Xavier Barsalou-Duval
Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the opportunity to live in la-la land like my colleague opposite, but I think the reality is somewhat different from what he described in his speech. Let us get back to the matter at hand.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us look back on the last couple of weeks. The chair of the transport committee was the guest of honour of the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA, which is a Driver Inc. lobby group. The Liberals forced the committee to go in camera to prevent any discussion about Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, for the first time in recent history, more than 100 people died on our roads last year in accidents involving heavy-duty trucks. There were 102 fatalities. That is nearly 20% higher than the average for the previous five years. What has changed recently that could explain this? The answer is, of course, Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech today. This week, I had the opportunity to sit with him briefly on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I assume he is a full member.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. We might say that he tirelessly defends his party with all the enthusiasm he is known for. That said, although we may not agree on much, I am going to take the liberty of asking him a question.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today's debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis?”
The complete record
Every one of 556 lines we hold for Xavier Barsalou-Duval, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 12.
“They do not exactly solve everything, and the solutions they do bring are only temporary. There is always the fear that the problem will return or that it is only partially solved. The Bloc Québécois has fought other battles on the issue of EI, notably with Ms. Émilie Sansfaçon, who, sadly, has since passed away. Her father also fought for this cause. Émilie Sansfaçon would have wanted people suffering from serious illnesses such as cancer to be able to receive EI like anyone else. People with a serious illness are not well enough to go to work and have to devote all their energy to recovery. (1405) Unfortunately, this still leaves only 15 weeks of employment insurance instead of the 50 weeks that should be offered, as proposed by the Bloc Québécois. Still, many steps have been taken, and the government promised to listen and take action.”
“It is the initiative of a backbencher that may force his government to do something if the Liberals vote in favour of the bill. I am unaware of the Liberals' intentions regarding this bill. For me, this is a clear demonstration that it is past time for a major, in-depth overhaul of EI. Labour organizations, groups advocating for the unemployed and seasonal workers have been waging these battles pretty much everywhere. When we talk to people in eastern Quebec, in the north shore region or in Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, they all say the same thing: The EI system is dysfunctional, and it is sapping the life from the regions because of the spring gap problem. The government might say that there have been pilot projects, but pilot projects are temporary, not permanent.”
“In the end, the money was never put back into the EI fund. The sad thing is that the famous reforms that groups defending the unemployed were calling for at the time were never implemented. This was something the Liberals promised in 2015, when they were elected. They promised the moon. They promised that they would definitely look into employment insurance. They went on tours and held consultations. They have been in power for 10 years. This is even their 11th year in power. There still has been no major change. It is as if all those promises were worthless. We are in favour of this bill and we will support it. However, it is still disappointing to see that this is not actually a government bill. It is a private member's bill. This is not a government initiative.”
“Obviously, I think that is terrible and unacceptable, but that is how things currently stand in our legislation. These are archaic laws that have not been modernized in many years. We can only applaud the initiative of Bill C-222, which shows that there are major gaps and flaws in the employment insurance program. The one we are discussing today is only one of many. That is the worst part. I could tell you a story. When I was in CEGEP and university, there were campaigns to modernize the employment insurance fund. Since I am 37, that means it was almost 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, there were campaigns to modernize EI. There were campaigns to denounce the fact that the government was dipping into the employment insurance fund, whether it was the Liberals under Paul Martin or the Conservatives under Stephen Harper.”
“Usually, when a person says they are expecting a new baby, there is a lot of excitement. The individual, the couple and the whole family are happy. However, there are cases where the child passes away shortly after birth, which is incredibly difficult. I was fortunate enough not to have experienced that, but I did lose a child—well, not me personally, because I was not the one who was pregnant—before the baby was born, and I am sure that losing a child after birth must be even more terrible and difficult. Unfortunately, under the federal EI program, if a person loses a baby, then all of a sudden, they are not a parent anymore because they no longer have a child. They are therefore no longer entitled to receive EI during the leave period that parents would normally be entitled to.”
“Madam Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C‑222 , which was introduced by the member for Burnaby North—Seymour , a riding in British Columbia that I have not had the opportunity to visit. I assume that this bill was introduced with good intentions. We will be able to discuss the bill in more detail later. The reason I say that is because the member himself was once the minister of citizens' services in the previous government. In fact, it is the same government, although the Liberals like to say that it is a new government because they changed prime ministers. In any case, it is still a Liberal government. The purpose of the bill is to help people who lose their child. The birth of a child is a momentous occasion, a major life event. I am a father of three, and I can say that becoming a parent is life-changing.”
