Gérard Deltell
Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, Quebec · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has been running the country for over a year now. My question is very simple: Where are the actual results for Canadians? Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. The GDP has contracted in three of the last four quarters.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope this government will take the data from Statistics Canada and the budget into account. This past year, the deficit was twice as high as expected. The cost of living went up. Housing starts have declined since May.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, is being completely mismanaged. As a result, it has become a cakewalk for tax evaders to hack into the accounts of perfectly ordinary, honest people. Unfortunately, when people get hacked, it can takes months and months before the CRA can resolve their issues.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C‑269 , which was tabled by my colleague from Calgary Centre . One thing I can say is that I have known my colleague very well for seven years now. He was first elected in 2019.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. He began by marking the 35th anniversary of the Bloc Québécois. I would therefore like to wish everyone in the Bloc Québécois a happy anniversary. Clearly, I am not about to debate the matter, but, since he quoted Lucien Bouchard, I would also like to quote him.”
“Even though there are tax incentives elsewhere and there may be some here in Canada, we believe that this approach, which involves reusing the heat generated by industrial equipment and factory machinery and equipment as an energy source, is feasible. The technology allows for it and it is constantly improving.”
The complete record
Every one of 469 lines we hold for Gérard Deltell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, when we talk about Bill C-4 , obviously we are talking about the carbon tax. The point is that when we talk about the carbon tax, we are talking, sincerely and correctly, about the exploitation of all kinds of energy and natural resources. Can the member inform the House about his experience as a leader of his community in terms of natural resources? Can he share with the House his experience with his community and the federal and provincial governments?”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech and on the comments he just made, but I would still like to ask him the following question. The so-called architect of environmental policies that he mentioned earlier—obviously referring to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie —was there six months ago when the government decided to get rid of the carbon tax. He was there when the government introduced and voted for Bill C-5 , which allowed for last week's announcements. Did the architect's conscience finally catch up to him, well after all the things he did in the past? We must not forget that he was elected by the people of his riding with a 17,000-vote majority after getting rid of the carbon tax, this government's flagship environmental measure.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. First of all, I want to apologize to my colleague. There are some technical problems. I very much appreciate all of my colleagues here, but the camera is not focused on the person speaking. I am sure a lot of people have noticed. It reminds me of the good old days, when I was a TV journalist. Maybe we can fix it right now.”
“We have observed that both the government and the opposition parties agree in principle, while pointing out the fact that we will have to work effectively in committee. That is the beauty of democracy. Those who watch and listen to question period already know that our debates can be quite harsh at times. That goes without saying. On the other hand, when we can find common ground with all the parties in the interest of ministerial transparency, to give Canadians more information, then Canadians are the first to benefit.”
“It is quite shocking to learn that $18 billion has not been collected as it should have been from businesses and individuals. That is why this bill seeks to make information available and ensure that everything is done properly. We have heard some highly relevant comments from our colleagues about protecting confidential information and data. I want to assure everyone in the House that the purpose of this bill is not to expose these companies, much less reveal their corporate secrets. If by chance these companies have entered agreements that allow them to avoid paying $2 million, $3 million or $4 million in taxes owed, then it seems only fitting that Canadian workers should be informed. Obviously, our party supports the steps taken by our colleague from Simcoe North .”
“When someone does manage to reach an agent who is supposed to provide accurate and relevant information, the Auditor General's report on the CRA says that the information provided is incorrect 83% of the time. Imagine a worker who cannot afford an accountant and has to fill out his tax return on his own. He is told that everything is fine, that he has to complete line x by writing in amount y , and that it will be correct. However, four times out of five, the information he is given is incorrect. Then, unfortunately, a few weeks later he receives a notice from the CRA demanding full payment of the $200 or so he owes because of a delay, because he did not fill out his return correctly. Now the interest is accruing rapidly, but the information he was given was incorrect. The whole story is pretty astounding.”
“Last year it was $18 billion. I am the national revenue critic for the official opposition. I took over the role following my colleague from Simcoe North . As members can see, I was in good hands. However, I still have a lot to learn before I can be as relevant and effective as my colleague from Simcoe North. That said, it is quite clear that the Canada Revenue Agency really needs to improve its image, and that is to say the least. There is nothing more important for a taxpayer than to ensure that they pay the exact amount of taxes owed to the government. However, the Auditor General's report, released just over a month ago, gave a very scathing review of the current situation at the Canada Revenue Agency. Mores specifically, it reveals that telephone wait times are approximately twice as long as expected.”
