Rosemarie Falk
Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan · Conservative · Canada
“Let me be clear: The defence has never protected hate speech or calls to violence. If somebody promotes hatred or incites violence, that is already illegal, and it has always been illegal. The religious defence does not change that. It simply ensures that good-faith expression of religious belief is not swept into the Criminal Code.”
“Mr. Speaker, there was lack of consultation with this bill. We know there was lack of consultation when it came to religious organizations, civil liberty groups, legal experts and faith communities across Canada, and I would say individual Canadians as well.”
“This level of public engagement demonstrates just how deeply Canadians care about protecting their freedoms. Faith leaders are speaking out. Experts are raising concerns. These are not fringe voices. These are thoughtful, engaged Canadians who understand what is at stake.”
“Actions such as obstructing access to places of worship, acts of intimidation, promoting hatred and inciting violence are all already illegal. Conservatives offered a reasonable path forward with this bill.”
“Canadians are also looking at the government's record. This is not an isolated case. There is a broader pattern here, a pattern of shutting down debate, dismissing experts and stakeholders, pushing through legislation without proper review and introducing policies that chip away at fundamental freedoms.”
“Over and over again, when it comes to faith and expression, the government has shown its willingness to draw lines around what Canadians can say and what they can believe. This is why Canadians are uneasy.”
The complete record
Every one of 125 lines we hold for Rosemarie Falk, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are all about stealing Conservative ideas. I look at my own private member's bill that the Liberals stole a couple of years ago and said they were going to implement. I had the minister at committee and asked her about it. She had no idea. They had no intention of implementing my private member's bill to give adoptive families equitable access to parental leave. They had no desire to do that. This is just like all of their campaign promises. They will say whatever they need to say to get the vote, and then when it comes time, when the rubber hits the road and they have to be principled and take a decision, we know they will do the opposite.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, we are voting on what the Prime Minister has signed, what he agreed to and came up with along with the Premier of Alberta. If the Liberals stand in this place today and vote against their leader's, the Prime Minister's, MOU, this just means, once again, that we cannot trust what the Liberals say because they will just do the opposite.”
“They are voting against the agreement that the Liberal Prime Minister signed and celebrated with the Alberta premier. They are making it once again clear that they cannot be taken at their word.”
“It would strengthen the Canadian dollar. That in turn would make energy, food and homes more affordable. It would strengthen our self-reliance, security and sovereignty. It is time to do that. Canadians need real action, not press releases, not paper pushing and not theoretical pipelines, no more delays and no more deflections. It is time for the Liberal government to stop talking out of both sides of its mouth, to stop blocking Canada's energy potential, to unlock the trillions of dollars of private sector energy investment, to build profitable pipelines and to enable the shipment of a million barrels of oil to Asia. Canadians are watching today. Do members know who else is watching? Investors are watching. Let us be clear. If Liberals vote against this motion, they are voting against their own commitments.”
“However, the Prime Minister needs to do just one thing for a pipeline to happen, and that is to get out of the way: get out of the way by repealing the industrial carbon tax that drives production out of Canada; get out of the way by repealing the anti-development laws like Bill C-69 and the shipping ban; get out of the way by granting a permit for a pipeline to the Pacific and unlocking the trillions of dollars of private investment that would be ready to build it. Energy CEOs have publicly called on the Prime Minister to cut red tape, reduce timeline approvals and grow energy production. The current trade and global uncertainty is all the more reason to ensure we are doing what we can in Canada to spur economic growth that is within our control. Getting the Liberal government out of the way would boost Canadian paycheques.”
“There is no route, no proponent, no approval process and, as we are seeing, absolutely no commitment from the Liberal caucus. Canadians cannot afford another Liberal pipe dream, and after 10 years of failed and damaging policies, Canadians cannot afford the Liberal government. The Prime Minister 's delays, taxes and regulatory roadblocks have continued to drive investment out of this country. Since he took office, nearly 50,000 more Canadians are unemployed, and nearly $50 billion of investment has fled the country. As the CEO of TC Energy said, the United States continues to be more attractive for investment than Canada. It is not that energy development and prosperity are not possible here in Canada. They are possible.”