“Mr. Speaker, only one of our 10 requests has been taken up. Mélanie Séguin and Nathalie Poulin are victims of Driver Inc. who testified before the committee. They have one thing in common: They do not understand the Liberals' inaction. Ms. Séguin said, “You have families. If it were your sister, your daughter, your mother, what would you do?” Ms. Poulin said, “No one wants to hear what we have to say.... No one wants to touch this.... If anyone here today can explain why, I would love to hear it”. When will the minister respond to these victims?”
“Mr. Speaker, for months, the Liberals refused to invite Driver Inc. victims to testify in Ottawa. This week, we finally managed to meet with mothers who have lost family members to this public menace. What were these mothers asking for? They were asking the government to do its job. We submitted 10 requests to the government, but so far it has taken up one of them and continues to sit on its backside. I have a question for the Liberals. When are they going to wake up and stop blaming the provinces?”
“It even signed a pipeline agreement with Alberta. This is my question for the opposition leader: Does he not feel as though the fact that the Liberals are eating his lunch is forcing him to be more radical, when he was already radical enough?”
“Mr. Speaker, I notice that the leader of the official opposition and the Conservative Party tend to link oil production to sovereignty because they share the same vision, the same party and the same organization. I am not sure that this appeals to Quebeckers in general. When we talk to them about sovereignty, I do not think oil production is the first thing that comes to mind. If they do think about oil production, they may see it as more of a reason to leave this country. Beyond that, let us look at what the government has done since it was elected. It paused the electric vehicle availability standard, put an end to carbon pricing for individuals and eliminated the electric vehicle subsidy. It introduced Bill C-5 , which became law, allowing all kinds of environmental regulations to be circumvented.”
“Mr. Speaker, the mind boggles at the Liberals' and the Conservatives' debate over which party's actions are more inspired by John A. Macdonald. What Quebeckers remember John A. Macdonald for is his statement that Louis Riel would hang though every dog in Quebec bark in his favour. That is John A. Macdonald's legacy in Quebec. I can hardly believe what I am hearing, especially on the heels of the Prime Minister 's remarks about the Plains of Abraham and how the conquest was the best thing since sliced bread. I see no reason why we should be part of this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued that the Conservatives are portraying their motion and the course that they want to take today as a vision for a Canadian sovereignty act. Personally, I have always believed that sovereignty means passing laws, collecting taxes, and signing treaties with other nations. However, when we look at what the Conservatives are actually proposing in their motion, which indirectly lays out their definition of sovereignty, all that we really see is the elimination of environmental measures and the introduction of measures that promote oil and gas development. This raises a question in my mind that I would like to ask my colleague. As the Conservatives see it, does sovereignty not necessarily mean Canadian sovereignty, or are they confused about the difference between sovereignty and oil? Is some education needed?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to build on what my colleague was saying. His speech was quite clear and unequivocal. My colleague, our party and the government are denouncing the Conservative motion. However, what I find both fascinating and disappointing is seeing the Liberal members try to redeem themselves by denouncing this motion, even though they have been doing more or less the same thing since this government came to power last May. I would like to hear what my colleague from Joliette thinks about this, since he has been watching how they operate for a long time now.”
“Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am rather discouraged by the subject of the Conservatives' opposition day motion. It seems as though they have been talking about the same issues for a really long time. I have been on the Hill for 10 years now, and every time the Conservatives have an opposition day, they say that they want more oil. It is astonishing that they are still saying that even after the Liberals cut subsidies for EVs, put an end to the consumer carbon tax, agreed to a new pipeline, paused the electric vehicle availability standard and introduced Bill C-5 , which has now become law and which enables the government to circumvent all environmental regulations. How can the Conservatives remain optimistic now that the Liberals have eaten all of their lunch?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Association du camionnage du Québec supports our 10 measures. How many measures have the Liberals implemented? They have only implemented one. The Liberals are doing nothing because they have been being infiltrated on all sides by Driver Inc. truckers. The Prime Minister 's campaign organizer and donor was the spokesperson for a new Driver Inc. advocacy association. Not one, not two, but 10 Liberal MPs showed up at the organization's founding convention in 2023. They received $85,000 in donations from Driver Inc. promoters. The Liberals have to choose. Are they going to protect road users, or are they going to side with their cronies and Driver Inc. truckers yet again?”