“Rather, it seeks to determine how companies are managed to understand why taxes that should have been paid were not. That is why we need to see what kind of agreement we can reach in this regard, and that is the purpose of this bill. It is a very good thing. A responsible government is not afraid to go public about decisions that affect businesses. Transparency makes it easier for people to engage in healthy and honest debate when it comes to judging government decisions. Canadians deserve to know why companies are not paying all of their taxes. They have to pay, just like everyone else. It is an obligation. Why, then, are large write-offs not disclosed? I must admit that, when I first began studying this bill, I was quite surprised to learn that so much of the money that should have been paid had in fact not been collected.”
“That is why the bill aims for transparency, so that Canadians can know which companies have reached an agreement with the government to avoid paying a debt of more than $1 million. We are not targeting small businesses or citizens who owe $200 in taxes, but rather those who owe more than $1 million in taxes, who have not paid and who have made an agreement with the government not to pay. I believe that Canadian taxpayers have a right to know so that they can then judge the government's decisions. In a democracy, the more transparency the better for society. However, we understand that agreements protecting confidentiality and information are a fact of life. Let us be clear: The purpose of the bill is not to disclose corporate secrets.”
“If, God forbid, hard-working Canadians with modest incomes are $200 or $300 short on their tax return, the CRA is quick to come down on them and make them pay. Interest begins to accrue on day one, even though sometimes the information they get from the CRA is incorrect. I will discuss that later. We learned that large companies got out of paying a full $18 billion, even though they were supposed to. A debt of $4.7 billion was written off. The government waived $10.9 billion and companies were exempted from paying $2.6 billion. We are talking about a total of $18 billion. We could do a lot with that money, but the government is simply waving it off. Companies owe this money, but they are not paying it back.”
“(1810) [ Translation ] Let us get back to the heart of the debate surrounding this bill. As I said earlier, agreements are sometimes reached between a government and companies that do not pay their debts, taxes and duties. Agreements may be reached to set all that aside and write off the debt. There is a difference between someone who has a minor problem and is a little behind on their payments, and debts totalling billions of dollars. As The Globe and Mail reported in recent months, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, wrote off $18 billion last year. That is terrible, when we think about it. The CRA is literally hunting down small and medium-sized businesses in order to get every last cent that is owed to the government.”
“We just heard members from the government and the other opposition parties express interest in moving this bill forward and in reaching an agreement in principle to study what it is. Before getting to the heart of the matter, I would like to commend the bill's sponsor, the member for Simcoe North . [ English ] The member for Simcoe North was elected in 2021. I can assure the House that, in the last four years, he has made a very great impression on everybody who works with him. We have heard the other parties saying that he is a very strong man and parliamentarian. I am very proud to work with him. He is very bright, wise and hard-working, and we understand why; it is because he previously worked with the late hon. Jim Flaherty, the famous former finance minister in the Stephen Harper government.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to take part in this debate on Bill C-230 , concerning transparency. First, here is a quick explanation of what the bill is all about. In Canada, and in other countries around the world, the government sometimes enters into agreements with businesses or individuals who owe money for unpaid taxes. Sometimes, agreements are reached. The bill seeks to increase the transparency surrounding this mechanism, which allows large corporations that reach agreements with the government to have certain debts written off. The bill seeks to ensure that debts over $1 million that are written off are publicly listed in a registry that would be available to all Canadians. That is essentially what the bill we are debating today is all about.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague from British Columbia and leader of the Green Party. Many Canadians were surprised last week when the member asked the Prime Minister if he would respect the Paris Agreement, to which he said that he would indeed respect it. The Green Party member ultimately decided to support the Liberal government's budget. The Prime Minister gave exactly the same answer he gave two weeks earlier. With everything that happened in Alberta today, is the Green Party leader still proud of supporting the Liberal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister is very familiar with Brookfield, but is he familiar with Paccar? Paccar is truck manufacturing company in Boisbriand that has been around for decades. As we speak, 300 workers at Paccar are losing their jobs. Parents, men and women, are losing their jobs, basically because of the new tariffs Trump has imposed since the Prime Minister took office. I understand that Paccar is no Brookfield, but could the Prime Minister go see the workers at Paccar and tell them what he said recently, “Who cares?””