“The Liberal government's unwillingness to stand behind it does not instill confidence. Let us not forget the fact that the MOU does not even promise a pipeline. It does not start construction. It does not commit a single metre of pipe to being laid. All it says is that seven months from now, a proposal might be sent to the federal office for two more years of study. The Liberal government is so divided that it cannot even unite behind such a limited proposal. After eight months of promises of building at unimaginable speed, Canadians have seen nothing but paper shuffling, rebranded offices, and more and more press conferences. The Liberal member for Vancouver Granville 's comments are quite telling. He called this pipeline “a theoretical conversation right now”. Where do we stand today?”
“Instead of owning that responsibility, the Prime Minister would rather use Premier Eby as a political shield. The Prime Minister is using him as someone he can point to when he backs away from the pipeline after the next election. If the Liberals cannot stand behind their own MOU in the House, and if they cannot give the private sector the certainty and confidence that it needs to invest in a project of this scale, then this MOU is nothing more than the illusion of progress. It is not real progress. Shamefully, the Liberals have already announced that they will not support today's motion. Liberals are claiming that the motion somehow does not reflect the entire agreement, and that is simply not true. (1605) The motion we are debating takes note of the MOU in its entirety.”
“Already, though, the cracks are showing on that side of the House. Liberal members are openly rejecting the Prime Minister 's MOU. The member for Fleetwood—Port Kells said there will be no pipeline without the consent of the Premier of British Columbia. The member for Victoria has plainly said he does not support a pipeline. Premier Eby, to whom the Prime Minister has effectively handed a veto, has been equally clear. He says that a pipeline to the Pacific will not go ahead, that it will never be built and that he refuses to allow the shipping ban to be lifted. Well, the Premier of British Columbia does not have a veto. The Constitution is explicit. Only the federal government has the power to approve an interprovincial pipeline. No premier can stop it, and no province can veto it. The Liberal government knows this.”
“Now, after a decade of this, the Prime Minister tells Canadians that his government wants to build things previously thought impossible, at speeds we have not seen in generations. He told us he would turn Canada into an energy superpower. He has now signed a memorandum of understanding with Alberta and claimed that at the core of this agreement is a priority to have a pipeline to Asia. Today's motion simply asks the Liberals to vote for the very words their own Prime Minister signed, the same words the Liberals have been celebrating and congratulating themselves over for nearly two weeks. It asks them to support a pipeline to the Pacific. It asks them to stop hiding behind premiers and non-existent vetoes. It asks them to be honest with Canadians about their intentions and their priorities.”
“However, for 10 years, the “keep it in the ground” Liberals have done everything possible to hinder energy development in Canada. The Liberals passed Bill C-69 , the “no more pipelines” bill, a bill that went so far as to give the federal government unprecedented powers over provincial infrastructure, industry and natural resources. Even the Supreme Court has deemed it unconstitutional. They imposed a shipping ban on the northern B.C. coast that blocks responsible Canadian energy from reaching world markets. They have done that while letting foreign ships carrying foreign energy sail freely through the same waters. They have chased away investment, crippled our competitiveness and, in doing so, threatened energy security for not only Canada but also our allies.”
“Mr. Speaker, just off the top, I want to note that I will be splitting my time this afternoon. Canada is rich in natural resources, and our energy sector creates opportunity, growth and prosperity for our country. In my region, energy jobs support families and generate growth for small businesses, contractors, tradespeople and apprentices. These companies do not just produce energy. They create middle-class jobs, they sustain local economies, they invest in local needs and community projects, and they do it while operating under some of the highest environmental and safety standards anywhere in the world. Canada has the energy that we need as a country and that the world needs. In fact, the world wants more Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, this is really interesting, because we have seen the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River get up a lot in the House to say that he is the only advocate at the cabinet table for those in Saskatchewan. There have been 27 cases of scurvy identified in that member's riding. What is he doing to advocate for food affordability so people in his riding can afford to eat?”
“Madam Speaker, it is not surprising. The government will do whatever it needs to do to get money, whether it is from businesses or people paying income tax, to pay for its out-of-control inflationary spending and debt. Most of it is going to consultants and make-work projects.”