“Mr. Speaker, when Quebeckers and truckers from Quebec asked the Liberals to put an end to the Driver Inc. model, the Liberals ignored them. As a result, the Americans are now the ones asking the federal government to take action. The embassy said that simply targeting companies allows individuals who commit violations to create a new company under a new name. There are 10 measures to be taken. The most obvious is preventing temporary immigrants from incorporating in trucking industry. That is the bare minimum. When will the Liberals take action?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Association du camionnage du Québec also says that there are still things the government can do to resolve this situation. When it comes to Driver Inc., the Liberals once again seem to be protecting the interests of their friends, or possibly the interests of their own pocketbooks. In addition to the organizer close to the Prime Minister who is lobbying unofficially, the Liberals received $85,000 in donations from people linked to Driver Inc. It is extremely worrying to see the Liberals' inaction when accidents have increased by 35% in Quebec in just one year. If the Liberals really care about road safety, why have they not implemented the Bloc's 10 demands?”
“Mr. Speaker, we wondered why the Liberals were protecting Driver Inc. truckers by shifting their responsibilities to the provinces. Imagine this: One of the Prime Minister 's closest organizers, Tej Dulat, works for the companies that hire these truckers. This generous Liberal donor was even seated right next to the Prime Minister during his swearing-in ceremony. There is no risk of mistaking him for a lobbyist, as he is not listed in the registry. He is using his privileged relationship with the Prime Minister to defend Driver Inc. truckers, even if it means putting lives at risk. Is that why the Liberals are doing nothing about this situation?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals had done enough on the Driver Inc. issue, the Americans would not be demanding that they do their job now. Washington is getting impatient. We need a formal inquiry to get to the bottom of the exploitation of drivers in the trucking industry, particularly foreign drivers. It is spreading like a cancer. We need to stop temporary immigrants from incorporating in the trucking industry. We need a public registry of non-compliant businesses that includes penalties imposed. Not only are the Liberals not taking action, but they are blocking work in committee. How many accidents will it take before they wake up?”
“Mr. Speaker, Washington is asking the federal government to do more to fight the scourge of Driver Inc. truckers. Even the Americans are fed up with the public menace these drivers pose on roads on both sides of the border. Yes, the Liberals have echoed our call to force companies to report the income of independent drivers, but the U.S. embassy is saying that, while this is a step in the right direction, it is not a magic bullet. The Bloc Québécois proposed 10 measures, and the Liberals adopted only one of them. That is not good enough. As for the rest, they are shirking their responsibilities. When will they take this issue seriously?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague. I am fortunate enough to sit with him on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and that is actually what I would like to ask him a few questions about. Essentially, his speech was a plea for deregulation. I understand his logic: Too much regulation ends up smothering businesses and hurting productivity. On the other hand, too little regulation or insufficient enforcement can also pose a problem, as shown by the Driver Inc. file that the committee is currently studying. The Liberal government seems to have let things slide for 15 years before being jarred awake by our committee's work. I would like to know whether my colleague thinks a case like this calls for less regulation or, alternatively, stricter enforcement.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find my colleague's comments interesting. The federal government is a bit like a wolf in sheep's clothing when it comes to culture. It keeps the community on a tight leash and tries to keep a close eye on everything. Those who misbehave will lose their subsidies. Everyone has to sing O Canada at the top of their lungs. The sector is being watched closely. At the end of the day, what the government is doing is letting Quebec culture die a slow death. It says not to worry, that it will pay for palliative care and that it will be painless. The reality is that we do not want Ottawa to just pay for palliative care. We want to live, we want to exist, and for that, we need our own country.”
