Marilyn Gladu
Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about affordability measures and the major ongoing projects. Could he perhaps speak to the government's responsiveness to the tariff threat that faces us in the section 232 tariff response, the aluminum tariff response, etc.?”
“Not only has our government provided relief to get them through, such as $1 billion from the BDC and another $500 million in tariff relief funds, which were responsibly brought to the table when these tariffs arrived, but we are also seeing that people can pivot into the defence industry.”
“As members may know, one of the apprentices we met actually won a gold medal in Ontario for the welding competition and is on his way to nationals, so I send a shout‑out to Ryan Beattie for that. Making sure that our young people have well‑paying jobs is just one of the things we need to do.”
“I do not know if members saw the announcement from the Prime Minister yesterday about food security and a huge investment of $3 billion to try to make sure that we can get food prices down and that we can produce more of our food supply domestically and become less dependent on others in the world.”
“This is really good news, because for a while, foreign investment was fleeing the country, so to have it returning, as well as to have the highest investment per capita, is another positive indicator. I am personally quite proud of the Prime Minister 's efforts to diversify our trade.”
“In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, we had a very tragic incident happen recently at Lambton College, where an innocent student, Dane Nisbet, was shot by someone who has been involved in crime previously, and he died. He was 20 years old. People in my community are outraged now because the perpetrator has been let out on bail.”
The complete record
Every one of 293 lines we hold for Marilyn Gladu, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 6.
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to speak to the budget implementation act. As always, I have themes. Today I am going to pick up on these themes: things I am glad were not in the budget, things I am glad were in the budget, things I wish were not in the budget, and things I wish were in the budget. I will start with the things I am glad were not in the budget. The first is the capital gains tax on people's house equity. This was a policy that had been floated in previous Liberal platforms. The Prime Minister said he was not going to include it. I am glad it is not there, because the equity people have in their home is typically part of their retirement plan. As we have an aging population, the government needs to keep its hands off our pensions and our home equity.”
“Mr. Speaker, all Canadians know that if they have a bad credit rating, it will cost them more to borrow money. Lately, Fitch talked about the Liberal government and raised the alarm that it is going to drop its credit rating to AA+ instead of where we are now, which will cost us more than the already billions of dollars that we are transferring to pay the interest on the debt. Is the member concerned about that as well?”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing I have been hearing from my riding that I have not heard yet in this debate concerns the Canada pension plan and the fact that the government, in the budget, has listed it as a government asset. That is the money of Canadians. Canadians and their employers have paid into it. It is not a government asset. I am very concerned, as they are, that the government will feel it is its money to spend. Could the member comment on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague, a fellow engineer, talk about all the money that should have been spent in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I agree. I would like him to comment on the amount of money the Prime Minister is giving to other countries instead of putting Canadians first.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the member opposite recognize that the luxury tax on planes and boats was a disaster for his government, because Conservatives had said that. It appears the government also understands that the consumer carbon tax was a disaster, and it reversed position on that. It was a disaster not to build LNG and pipelines, and it looks as though the government is reversing on that. Does the member not recognize that the spending of the government over the last 10 years has driven up inflation? The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that it is like pouring fuel on the inflationary fire. Would the member not agree the $78 billion announced in spending is just going to drive interest rates and inflation up again?”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked a little bit about how to incentivize things like business and research. I wonder if she could elaborate more on how the government is going to keep Canada's leadership position in science and create a competitive climate for investors.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Coercive Control in Canada”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. We know that coercive control is often the precursor to violence against women in Canada. The recommendations in this report, if acted upon, will go a long way to helping eliminate that violence.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that is not true. The fact is, the current Liberal government is the most expensive government in Canadian history. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends drives the cost of everything up, especially food. The Liberals had an opportunity to scrap the industrial carbon tax to reduce the price of food, but instead they are increasing it, driving up the cost of fertilizer, farm equipment and food. Why is the Prime Minister increasing the industrial carbon tax and making food more expensive?”
“Mr. Speaker, the budget does not include very many measures for seniors or young people. Does my colleague know that Canadians are struggling because of the affordability crisis? What is the government going to do about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I was here witnessing the debate, so I can actually testify that the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime was one of the ones talking and giggling while the members were in debate. I just wanted to add that information.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech. I have been here for 10 years, and the Liberals have been saying they are going to address criminal justice from the beginning. First, they had Bill C-75 , and the police said that it was awful and allows repeat offenders out on the streets. Then they had Bill C-5 , which took away mandatory minimums and put house arrest in place. That made things even worse. They saw crime skyrocketing, and under Arif Virani, when he was the minister of justice, they tried again at bail reform. I would ask the member the same question he is asking Canadians: Is he confident that Bill C-14 is going to fix the problem the Liberals have been talking about fixing for 10 years?”
“Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent speech. The real problem with Bill C-14 is that it does not remove the principle of the least restrictive punishment at the earliest possible opportunity. That is the problem, and it is the reason this bill is not going to fix crime. Would the member agree?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for another intelligent speech. We are studying violence against women and girls at the status of women committee, and we heard testimony yesterday that the reverse onus provision in Bill C-14 would not work. As long as people come with a plan, the judges tend to send them back out on bail. Could the member comment on a stronger measure that she would like to see in this bill?”
“Madam Speaker, so far the Liberals have built up a record-smashing 2.2 million food bank visits, and over 700,000 of those are from children. Rent has doubled. According to the Canadian income survey, 380,000 seniors are living in poverty. They cannot afford homes and they cannot even afford food. Some of them are living in their cars. When will the Prime Minister stop using taxpayer dollars to make his rich friends richer and finally give Canadians an affordable budget for an affordable life?”
“Madam Speaker, after 10 years of the government, Liberal elites and insiders have never had it so good, but the Prime Minister told young Canadians they need to sacrifice. While Canadians are lined up at food banks, the Liberal government hired the Prime Minister 's buddies to staff his new defence procurement office and Major Projects Office. He is paying them $679,000 and $577,000 in salary. Of course, he is paying the woman less; that is his track record. This is at a time when Canadians are struggling to afford to live. Will the Prime Minister stop making young people sacrifice so he can line the pockets of—”
“Madam Speaker, The budget is coming after Halloween So I want to tell you the things I have seen Spending so scary it will tax us to the brink, With inflation so high it will drive us to drink The crime in our streets is now terrifying With all getting bail, we are now verifying Food prices so high it will spook you for sure With more hikes to come that no one can endure With nothing being built and no trade deal in sight This Liberal government is really a fright Job losses are climbing like a very grim reaper And this budget for sure will be driving them deeper But there's hope in the midst of this terrible nightmare For the safe homes and streets that we all want to share For affordable lives in a country so free Our Conservative team will bring it to thee Conservative bills will stop all the crime And bring a great outcome to the end of this rhyme”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his military service. People who stood in frozen trenches and fought for the freedoms of this country, and people who have fought all along, would not really be happy about the granting of citizenship to people who have never lived in Canada, because citizenship has to mean something. What does the member think about that?”
“Not only am I concerned that the process does not exist, but if there are people who do not have any experience and do not even know the process, it will only get worse.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, happy anniversary to the member and his lovely wife Odette. I hope he bought flowers. I am very concerned about the immigration system, because there have been numerous occasions when the Liberals have forfeited security checks. I can remember when visas from Mexico were preventing some of the cartels from moving in, and the Liberals removed them against our advice. Then the cartels did move in, and the Liberals put those requirements back in place. We have had people coming in from war-torn areas, and they are claiming they do not have any paperwork because they are from war-torn areas, and then there is no security clearance. These areas are rife with crime, corruption and terrorism.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have always said that they respected the work of committees. Right now, they are not respecting it at all because they have scrapped all the amendments we made in committee. The government is in a coalition with the NDP to reverse all the good work we have done. That is not fair.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that there is co-operation happening between the Bloc and the Conservatives, and the Liberals have been calling for co-operation since the parliamentary session began. I would have thought the member would be happy to see co-operation happening. It has resulted in this great bill. To his question on the lost citizens who would be restored in one of the measures in this bill, he should keep in mind they had citizenship. I understand why they do not need another background check, but for everyone who else is coming here in whatever way they are coming, we need to do background checks to make sure they are not criminals or terrorists so we can ensure the safety of the people of Canada.”
“A two-tiered system would undercut that and divide us, which is what the Liberals have been doing for the last 10 years. With that, I will just summarize and say that there are some good elements in the bill, but I recommend the government send it back to committee, or keep the amendments the committee passed if it really respects the work of committees.”