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her hard work in the House and in her riding. By the way, she is among the few people who unseated a Liberal MP. I am very proud of that. The question raised by the member is very important because we are talking about where the priority of the government is. Does it want to put more money in the banking system or in directly helping Canadians? This is why we will fight. Our job is to fight through some difficulties that we will address, but in this situation, what we see is the government putting too much money in the deficit, and they live over the—”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question and congratulate her on her work. Yes, I am a former journalist, so I can truly appreciate what is going on, but I recognize that everything also happens on social media now and that the media has to adapt. There used to be a local newspaper in my riding, but it has now become much more of a virtual newspaper that is much more in tune with everyday reality, which is evolving very quickly. We also need to recognize that the Liberal Party's commitment to give the Crown corporation alone another $150 million is not the best approach. Our approach was completely different, of course. The Liberals won, and that is fine, but I sincerely encourage them to reconsider the $150 million they are offering to CBC/Radio-Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously the world has changed. I remember pretty well the Prime Minister , while he was campaigning, saying, “Elbows up”. What happened? He went to the White House twice, and was it elbows up? No, it was thumbs up. The reality today is empty hands. He went from elbows up to thumbs up to empty hands. That is not the way to address the reality of the geopolitical situation right now. Talking about the Leader of the Opposition , he was so efficient and so good that he convinced the Liberal Party to kick out Justin Trudeau and to cut the carbon tax. This is a leader who is very efficient. I can assure the member of that.”
“[ English ] I just want to say in the House of Commons that, in my mind, this budget is good for one aspect, one project, one evaluation. We have that definition on page 96 of this budget. This is very interesting. This is exactly what we proposed two years ago here in the House, but unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it at that time. Today, they are doing what we were asking them to do two years ago.”
“The current parliamentary secretary to the current government's Minister of Industry balanced Quebec's budget. That means that yes, it can be done. As a Quebecker, I am very pleased to have had that man around at the precise moment when he was the finance minister because, thanks to him and the government he belonged to, including the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, Quebec was able to balance its budget. Where there is a will, there is a way. Unfortunately, this man who sits here in the House could serve Canada much better if he were in cabinet. Since he is not, could the Prime Minister at least consult him on how to tackle the deficit issues? This is a very heavy burden that will have far-reaching consequences for the future of our children and our great-grandchildren.”
“That is why it is imperative for the government to get the finances under control, to get the deficit and debt reduction under control and, above all, to have a timeline for returning to a balanced budget. Allow me to remind the House that, yes, a balanced budget is possible. Here in the House, we have an experienced man who was once elected to the National Assembly and who now serves all of Canada as a member of the House of Commons. On March 11, 2015, he said, “Balancing the budget...is a way to cement the credibility of the province and the financial stability of the province.” Who said that? It was the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry . I had the pleasure of serving alongside him in the National Assembly in another life.”
“This belief has been a driving force for me throughout my 17 years in politics. More than ever, that is how I see it and that is what I want. Debt is a bill that we pass on to our children. Debt has to be paid off at some point. Interest on debt has to be paid every year. That interest amounts to $55.6 billion that we are going to pay. The people watching at home need to know that every dollar and cent of the GST we pay is not used to improve services or make transfers to the provinces to improve health care services or other things. It is used solely and exclusively to pay the interest on the debt. Every penny of the GST will be used for that instead of investing more in health care. The government is investing $54.7 billion in health care, while GST revenues total $54.4 billion.”
“There is no plan to get back on track, and $321 billion is being added to the debt. Again, what this current Prime Minister is doing is twice as much as Mr. Trudeau planned to do. These people did not get elected by saying that they would do twice as badly as Justin Trudeau, yet that is exactly what they have done. It is our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will have to pay for this. I am blessed by the gods and very privileged in life. I am a father, and for the past five years, I have been a grandfather. That is why, even though I cannot show it, I am wearing a little bracelet made by my three-year-old granddaughter. I try to wear it as often as possible in the House because I have always believed that we are here thanks to our parents, but that we are here for our children and grandchildren.”