“I do not mean that these jobs should not be filled. The government is simply taking the easy way out instead of looking at innovation, automation and job retention, with incentives for people who may want to stay in the labour market. These positions are filled by people who are more vulnerable and who will be paid less. Then they are weaponized when they are told they have to vote Liberal because they owe their citizenship to the Liberal government. It is sad to see.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises some interesting points. What I heard him say is that productivity is calculated based on the average hourly rate; however, that rate did not increase significantly at the time and did not keep pace with the cost of living. I could draw a parallel with Canada's immigration policies. In the past, Canada's immigration policies were designed to select people based on their level of education and their compatibility with the labour market. The idea was that these people would raise the overall standard. Unfortunately, there has been a complete change of direction by the federal government opposite. Now, the federal government's policy is to welcome as much cheap labour as possible. As a result, when we welcome people who are paid less than the average, it drags Canada down.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear to everyone that the Bloc Québécois is not going to vote for this bill any more than it voted for the budget. We voted on the budget, and the Bloc Québécois's position is clear. The Bloc Québécois's demands were all denied by the government opposite, a minority government acting like a majority government. It is sad to see this government do absolutely nothing to defend our culture. Whenever it does do something, it always comes with a little Canadian flag. We have to sing O Canada at the top of our lungs or lose our subsidies. That is how it works in Ottawa. We are not going to put up with that.”
“They do not like it when we stand up for French. What they want is for us to quietly go away. We will never allow that to happen. Excessive funding for English is not the solution. We must defend our culture and our identity. We will fight for Quebec.”
“It is offering Radio-Canada $150 million. Meanwhile, TVA, Noovo, Bell Media, local papers, Cogeco Média and Coops de l'information are cutting jobs. All our media outlets are dying, but the Liberals are indifferent. That is the reality, yet the media is essential to maintaining our democracy. English Canada clearly has no idea what Quebec culture is. English Canadians do not care about it. In fact, they could not care less. Perhaps there is a reason the Liberals just appointed the member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs as Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages. That member is part of the West Island clique, which views any gesture to promote French as one gesture too many. Those folks are fed up with hearing that the French language needs to be protected.”
“The Liberal government claims to defend Canada, but really it is not doing anything at all to defend Quebec's interests in this regard. On the contrary, it is once again capitulating to the Americans and to the U.S President's bullying tactics. Worse still, the government officials got nothing in return. They had said they would get something in return, that they knew how to handle the situation. In the end, they gained nothing on this issue or any of the other issues on which the Canadian government backed down. Nothing was gained. It is sad because the 3% tax on the revenues of web giants was expected to bring in $7.2 billion over five years. That kind of money could go a long way to helping our struggling media companies and cultural sector. The reality is that the Canadian government has money.”
“First, it announced that the tax would be put on hold and that the Liberal Prime Minister would not implement it. Now, this bill goes even further and rescinds the tax completely, so that is the end of standing up to web giants. We have been speaking out on this issue for years. I sometimes get the impression that we are crying out in the wilderness here in Ottawa. Unfortunately, this is a major problem for our culture and our media. This advertising revenue, which is essential to Quebec's—and to a certain extent Canada's—cultural vitality, is going somewhere else entirely. The government is not even imposing taxes on it, even though it is money that is going abroad. This advertising revenue is leaving the country and harming our industry. I find that unfortunate.”
“This bill formally repeals the Digital Services Tax Act, which required web giants to pay a portion of their taxes in Canada. This law provided for a 3% tax on revenue, because we know that these companies often report their income in a physical establishment located in another country, such as the United States or elsewhere. This practice allows them to avoid paying taxes in Canada even though they bring in enormous revenues, because everything is done on the Internet. We decided that the solution was to tax revenue generated here, rather than taxing based on the physical location of the company, which was problematic. Since Europe had decided to impose a 3% tax, that is what we proposed at the negotiating table. This measure obviously met with a lot of resistance from Donald Trump and the Americans. What did the Canadian government do?”
“Personally, I find it mind-boggling that the government is basically giving itself powers to circumvent laws in a completely arbitrary manner, as we saw with Bill C‑5 . Now, the government is doing the same thing quietly, in secret, with Bill C‑15. There was no mention of this in the budget statement, and there was no democratic debate in society at large. It is really worrisome to see the authoritarian direction the government is taking. It boasts about standing up for the rule of law, while undermining it through a back door. The direction this government is taking is very worrisome. That is not all. Bill C-15 contains one element that we find deeply disurbing, particularly since it is coming from a government that was elected to stand up to Donald Trump.”
“We are still concerned, but at least there are a few small mechanisms in place to monitor the progress of these projects. (1030) Page 300 of Bill C‑15 includes something rather peculiar. I will go over it quickly. It states: ...a minister may, by order, for a specified validity period of not more than three years and on any terms that the minister considers appropriate, exempt an entity from the application of (a) a provision of an Act of Parliament, except the Criminal Code, if the minister is responsible for the Act; (b) a provision of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament, except an instrument made under the Criminal Code.... Basically, if the government thinks that doing so will help technology companies and foster innovation, then it can tailor the application of legislation to reward its own friends.”
