at the time addressed concerns about Canadians of convenience, that is, Canadians who hold Canadian citizenship who live outside the country and do not participate in Canadian society. Consequently, Bill C-37 amended the Citizenship Act to limit citizenship access down to one generation. In other words, non-resident parents could pass on citizenship to their children, but grandchildren would not automatically be granted citizenship.”
“Back in December 2021, 23 applicants from seven families filed a constitutional challenge. The subsequent ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared that the first-generation rule in the 2009 Citizenship Act was unconstitutional and gave the federal government six months to respond. Instead of an appeal of that decision, there have now been four extensions. The current requirement is that a response be legislated by November 20 of this year, so the clock is now ticking, and Bill C-3 represents the new version of the Liberals' unpassed Bill C-71 in the last sitting. Just because the timer is on does not mean that we should pass bad policy. All we need to do is respond to what needs to be fixed. Instead, Bill C-3 would open the door to abuse by dramatically broadening access to citizenship.”
“Conservatives will continue to fight for policies that protect our sovereignty, ensuring that citizenship retains its value and keeps our country strong for generations to come. Canada deserves no less. Conservatives cannot support this bill. It is an attempt to cheapen citizenship and make it less valuable. Conservatives stand up for integrity, security and responsible immigration. As many here know, Canada's immigration policy used to be the envy of the world. This bill would potentially radically obscure a common vision of the value of being a Canadian. To hand out Canadian citizenship to people with little or no connection to Canada is insanity. Regarding its background, Bill C-3 is a re-creation of a previous bad bill with which the Liberal government last attempted to overhaul Canadian citizenship laws.”
“Adding a vast open-ended pool of new applicants without any planning or clear limits would only make things worse. The government has not released how many new citizens Bill C-3 could create. Numbers, costs and the implementation plan are clearly lacking. This lack of accountability matters. Citizenship must and does mean more than a piece of paper. It represents a real and substantial connection to Canada. That means living here, contributing here and being a part of a united Canadian society. Conservatives believe in a citizenship system that is fair, is reasonable, is rooted in accountability and puts Canada first. We will not support policies that would so badly skew the meaning of being a Canadian citizen, and we will not put Canadian workers and families at a disadvantage.”