“No one could have ever believed that a Prime Minister with such international prestige, a banker who is highly regarded around the world, would do worse than Mr. Trudeau, but that is what happened. I would like to remind members that the Liberals were elected on a promise to run a deficit $19 billion lower than what they are now saying. Members should also recall that the deficit is twice as high now as it was last year at around the same time. (1640) What is even more shocking about this budget is that there is no timeline for getting spending under control and balancing the budget. There is no timeline at all. On the contrary, deficits will pile up: $78.3 billion this year, $65.4 billion next year, $63.5 billion the year after that, $57.9 billion the year after that, and finally $56.6 billion.”
“They were against the “one project, one review” principle back then, but now it is reproduced word for word on page 82 of the budget. I just wanted to point that out. That is one of the only things in this budget that I see as positive. The government keeps referring to this budget as “generational”, saying that it is truly a turning point in the history of the country and that generations of Canadians will be able to benefit from it. Well, it is not. Generations of Canadians will pay the price because we are living beyond our means. We are living on credit. It is a credit card budget. There will be a $78.3‑billion deficit. That is twice as much as Prime Minister Trudeau's deficit. The man had many fine qualities—really, I mean that sincerely—but there is no denying that he was spendthrift.”
“However, I would like to point out that the bill was introduced on February 12, 2024. There was a debate in the House on March 18 of that year and a vote on May 8 of the same year. What happened? Obviously, we Conservatives voted in favour. Since the bill was at second reading stage and the vote was on the principle of the bill, the Bloc Québécois members at the time supported the essence or spirit of Bill C-375 . They had some reservations, of course. That is perfectly fine. That is how democracy works. There were 150 votes in favour of the bill, but unfortunately, this bill to create a single environmental assessment was defeated by 177 votes from the NDP and the Liberal government. I see members opposite who remember that situation. At the time, they insulted us for wanting to axe the carbon tax. In the end, they axed it themselves.”
“Now more than ever, we need to unlock our full potential in terms of energy, natural resources and green projects. We know that in the past, a project had to undergo a provincial assessment and then a federal assessment. Sometimes, these assessments contradicted each other and, ultimately, everything had to start over from scratch. It was completely inefficient. The purpose of Bill C‑375 was to move projects forward in a positive and constructive manner. The goal was not to take away accountability, but rather to eliminate the consecutive and often conflicting assessments. The objective was to work together to cover all the environmental aspects of a project by requiring one assessment, not two, to get to the bottom of the matter immediately. I am very pleased that the government has adopted my proposal.”
“My colleagues will recall that, a little over two years ago, I introduced Bill C-375 in the House. After eight years in the House of Commons, this was the first time I had the opportunity to introduce a private member's bill that would be debated in the House. There is a lottery, and those who win get to introduce a bill. Before I go any further, I wish to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Regina—Wascana . About two years ago, I introduced Bill C‑375, which aimed to do exactly what is found word for word in the budget speech on page 82, specifically, “one project, one review”. The purpose of that bill was to speed up the process and make it much more efficient and pragmatic so that projects could get done.”
“Mr. Speaker, thank you for calling me to order. It appears that I addressed another member using the informal form “tu”. I am quite embarrassed and must apologize. I have been an elected official for 17 years and yet I made this mistake. Even in my private life I tend to address everyone with the formal “vous”. Well, it happens to everyone. It is Thursday evening. It has been a good day, and I am in a good mood, so I want to start this speech, my response to the budget speech, on the right foot. There is one thing in this budget that makes me very happy, and that is page 82. On page 82 of the budget, there is a box, a separate bit of text, that very clearly defines the political philosophy that inspires me here in the House. It addresses the idea of “one project, one review”, meaning one environmental review.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and congratulate him on his election. I know it has been a long time, but I still want to congratulate him on his first term in the House. My question is very simple. We know that his government likes to talk about a generational budget. We keep hearing that it is generational, that it is going to be talked about for generations, that it is going to impact generations. Can you tell us how many generations of children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have to pay for the $78.3-billion deficit?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the past 10 years since the Liberals came to power, the bureaucracy has grown by 80%. Unfortunately, the quality of public services has not kept pace. Today, the TVA program J.E. reported that 950,000 calls were made to the Canada Revenue Agency because Canadians could not access its online services. That is the reality after 10 years of Liberal governance. This is true in my riding, and I am sure that it is true in the constituency offices of every member in the House. Every week, there are dozens of calls from constituents who are having problems with the CRA. That is the reality after 10 years. Why have the Liberals let public services crumble?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It was well researched, as always. We have different points of view, as he so aptly put it, but that is the beauty of democracy. I do not want to get into the details of his culinary remark from a few moments ago. I did not catch the name of the dish. Does he think that this dish could also apply to the fact that this government is doing worse than it did under Justin Trudeau? One might have expected a prime minister with an international reputation as a renowned banker to do much better than a drama teacher.”