“Under this act, if a project pleases the government, it no longer needs to comply with legislation. It is exempt and gets fast-tracked through the process without the public having a say and without the proponent needing to obey environmental rules and laws. In the bill before us, the government is doing the same thing it did in Bill C-5, except that it is is giving itself even more power. The government did not even make an announcement about it, and it will not be studied in detail in committee. Talk about hypocrisy. What is more, there are no oversight measures. When Bill C-5 was studied in committee, we ensured that a special committee would be responsible for monitoring its implementation and that the project selection process would be transparent. There will be mechanisms in place to ensure that things function somewhat better.”
“He has completely abandoned the energy transition in the U.S. What is the Liberal government doing here? It is completely abandoning the energy transition. A few weeks ago, I met with people from Quebec's transportation electrification sector. They are deeply concerned about the course that the government is taking. They are afraid that the entire transportation electrification industry that has developed in Quebec is at risk. That is a serious concern. All of this came about because of a Liberal government that got elected by making false statements and then decided to adopt the Conservatives' political agenda and do Donald Trump a favour. I have another good example of the methods the Liberals are using. I am talking about Bill C-5 , which is now an act meant to speed up so-called major projects and allow them to circumvent laws.”
“No one knows when this measure will be reinstated either. It eliminated the consumer carbon tax. People in English Canada no longer pay a carbon tax. People in Quebec never paid it, because we have our own model. Basically, the government is completely aligned with the oil companies' priorities and completely aligned with what the Conservatives want, so much so that it has even announced a new pipeline. That is just crazy. These are the kinds of things this government is doing. It is sad, knowing that people elected this government to stand up to Donald Trump. That was more or less the Liberal slogan, how they characterized themselves. They kept saying “elbows up” and that it was important to be strong to stand up to Donald Trump. What kind of policy has Donald Trump implemented in the United States?”
“Among other things, the government has made its direction fairly clear in recent weeks, with its focus on oil and the extension of the carbon storage tax credit until 2041. This tax credit was not supposed to be extended for so long, but it continues. What is more, it is not just being extended. The amounts are also being increased for the period from 2031 to 2036. The bill also amends the Canadian Energy Regulator Act to facilitate the export of liquefied natural gas and allow for 50-year export licences. This is all perfectly consistent with what the government has been doing in recent months. One of the things it did recently was eliminate electric vehicles subsidies. The government had promised to reinstate them, but never did. It also got rid of the EV sales mandates, or at least paused them.”
“I predict that in a few weeks, maybe shortly after Christmas, the Liberals will start complaining that it is taking too long for the bill to get passed, that we are receiving too many witnesses, and that we are spending too much time studying it. However, they introduced a bill that is 650 pages long and that includes the equivalent of 80 legislative measures, which is practically 80 bills that amend 49 laws. We cannot be expected to adopt all of that without giving it proper consideration. I want my colleagues to be aware that we will need time to study this bill, because it will have many repercussions. We have already determined that certain elements of this bill are problematic.”
“Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity, or maybe the misfortune, to speak to Bill C‑15 , which aims to implement part of what was in the federal budget. Budget implementation bills are always interesting. In theory, the goal of a budget implementation bill is to implement what is in the budget. However, sometimes other measures are included as well. The government sometimes uses this opportunity to include all sorts of other measures in these bills that are not really related to the budget. That is something the Liberals used to decry when they were in opposition, but now they are doing the same thing. The bill before us is 650 pages long. These 650 pages contain 80 legislative measures that amend a total of 49 laws.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. Obviously, I cannot agree with everything that was said. There is a reason we are not in the same political party. The question I have for him has to do with the vitality of Quebec's media ecosystem, although I presume that similar issues are being felt elsewhere in Canada as well. In the bill currently before us, the Liberal government is officially abolishing the digital services tax, which was supposed to help fund our struggling media. At the same time, rather than support private media, which is already struggling, the government has chosen once again to give money to the CBC to the tune of $150 million in the latest budget. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the Liberals seem to believe that the CBC is the only media worth supporting.”
“Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is about indigenous relations. I know that there are several indigenous nations in her riding and that, historically, relations have been difficult. This means that it may have been challenging to built a relationship of trust over the years. In this context, we see that the government deciding to go back on its word—”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on the birth of his new baby. It can sometimes be quite challenging, but it is wonderful. I know something about that. The Liberal member criticized my Conservative colleague for not voting in favour of the budget. I have to say that I could also criticize him for the same thing but for different reasons. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is appalled by the budget. We submitted our requests for Quebec, but they were all denied, and then the Liberals were surprised that we did not vote in favour of the budget. That said, the Conservatives' position surprises me. The budget that was introduced denies the importance of the fight against climate change and opens the door to oil companies and pipelines. That is the direction that this government has been taking since it got elected.”
“Mr. Speaker, after winning the Uteck Bowl in a 49 to 19 victory over Saint Mary's University in Halifax on November 15, the Université de Montréal Carabins flew to Regina where they will now take on the University of Saskatchewan Huskies in the Vanier Cup final. My favourite player on the team is number 44. He is one to watch. His name is Mathieu Barsalou and he is my mother's cousin's son. He plays running back. In the semi-finals, he scored a whopping four touchdowns, which is quite impressive. Tomorrow, we are counting on the Carabins to keep Quebec on top by bringing the Vanier Cup home to Quebec for the fourth year in a row: 2022, 2023, 2024, and why not 2025? Go Carabins!”
“Mr. Speaker, something happened in the last Liberal budget. I think the Liberals tried to mislead just about everyone by making a distinction between operating expenses and capital expenditures. Unfortunately, their ploy did not work, because almost no one in the media or the opposition believed it. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it was nonsense. It might have made sense to separate operating expenses from investments, if the investments had been actual investments. Everyone knows that what the Liberals are trying to do in this budget does not make sense. Will my colleague across the way encourage her caucus members to return to actual rigorous accounting standards, so that people can trust what is tabled in Parliament?”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to see all my Conservative colleagues getting all worked up about the Liberal budget today and saying how bad they think it is. I could get caught up in that too, because I do not think much of it is good. Unlike the Conservatives, we have the benefit of being consistent. This week, when we voted on the budget, we were surprised to see that two Conservative members were hiding, waiting to see whether the budget would pass, before coming back to the House to state that they had had technical problems related to the vote. My question for my colleague is this. Despite everything that the Conservatives say is wrong with the Liberal budget, how is it that they did the math and found a way to make sure it would pass? Is it because, as everyone says, this is ultimately a Conservative budget?”
“Madam Speaker, what I found interesting about my Liberal colleague's comments is that he said that one of the criteria the Liberals included in Bill C-3 to establish a substantial connection to Canada was the 1,095 days. We are talking about the same 1,095 days that are required for naturalized citizens. Another criterion that naturalized citizens must meet is that they must know how to speak French or English. Why does the member opposite think it is okay to use the same 1,095-day criterion that we have for naturalized citizens, yet not require these people who are being granted citizenship to have a knowledge of French or English?”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the proposed amendments sought to ensure that adults living abroad who are descendants of Canadian citizens and who wish to obtain citizenship would be required to know either French or English. The Liberals rejected that amendment. Why are they against making a knowledge of French or English a condition of citizenship?”
“Mr. Speaker, the amendments put forward by the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative opposition were intended, among other things, to ensure that adult applicants have a knowledge of English or French, that they have undergone a security check for national security reasons, and that they were in the country for 1,095 days over five years. There was also a requirement to report on the number of citizenships granted under the bill. I want to know why the member voted against that. I also want him to explain what was so unreasonable about these requests.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship openly admitted in committee that she had no idea how many people would be affected by this bill. The Parliamentary Budget Officer finally gave an estimate of 150,000 people. The Bloc Québécois, with the support of the Conservatives, tabled an amendment to make sure that, after the bill is passed, a report is made to Parliament on how many people have benefited from the bill, meaning how many people have obtained citizenship because of it. Unfortunately, the Liberals rejected that amendment. The Liberals currently have no idea how many people will be affected, and they do not even want to know. Why does my colleague think that is?”
“Mr. Speaker, my answer to that question is this: Do the child's parents speak French or English? Did the child's parents spend at least three consecutive years in the country over a five-year period? These criteria do not seem that extreme to me. Am I wrong?”
“I think this could be a case of wilful blindness, a desire to see the world as though there were no problems anywhere, as though everything were easy, as though this citizenship had no value whatsoever.”