“The coalition we saw between the NDP and the Liberals to force their will on all Canadians in the last Parliament is popping up again, and they are going to team up together to put in a bad bill instead of doing the right thing and aligning the process to be fair to all. Certainly, I love to see immigrants come to the country. They have helped build the country. The member who spoke before me talked about her heritage. My heritage is English, French, Irish and Scottish. I am a little tall, so there may be Viking in there somewhere. These different cultures have all come together, and we see more and more of that. This was always about the multiculturalism of Canada. The freedom we had here and the way everybody could get along is what made Canada great.”
“We would have a two-tier system where some people coming here to get citizenship have many requirements, and others just automatically get it. The other problematic thing for me is knowing that this could happen in perpetuity. If the children who get citizenship show up during their lifetime for 1,095 days, they can pass citizenship on to their children. We do not know how many people are involved in this or how much in resources it is going to take to do it. We already know that the immigration system is backed up, and it is taking three years or more to process people's applications. Putting an extra burden on the immigration department is not a good idea, and I really think it disrespects and undervalues Canadian citizenship.”
“After doing all this great work at committee, the NDP has now introduced amendments that would essentially reverse all that good work, and the Liberals are going to support them to basically wipe it out. For the last 10 years, I have heard the Liberals stand up and talk about how they value the work done at committee and respect the independence of the committee process, but here they are totally turning things around. Let us keep in mind that 98% of the Canadian people did not elect the NDP to provide our rules and legislation. It got 2% representation, so it should not be able to overturn the rest of the House. First of all, that is not representative of what the Canadian people want, but also, the NDP is trying to take out all the amendments.”
“There is a provision that was amended at committee to say it should not be just 1,095 days that parents lived here over any number of decades. It should be a concentrated period of time so they have a commitment to Canada. The suggestion was that it be five years. I think that is a reasonable limit. It reflects some of the previous legislation we have seen. To me, that is a good-sense amendment as well. Then there is the citizenship test. This comes close to the connectedness the court was looking for. People who are coming here to be Canadian citizens would have to learn something about the history of Canada and the cultural norms in Canada, and take and pass a test. That is also a reasonable amendment.”
“The amendments would apply both to descendants and to people who come by adoption. They would need to be able to speak one of the official languages at least. That makes sense to me, especially if they are going to receive services here and interact with the government, which publishes its notifications in both official languages. (1635) They would also have to have a security check, the same security check that others are supposed to go through. We can see that, in an increasingly violent world, it is more important than ever to make sure we are not allowing criminals and terrorists into the country. The only way to do that is to make sure there is a security check and it is thorough. Again, this makes sense.”
“Such people would be able to vote in our country. The way that voters are normally registered is that they have to have a Canadian address so we can figure out what riding they are in. That is how Elections Canada does it. We would now have 150,000 people who could choose where they want their vote to count. I really find that to be an undermining of our democracy in terms of an interference factor with which it would be possible to game the system, for example. That needs to be addressed, and it is not addressed in Bill C-3 at all. Bill C-3 went to committee, where there were some thoughtful amendments that were brought into place, really, to align the citizenship process in Bill C-3 with what other people who are becoming Canadian citizens normally go through.”
“We think about the value of citizenship, and it is really about participating in our democracy, experiencing our wonderful country, helping build our communities, paying taxes and using our services so we understand what the state of our nation is. All these things are part of being a Canadian citizen and having that value. I worry that if people are away from the country for a long period of time, they are going to lose that connectedness. If they have never lived here, they really do not have that connectedness at all. That is a concern to me, especially when we think about one of the unintended consequences of the bill. The bill would grant citizenship to people whose parents spent 1,095 days in Canada over, as it now stands, an unspecified amount of time. They may never have lived here.”
“They chose not to appeal the lower-court decision. Getting the legislation on time without the connection test that the court demanded would not fix it either. I think it is important that people who get Canadian citizenship fall into categories; They are born here, or they are descendants of a Canadian citizen, or they are permanent residents who apply for and receive citizenship, or they are people who have a connection and go through the process. There should not be a two-tiered process; the rules to become a citizen should be the same. If someone is going to be a Canadian citizen, I think it has to mean something.”