“Mr. Speaker, who would have believed it? The current Prime Minister is worse than Justin Trudeau when it comes to compulsive deficits. Something really needs to be done about this. Let me quote someone who, on March 11, 2015, said that balancing the budget "is the best way to maintain the credibility and financial stability of the province". Do members know who said that in 2015? It was the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry . He balanced the budget in Quebec. As a Quebecker, I am pleased about that, but as a Canadian, I have concerns. Why is he not a member of cabinet, directly advising the Prime Minister, who should be balancing the budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, the new Liberal Prime Minister 's first budget is a credit card budget, with a $78 billion deficit. That is $16 billion more than the Liberals promised during the election campaign. I do not need a Ph.D. from Oxford University to know that running deficits means fobbing the bill off on our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. In fact, Fitch Ratings has warned that federal finances run a high risk of further deterioration. When will this government respond positively and manage the situation responsibly?”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am not at all proud of the figure that I am about to share: 2.2 million Canadians are visiting food banks every month. That is the Liberal track record after 10 years. Of these 2.2 million Canadians, one in three is a child. That means that 700,000 children in Canada are relying on food banks to eat. I am sorry, but I love Canada too much to watch this happen. Why is the government continuing to rack up chronic deficits? The deficit is $80 billion, and we know that a deficit is a debt that we pass on to our children and grandchildren. Canadians deserve better than that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have tabled the costliest budget with the biggest deficit in Canadian history, excluding the pandemic. The deficit is nearly $80 billion. A deficit is what happens when we live beyond our means. A deficit is a bill that we send to our children and our grandchildren. A deficit pours fuel on the fire of inflation. Why is the Prime Minister breaking his promise by recklessly spending more and pouring fuel on the inflationary fire?”
“Mr. Speaker, for months now, we have been suggesting something that will help bring down food prices: Axe the industrial carbon tax. Yes, it directly affects food. Food does not fall from the sky. It has to be produced, processed, transported and packaged. That is the reality. The Liberal industrial carbon tax applies to all that. In fact, Professor Charlebois told a parliamentary committee yesterday that “the gap between food wholesale prices in Canada versus the U.S. have actually increased. We believe that one factor driving this is the carbon tax”. The Liberals should give Canadians a gift and axe the industrial carbon tax—”
“Mr. Speaker, every Canadian wants a budget that will curb the cost of living, which is very high for everyone. The grocery store is where it hurts the most. Food inflation is twice as high as other areas, and there are now 2,200,000 Canadians who use food banks. Do not forget what the Prime Minister said in order to get elected. He got elected by saying that he would be judged by the price of food. What is the result of 10 years of Liberal governance? Professor Sylvain Charlebois explained that we are currently the only country in the G7 to have had four consecutive months of rising food inflation. That is the Liberal record. Will Canadians get an affordable budget for an affordable life?”
“Mr. Speaker, in less than two hours, the Liberals will table their 10th budget with their 10th colossal deficit. I would remind the House that those folks got elected in 2015 on a promise to run three small deficits and then balance the budget in 2019. The reality is that the debt has doubled under the Liberals. Housing costs have doubled under the Liberals. What did the Prime Minister say to young people? He told them they would have to make more sacrifices. Instead of asking young people to make sacrifices, instead of triggering a costly election on a costly budget, why do the Liberals not present an affordable budget for an affordable life for all Canadians?”
“Madam Speaker, what would Quebeckers and Canadians like? They would like the parliamentary secretary to do exactly what he did when he was in the provincial government, which is to balance the budget. That is exactly the opposite of what he is doing now. Is he aware that he is part of a government that, over the past 10 years, has caused 2,250,000 people to turn to food banks? He is part of a government that has caused 700,000 children to turn to food banks for food. Will the parliamentary secretary act responsibly and present an affordable budget for an affordable life?”
“Madam Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal government, 10 years of chronic deficits, Canada's debt has doubled. Running a deficit is like adding fuel to the fire of inflation. Unfortunately, that is why prices are skyrocketing in Canada. We have a government that says one thing and does another. It is telling young people that they need to make sacrifices while it is spending $20 billion on consultants, on government cronies. Will the Prime Minister stop asking Canadians to make sacrifices and instead table an affordable budget for an affordable life?”