“Madam Speaker, the member highlighted a huge difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals want a program for everything. They want to regulate everything and want to be in everybody's lives, but we see this in every single aspect of every single bill that the Liberal government brings forward. The member refers to farmers, but I would say we have been the only party, and still are the only party, that has been advocating for the removal of the carbon tax at all levels, whether that is for consumers paying, hidden in their bills, or the industrial carbon tax. If the member would have listened to what I said, the industrial carbon tax is going up. His government doubled down on that position by increasing it in their latest budget. Honestly, the government needs to do better—”
“Conservatives are focused on restoring fiscal responsibility and making life more affordable for Canadians; removing the Liberal-made barriers that block major projects and slow down growth; cancelling the job-killing industrial carbon tax; and creating the conditions for real, sustainable investments. The Canadian promise that hard work will earn people a roof over their head, food on their table and a safe neighbourhood to live in should be—”
“As these costs increase across the supply chain, it ultimately means significant costs to Canadians at the grocery checkout. This is not the only hidden tax hitting Canadians at the grocery store. The Liberal food packaging tax is a tax on food, the Liberal fuel standard that adds 17¢ per litre is a tax on food, and the Liberals' inflation tax is yet another hidden tax on food. Conservatives have already put forward a motion in the House to cut these hidden taxes on food, and the Liberals rejected that motion. Their budget would double down on their decision. Canadians deserve better than this credit card budget. This budget is not an affordable budget. This budget would mean more debt, more taxes, more inflation and more broken promises. This budget would be a burden on Canadians who are already struggling to pay for basic necessities.”
“Not a single measure would deal with the root causes of high food prices, and not one serious step would be taken to reduce the cost of producing food in Canada. Instead, the Liberal government is increasing the cost of food. Its industrial carbon tax would be going up, and this would increase the cost of fertilizer and farm equipment. It would increase the cost of grain drying, trucking and food processing. Every step of the food supply chain is becoming more expensive, and these costs do not simply disappear. Our farmers are absorbing significant costs. Compounded by increased market uncertainty, many are struggling to keep their operations viable. This is a growing threat to our food security that cannot be ignored.”
“Parents are skipping meals just to feed their children. Seniors are forced to choose between groceries and their medication. Some parents are watering down baby formula or even buying opened containers wherever they can find it. This is a clear sign that Canadians are being failed by the Liberal government. These are basic necessities, and for many, they are out of reach. It is no wonder when we look at the prices. Statistics Canada has reported that the cost of baby formula has skyrocketed by nearly 84% since 2017, with a 30% increase in just the last two years. Something is deeply wrong when baby formula is one of the most stolen food items in Canada, yet the Liberal budget would do nothing to make food more affordable.”
“Nearly 2.2 million people visited food banks in Canada on a monthly basis this year, and one-quarter of Canadian households are already food insecure. That is 25%. While the Liberals in this House claim their policies are working, Canadians know they are not. Four out of five Canadians say food is their top expense pressure. Food inflation has outpaced overall inflation for nine straight months. It took decades in Canada to reach one million monthly food bank visits, and under the Liberal government, it took only half a decade to more than double that number. Canadians are turning to food banks more often, more regularly and for longer periods of time. Nearly one in five Canadians visiting a food bank is employed but still cannot make ends meet. One-third of those visiting food banks are children.”
“It would make homes more expensive. It would make food more expensive. It would make everything more expensive. Canadians are already facing inflated food prices. Food should be affordable and within reach for every single Canadian. Unfortunately, that is not the reality here in Canada. (1315) Food insecurity is on the rise in record-breaking numbers. Food banks and organizations across the country have been sounding the alarm, but the Liberal government is failing to take food affordability seriously. “Canada's Food Price Report”, published just last week, reported that Canadian families will spend nearly $1,000 more on food next year. It forecast that overall food prices will increase by another 4% to 6%. Those increases are on top of year-over-year increases that have made food unaffordable.”
“This matters to Canadians in a very real way. The spending is not abstract. Debt is not free, and it has real consequences. The more the Liberals spend, the more it costs Canadians. Canadians pay for this spending through inflation and through higher taxes. The cost to service Canada's debt is not insignificant. Canada is now paying more to service the national debt than it pays in health care transfers to the provinces. Every dollar used to service the debt is a dollar that cannot go to services that Canadians rely on. It is a dollar that is taken out of the pockets of Canadians and passed on to bankers and bondholders. The Liberal budget would continue to raise the cost of living for every single Canadian. It would pour fuel on the inflationary fire that the Liberal government has been burning for 10 years.”