“It is better late than never, but that is a part of the bill that I appreciate. The second part of the bill that I appreciate is the provision for adopted children. Currently they have to go through a permanent residency process, which can take three years. Under the provision in Bill C-3 , they would be treated as Canadian-born citizens for the purpose of passing on citizenship. I think that is a good thing for families. There is no reason, when children who are going to be part of our Canadian context are adopted, that they would not get their citizenship, so I think that is a good provision. One of the things about the bill is that there would not be the connection test that the courts prescribed. I have heard the Liberals, through this debate, talk about how they have a deadline from the courts, so that they have to do something.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to speak to Bill C-3 . As is my habit, I will talk about what I like in the bill, and then I will talk about what I do not like in the bill. Let us start with what I like. According to the first part of the bill, there would be a restoration of citizenship to people who lost it due to non-application. People born between February 15, 1977 and April 16, 1981, when they turned 28, were supposed to reapply for their citizenship. If they did not apply, they lost it. They do not think that is right. Senator Yonah Martin brought Bill S-245 to address this specific issue. Unfortunately, it did not get through the House before another election was called, so I am glad to see that provision come back here. The people in question are in their golden years at this point.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague had an excellent speech. He talked about the consequences of the bill. One of the consequences of the bill would be that people who get Canadian citizenship because their parents were here at one time, and who do not live in Canada, would then be able to vote in Canadian elections. Elections Canada allows people to choose which riding they want their vote to count in, and I can see how that might be very problematic from an interference point of view. Does the member have any comment on a solution that should be applied to fix that problem?”
“While the Liberals keep taxing Canadians into poverty, the Conservatives will keep fighting to keep life affordable by scrapping the hidden taxes on food and ending the Liberal cost of living crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing a hunger crisis. According to Food Banks Canada, monthly visits to food banks have doubled, up over 99% since 2019, and 39% of the population experienced food insecurity in the last year alone. Of those turning to food banks, one in five is employed, one in three is a child and one in four is in a two-parent household. This is the legacy of 10 years of the Liberal government's runaway spending, inflationary deficits and hidden taxes on farmers, fuel, fertilizer and packaging, which drive up the cost of our food. The Prime Minister said that Canadians should judge him by their grocery bills. Well, Food Banks Canada gave him a D on poverty and food insecurity.”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing we have not talked about today in this debate is the fact that there may be an additional 150,000 or possibly more citizens. The Liberals really do not know how many there would be. One problem from an elections point of view is that, according to Elections Canada, these people who would be citizens living outside the country can decide which riding their vote is going to count in. There is no mechanism for Elections Canada to know where they were when they spent their 1,095 days. This problem does not have a solution yet. As we know, some ridings are won by 80 votes or 500 votes, so 150,000 people could be a consideration there. I wonder if the member has a proposed solution from the Liberal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, common-sense amendments were passed in committee. The NDP is now seeking to overturn them, even though it is not recognized as an official party in the House. That is not fair. What does my colleague think?”
“Mr. Speaker, what is garbage is that answer. Hidden Liberal food taxes are worked into the sticker price of everyday essentials, driving up food costs. The new fuel standard is adding 17¢ a litre to the fuel that truckers use to get the food to the grocery store. The food packaging tax and industrial carbon tax are inflating grocery prices as well. They show up on the total cost on people's receipt. Will the Prime Minister reverse the hidden Liberal food taxes so that Canadians can afford to feed their families?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister said he would be judged by the prices that Canadians pay at the grocery store, and Canadians are paying the price. Food inflation is skyrocketing, up 4%. Liberal deficits are driving inflation. The more Liberals spend, the more it costs Canadians at the grocery store. Twenty-five per cent of Canadians are using food banks because they cannot afford to eat. When will the Prime Minister finally get his inflationary deficits under control so that Canadians can put food on the table?”
“Mr. Speaker, this debate is supposed to be about Bill C-12 , so my question is about Bill C-12. It is supposed to enhance border security, because a concern was expressed that has led to a tariff war, basically, with our neighbours to the south. Instead of reacting like the Mexicans did, who immediately put 10,000 resources in place at the border, the government announced getting 1,000 extra guards and have done nothing except put it off for five years. Could the member explain why?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is because the Liberals have nothing else to offer. They are looking for a distraction because they have not delivered. They are going to build, build, build at paces we have never seen. Well, I have never seen negative acceleration, but I am seeing it now.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is no oversight on the part of the government or the Minister of Immigration . I think there are four million students who are supposed to leave by December, but the government has no idea where they are. That is unacceptable. We need foreign students, because the population is aging and we need a lot of doctors and nurses. We absolutely need much more oversight.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the member follows me on Facebook or Twitter, but if he does, he might want to review one of the excellent speeches I gave when the green slush fund was before the House and the Liberals were saying that there needed to be separation between the government and the RCMP. I fully agreed, and I gave a number of examples in which there were infringements of the Criminal Code. One of them was when Justin Trudeau contravened section 119(1) of the Criminal Code, which says that a person who holds public office cannot take an action that benefits themselves or their family. In the WE Charity scandal, he gave the charity $900 million, which benefited his wife, his brother and his mother.”