“I would once again invite my government colleagues to consider the fact that they hold a minority government and that they have, maybe not the obligation, but the constitutional responsibility to find some common ground with the opposition parties for the good of Canada and all Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, in my speech, I did indeed forget to mention those two very important things, one of which is accountability. Canadians are craving transparency and accountability. We need those things so that we know whether the job is being done right and so that we can make changes along the way, if necessary. Second, with regard to my esteemed colleague's first question, it is unfortunate to see that the government is setting aside the careful, rigorous work of the committee. That work had the support of the witnesses, who felt that we were taking the right approach. We appreciate the fact that the opposition parties are sometimes able to work together, but in actual fact, we are always working together, all parliamentarians, to make progress for the good of Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, obviously, I recognize the issue we are debating today, but on the other hand, we have to address the issue of our reality in 2025. Life goes on, and we have to adapt to the reality of the day. I do not want to be too partisan, but I will be. Over the last 10 years, we have seen a lack of responsibility when we are talking about this specific issue. For good or bad reasons, I think the government is responsible for some of the problems we have to address today. That is why we should have a fresh look at them. Yes, some points were raised during the years my colleague mentioned, but we have to look to the future. Based on what we see right now, our amendments are very correct. Obviously, colleagues can disagree—”
“Some people look interested, and I congratulate them. I would ask the Liberals to reconsider their position so that all Canadians can come out winners in this debate.”
“They are constructive for the country we love, for the hospitality we need to provide to people interested in living here with us, and for the approach we want for future generations. The right of the soil is not a given, and it comes with certain responsibilities. That is why the amendments that we adopted, with the support and consent of the Bloc Québécois, are meant to be positive and constructive. They will ensure we can provide a better welcome and a better life for a lot of Canadians and people interested in becoming Canadians. Once again, certain basic conditions must be met. As I showed earlier, there is nothing unusual about these conditions. I therefore urge my colleagues to reconsider their current position of rejecting the proposed amendments. It is never too late to do the right thing.”
“With regard to the security assessment, individuals must not pose a threat to Canada’s national security, though this does not apply to children under the age of 18. Can we really call them requirements? They are realities that all of us must deal with as citizens. There is nothing unreasonable or partisan about this. It is all common sense. It is all clear and specific. It spells out exactly what we expect from newcomers who want to become Canadians and who we gladly welcome into our country. We are grateful to them for choosing our country and they are grateful to us for making them welcome. However, there are a few basic conditions they need to meet. We want to require exactly the same thing for the right to citizenship. In our opinion, our suggestions are fair, balanced, reasonable and, most of all, constructive.”
“With regard to the residency requirement, the parent must demonstrate continuous physical presence in Canada for the same period of time as that required of an applicant for naturalized citizenship, at any time prior to the birth of the child. This is entirely logical, relevant and practical in the context of the approach we wish to take. With regard to language requirements, individuals must demonstrate proficiency in one of Canada's two official languages, English or French, unless they are children under the age of 18 or individuals over the age of 54. With regard to the citizenship exam requirement, individuals must demonstrate satisfactory knowledge of Canada, as well as citizenship-related legislation and responsibilities.”
“These amendments were incorporated into the bill because the committee welcomed them. That is great. Now the Liberals have decided that they preferred the original version. That is a shame because the work in committee was done properly. It feels like the Liberals are saying that they are not interested in any of that work. Need I remind the government members that they were elected to a minority government? Being in the minority means having to work with opposition parties to find common ground. What common ground did we find with the support and assistance of the Bloc Québécois? We agreed on certain points.”
“(1005) These amendments were supported by the second opposition party, and we are grateful to our Bloc Québécois colleagues. We welcome their support and their endorsement of what we proposed, which related primarily to residence, language, knowledge and security. One thing is certain. If we fail to properly define certain entry routes and to prioritize responsible immigration, the primary victims of our negligence will be the immigrants themselves. Sadly, we all remember the unfortunate events that have occurred over the past 10 years involving immigration practices that did not always show respect for those arriving. Citizenship requires even more care. We know what a Canadian passport and Canadian citizenship are worth, so we need to treat it with dignity. We proposed several amendments that the Bloc Québécois supported.”