“In an attempt to appear fiscally disciplined, the Prime Minister worked out a scheme to split operational spending and capital spending, except not everything the Prime Minister deemed an investment is actually an investment. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed this. The Liberals cooked the books. They made up their own definition of capital spending, one that according to the PBO is overly expansive and expands well beyond the accepted international practice. When the PBO did the real math, capital investment spending was 30% lower. That is a $94-billion difference. That means the Prime Minister 's claim that he will balance operational spending over the next five years is also inaccurate. There is no path to balance operational spending in five years, never mind a path to balance the budget overall.”
“The Prime Minister promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio, but the debt-to-GDP ratio is going up. The Prime Minister promised his government would spend less, but the Liberals would spend $80 billion more. That equates to $5,400 more in inflationary spending per Canadian household. The Prime Minister promised to help municipalities cut homebuilding taxes in half. Instead, the cost of building homes continues to rise. He also promised more investment, but it is clear that investment is actually collapsing in Canada. Rising uncertainty, taxes, regulations and debt are all contributing to the loss of investment. Unfortunately, it gets worse.”
“Madam Speaker, we know that Canadians want a budget that makes life more affordable, but the Liberal government has not delivered on that. The Liberal government's long-awaited budget is costly and also irresponsible. It is, in fact, the most expensive budget in our history outside of the pandemic years. It is what some call a “credit card budget”, and it is Canadians, today and tomorrow, who will be footing this bill. The Prime Minister promised to keep the deficit at $62 billion, and that deficit was already too high. However, the Prime Minister did not even keep that promise. Instead, the budget has a deficit of $78 billion, which is $16 billion more than what was promised and double what former prime minister Justin Trudeau left behind. The increased deficit in the budget is part of a series of broken promises.”
“Mr. Speaker, amid the joy, light and wonder of the holiday season stands the story of Christmas, as powerful today as it was over 2,000 years ago. Jesus Christ, born as a lowly baby in a manger, fulfilled prophecies long foretold, bringing hope to a waiting world. His birth reminds us that God often works through what is unexpected, using humility and faithfulness to accomplish great purpose. Through his life and humble obedience, Jesus extended to humanity the gift of salvation, enduring hope and transformative love. During this season of Christmas, and in all seasons, this miraculous gift fills hearts with peace, uplifts spirits with renewed faith and blesses all who receive it with a hope and a love that never wanes. To the Speaker, my colleagues in the House and those all across our nation, I wish them all a very merry Christmas.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is the most expensive government in Canadian history. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians, and the Liberals are the ones driving up the cost of everything. Food prices are up 3.4% this year, and they are rising 40% faster here than in the United States. Canadians cannot stretch their paycheques any further. Parents are struggling just to put food on the table, and food insecurity has reached truly alarming levels, but when the Liberals had a chance to lower food costs, they refused. Instead, the Prime Minister is pouring fuel on the fire with a deficit of $78 billion, and he is hiking the industrial carbon tax, yet another hidden food tax. These increased input costs make groceries even more expensive for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the words of wisdom in his speech. If the government actually acknowledged that the taxes it has on food are not imaginary, and these are taxes such as the food packaging tax and the fuel standard, and if the government cut taxes in a real, tangible way that Canadians could feel, what would constituents in his riding be able to do with that extra money of their own in their pockets?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal budget and those initiatives are not working. Parents are still struggling to afford baby formula under the Liberal government's watch, and now StatsCan is reporting another year-over-year increase of 6% on the price of baby formula. The Liberals had a chance to lower food costs for Canadians by scrapping the industrial carbon tax, but they chose to make food more expensive by increasing it, so I will ask this again: Why, when so many parents are struggling to feed their babies, is the Prime Minister increasing the industrial carbon tax and making food more expensive?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is the most expensive in Canadian history. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians and drives up the cost of everything. The cost of baby formula has jumped nearly 84% since 2017. The growing reports of parents going to desperate measures to feed their babies is truly alarming, yet when the Liberals had a chance to lower food costs, they chose to increase them. Why is the Prime Minister increasing the industrial carbon tax and making food more expensive?”