“My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill has done a great job of defining what ought to be done to fix the immigration system we have. I encourage anyone who does not follow her to listen to what she has to say on that subject. I want to talk a bit about making the border more secure. The Liberals have announced that they are going to hire 1,000 CBSA agents. The announcement was made months ago and nobody has been hired. We hear now that it might be done within five years. That is not the kind of response we need to get security in the budget. With that, I will take questions.”
“There are 300,000 of these individuals in the backlog. That is $15 billion a year taken out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers for people we did not invite here. I think moving the IRCC office to the Toronto Pearson, Montreal and Vancouver airports to hear their claims right on the spot would be good. Then if they are not eligible, the cost of a plane ticket is a lot less than the cost of putting somebody up for three years. At the same time, we need to reintroduce the fair and compassionate immigration system we had when the Conservatives were in charge, which did security checks so that we were not letting people into the country who were going to cause the kinds of crime and trouble we are sometimes seeing. I think the immigration measures in the bill will help out. I do not think they go far enough.”
“I love the idea from our leader of the blue seal program, to take the 50,000 doctors and nurses who already live in Canada and get them accredited so they can help out. It is definitely a great idea. For the last century, people have come here to work and to help build the country, and we want to continue that. What we do not need is more freeloaders showing up to claim asylum and have the Canadian taxpayer fork out $3,000 to $4,000 a month to put them up in hotels in Niagara Falls. That is more money than we give the seniors who built the country. It is more money than we give to Canadians living with a disability. Then we see that the majority of these claims, after two or three years of putting these people up, are not eligible after we have spent a huge amount of the taxpayers' money.”
“As for shooting up schools, stealing cars, home invasions and extortions, we already have laws on the books for these things, but if we are not going to enforce them, we are not going to cure the problem. That is exactly the problem with introducing this border security bill. If there is no enforcement of any of the things in it, then it is absolutely meaningless. There are immigration measures in the bill, and we need to take action on immigration because it is out of control. Most Canadians would agree with that. We need immigration to build houses and for the nation-building projects we want. We have an aging population. We need more PSWs, nurses and doctors than can graduate from the educational institutions in Canada. We need people to come here and help build the country.”
“We have people trafficking fentanyl or creating it in these labs, and even if they get arrested, they are back out on bail. Bill C-5 lets them have house arrest. How convenient is that for drug trafficking? They have to stay home, but people can stop by. We need better enforcement of the law, because we know the Liberals are going to create more laws like Bill C-9 , for example, which is supposed to address the rise in hate crimes. There are already laws in this country that could help in that regard. There were 113 Christian churches that burned to the ground. There is a law against arson. It should be enforced. Illegally blocking the streets is against the law, but the police are not enforcing it. Death cries to Canadians and various religions are hate speech. They are against the law. Again, it is about enforcement.”
“That would be helpful to the police. I think we should start doing what other ports in the world do, which is scan all the shipping containers. This is very important not just on the fentanyl issue but on the issue of people stealing cars. We definitely need an upgrade in our scanning capabilities. (1305) One of the difficulties I have with putting laws in place in this country is the lack of enforcement of the rule of law. It is fundamental to our democracy, but the law is not really being enforced. We have people committing crimes in the country who are let out because the Liberals put in place Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 . Bill C-75 says that we have to give the least restrictive punishment, which is really bail or a fine, at the earliest opportunity, which is right away.”
“Fentanyl is a huge issue in this country. About 50,000 people have died of overdoses. The RCMP and CSIS have indicated that there are 400 fentanyl superlabs. I do not know whether they are being shut down, but Justin Trudeau said a very small portion of our fentanyl goes to the States. The reality is we really do not know, because shipping containers coming in from China are not being scanned and are going through the port of Vancouver and down to Seattle. The precursors of fentanyl are not controlled or tracked. We do not know where they are going, so the people synthesizing fentanyl in these 400 superlabs are getting those chemicals from somewhere. One thing I like about the bill is that it adds some controls to traceability so we would know where those chemicals are coming in, where they are going and who is buying them.”