“We also call on the government to remove barriers that prevent builders from getting shovels in the ground. Finally, federal funding must be tied to real results rather than empty promises. Canadians deserve a government that will actually get homes built and make housing affordable again.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table the Conservative Party's dissenting report to the second report of the human resources committee, “Federal Housing Investments”. Canadians are facing an unprecedented housing crisis. Rent and housing prices have skyrocketed, and young Canadians have lost their dream of home ownership. During the study, witnesses repeatedly confirmed that excessive regulations, high construction taxes and ineffective federal funding are major drivers of the crisis. Failed Liberal policies have rewarded municipal gatekeepers, increased homebuilding taxes and spent billions on programs that did not build homes. Therefore, the Conservatives urge the government to focus on lowering housing costs and cutting taxes that make homes more expensive.”
“Mr. Speaker, ultimately, we know the emissions cap is a production cap. On page 108 of the budget, it says, “Effective carbon markets, enhanced oil and gas methane regulations, and the deployment at scale of technologies such as carbon capture and storage would create the circumstances whereby the oil and gas emissions cap would no longer be required as it would have marginal value in reducing emissions.” Does this mean that the government plans to make the production of energy in our country minimal since the cap will be marginal in emissions?”
“Mr. Speaker, Ottawa Public Health is now reporting that one in four families are food insecure, and even baby formula is out of reach for many parents. That is the reality after 10 years of costly Liberal deficits and taxes. Food banks are overwhelmed, and Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. Instead of cutting costs, the Liberals keep raising food prices with hidden taxes. I will ask again, will the Prime Minister stop trying to engineer a costly election and finally scrap the food packaging tax?”
“Mr. Speaker, a costly budget means a costly life for Canadians. Every dollar the Liberal government spends comes out of Canadians' pockets through higher taxes and inflation. Hidden taxes like the Liberals' industrial carbon tax, fuel standard and food packaging tax are all driving up the cost of groceries. The packaging tax alone will cost the food industry $5.6 billion and drive up the price of produce by 34%. Will the Prime Minister stop trying to engineer a costly election and instead scrap the food packaging tax?”
“Madam Speaker, on October 6, the member across the way had the opportunity to vote to scrap Liberal bail, the catch-and-release ridiculousness that criminals are enjoying across this country, some of them repeatedly. I have heard in a few speeches today that the Liberals are claiming criminal justice is a non-partisan issue. I am just wondering why the member opposite voted against our motion, which would have kept violent criminals behind bars.”
“Mr. Speaker, if those programs actually fed the children the Liberals are claiming they feed, there would not be 750,000-plus children lining up at the food banks every month. The Liberals' hidden taxes, such as the fuel standard, the food packaging tax, the industrial carbon tax and rising inflation, are making it harder for families at the grocery checkout. Grocery prices are up 4% overall, with ground beef up 17%, coffee up 28% and soup up 9%. Those numbers translate to record numbers of Canadians turning to food banks to feed their families. When will the Prime Minister stop making it harder for families?”
“Mr. Speaker, every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians through higher prices and food inflation. Food Banks Canada is reporting 2.2 million visits in a single month. That is double what it was just six years ago. Even more alarming, one in three of those visits is by a child. Its CEO says that parents are stopping in at the food bank on their way home from work, not at the grocery store. When will the Prime Minister finally admit that his inflationary spending and deficits are driving parents to food banks?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Instead, Canada now has the fastest-shrinking economy and the second-highest unemployment rate. The Prime Minister said to judge him by grocery prices, and these are rising even faster. He promised to “build, baby, build”, but his anti-development policies are driving investment away. He promised nation building at speeds once thought impossible, yet not one single permit has been issued. He promised a trade deal with the United States by July 21 and still there is no deal. He promised elbows up on U.S. tariffs, which are now twice as high. He promised to spend less, and spending is up billions. He promised to invest more, but investment is leaving the country at an unprecedented rate. Canadians need action, not more empty promises.”
“Mr. Speaker, every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians. Liberal inflationary spending, the carbon tax, fuel standards and the plastics ban are all hidden taxes driving up the cost of groceries. Moms and dads are struggling to feed their kids, and food banks are seeing record usage. Still, the Liberals voted against our motion to axe all taxes on food. Nutritious food should not be a luxury. When will the Liberals finally stop taxing food?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will remind members that the Liberals cut the carbon tax after we put pressure on them. We know that the Prime Minister said Canadians should judge him by the cost at the grocery store. Parents across the country are trying to fill lunch kits with nutritious food, but prices keep climbing. According to the CEO of Canada's largest food banks, visits increased to two million under Trudeau and have now jumped to four million under the Prime Minister. It is another broken Liberal promise. Will the Prime Minister admit to Canadians now that doubling the deficit would only make food inflation worse?”
“Madam Speaker, with respect to the spirit of collaboration, if this passes to committee, I would absolutely expect that when amendments are brought forward, they will be debated thoroughly and voted on in a non-partisan manner.”
“Madam Speaker, as I spoke of in my remarks, I believe that this would create a two-tier immigration system. I think we should have an even playing field. If there are language requirements in other streams of immigration, absolutely, they should also be applied.”
“Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, there has been no cost analysis. The Liberals do not know the scope, so we do not know how much this would cost the government, a.k.a. the Canadian taxpayers. Also, we do not have the information on the 1,095 nonconsecutive days that are being proposed. This is an opportunity to provide amendments to make sure that we can strengthen the bill if we believe, as I argued, that we need people granted citizenship to have a deep, meaningful connection to Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, what I mentioned was that the bill had been reintroduced. The Liberals rejected the amendments proposed by the Conservatives in the previous Parliament. This bill was reintroduced by the Liberals unchanged, without taking any of those amendments into consideration. Given the very first question that opened Parliament from the member for Winnipeg North talked about working collaboratively, this would be a great example, if this happens to go to committee, for amendments to be taken seriously, debated and voted on to strengthen the bill.”
“The potential cost to taxpayers is significant, and the added strain on an already overstretched government's resources and public programs is alarming. This bill requires significant amendments, yet it is hard to believe that will happen given the government has failed to make these necessary changes before reintroducing it this Parliament. The integrity of our Canadian citizenship and our national identity cannot be taken lightly. As elected members of the House, it is our responsibility to uphold and strengthen what it means to be a Canadian citizen.”
“It should be earned through genuine connection, responsibility and respect for our country. Becoming a Canadian citizen means more than just receiving rights and privileges. It requires a deep commitment to Canada's future and the responsibilities that come with citizenship. As parliamentarians, we must oppose policies that cheapen the value of our citizenship. We must stand firm for integrity, security and responsible immigration policies. While the bill includes some important elements, like restoring citizenship to lost Canadians and ensuring equal treatment for adopted children, it is neither a measured nor a targeted policy. Instead, it opens the door wide open for our citizenship to be abused as a citizenship of convenience. It is reckless. The lack of a required security screening is deeply concerning.”
“A massive influx of new citizens would put significant strain on government resources and come at a cost to Canadian taxpayers. The government has not done a clear cost analysis on this policy. What impact would this have on our already strained social services? Canadians are rightly frustrated that public services, such as health care, pensions and housing, could be further stretched by a surge of new citizens living abroad who have never contributed to our country, not to mention the extra workload that this would create for government departments processing citizenship applications. This would once again disadvantage those applying to Canada who have shown a genuine and legitimate connection to this country. Canadian citizenship must be fair, secure and meaningful.”
“On the other side, there are hard-working newcomers, who actually live and work in Canada, who face strict requirements. They must follow timelines, meet residency rules, and pass language and knowledge tests. They certainly must pass a security assessment, which we all know can be quite a lengthy process. They must prove their commitment to Canadian society before they can become citizens. This proposed policy change is unfair. It is chain migration without merit. It is a two-tier immigration system, where those who have no attachment to Canada would gain the same rights as those who worked hard to earn their citizenship. This undermines the value of citizenship and the efforts of genuine immigrants. Another major concern is that we have no clear idea how many people would become eligible under this policy change.”
“Under this change, families can live outside Canada for generations and still pass on citizenship as long as the parent has spent about three years in Canada at some point. This so-called substantial connection is not substantial at all. It also does not require a criminal background check for those claiming citizenship, opening the door for dangerous individuals to gain it automatically. This policy change devalues the significance of Canadian citizenship. Let us not ignore the fact that the bill creates a two-tier immigration system. On one side, there will be foreign-born individuals who have never lived in Canada, and who may have no intention of living in Canada or contributing to our country, yet they could gain citizenship simply because a parent spent a few months here and there in Canada years ago.”