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 3 of 3.
“(1120) That incident raised serious concerns and legitimate questions about the integrity of our citizenship and what responsibilities the Government of Canada should uphold. The first-generation limit was a reasonable and necessary measure to address the issue of Canadians of convenience. It ensured that those inheriting Canadian citizenship have close ties to Canada that are not far removed. It helps prevent people from claiming the rights and privileges of citizenship without accepting its responsibilities. Significant ties to Canada can show a strong connection to our country, but the bill's requirement of just 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada before the child's birth weakens the guarantee of a strong connection.”
“It would do this by removing the first-generation limit and replacing it with an incredibly weak substantial connection test. The first-generation limit was a safeguard that was introduced by the previous Conservative government. It ensured that citizenship could not be endlessly passed down to generations born and living outside of Canada with no real ties to the country. This policy was not introduced without reason. It followed the 2006 Lebanon crisis, when thousands of people with little or no connection to Canada suddenly claimed citizenship in order to be evacuated. That effort cost taxpayers $94 million, not including the other benefits that were accessed afterwards. Most of the evacuated returned to Lebanon shortly after. They had no lasting ties to Canada.”
“When the previous Conservative government repealed that rule in 2009, a small group born between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, were left behind. By any reasonable measure, these individuals are Canadians, and this should be corrected. A previous Conservative bill from the other place sought to do exactly that. It was a targeted, measured solution to restore citizenship to lost Canadians. Rather than pass that bill, the Liberal government delayed it. It then introduced a flawed and far broader bill, Bill C-71 , which has now been recycled and presented as Bill C-3 in this Parliament. Bill C-3, in its current form, would reopen the door to Canadians of convenience. It would create a pathway for unlimited, multi-generational citizenship to individuals with no meaningful connection to Canada.”
“Colleagues in the House who served in the previous Parliament will recall that I put forward a bill to ensure equal access to EI and parental leave for adoptive and intended parents. It is an inequity that unfortunately remains unresolved as the government continues to drag its feet on the issue. Likewise, restoring citizenship to lost Canadians is a necessary correction. These are individuals with deep, undeniable connections to the country, and many of them were raised in Canada. They went to school here, worked here, paid taxes here and built lives here. Because they failed to apply to retain their citizenship before the age of 28, their citizenship was stripped away. In many cases, they did not even know it happened, as the requirement was never properly communicated.”
“As members of Parliament, it is our duty to strengthen and uphold the value of Canadian citizenship, to ensure that it remains a privilege earned through a genuine connection to the country, which in turn fosters a lasting commitment to Canada. Unfortunately, Bill C-3 , in its current form, would not safeguard or strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. In fact, by creating an endless chain of citizenship passed down without meaningful connection, it would risk devaluing what it means to be Canadian. To be clear, granting Canadian citizenship to adopted children of Canadian citizens born abroad is a positive step. It would ensure that adopted children would be treated as equal to biological children, as they should be. That is a principle I have been quite vocal on.”
“Madam Speaker, it is great to be back after some time with family and in our own ridings. It is wonderful to see everybody. Our Canadian identity is rooted in our shared values and our deep connection to this country. With our Canadian citizenship, we are granted rights and responsibilities. Our Canadian citizenship guarantees fundamental freedoms, such as conscience and expression. It ensures democratic rights, mobility rights and legal protections. Citizenship is not just about the rights that we inherit. It is also about the responsibilities we accept, such as respecting the laws of this land, contributing to our communities and upholding the values that make Canada strong and free.”
“Mr. Speaker, the housing minister is part of the problem. He said that housing prices do not need to come down, and now we know why: He has a $10-million real estate portfolio, including three, not one or two but three luxury properties. Housing costs have doubled under the Liberals, putting home ownership out of reach for more and more Canadians. How can the minister sit in his Vancouver penthouse and tell young Canadians who are priced out of the market that prices do not need to come down?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's damning ArriveCAN audit confirms that the Liberal government failed to protect taxpayers' money. An app that was supposed to cost $80,000 ballooned to at least $60 million, and due to the poor record-keeping, the true total may never be known. The Liberals handed GC Strategies contracts despite it being under RCMP investigation and lacking proper security clearances. They did not verify qualifications, did not verify market rates and, in many cases, did not even confirm that the work was done. That is not just incompetence; it is negligence, and the Trudeau ministers responsible were promoted. GC Strategies gets to keep the cash while Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. Accepting the Auditor General's findings is simply not enough.”
“Mr. Speaker, as it is the first time I am rising in this House with you in the chair, I want to congratulate you on your position. The member opposite gave a lot to unpack, but the thing that stuck out the most to me was how he mentioned it would be unfair to Canadians who were relying on that payment, because they budgeted for it. This tells me the member opposite understands the importance of budgets and sees that they are timely and that they matter. I am just wondering, why is the member opposite content with his government not tabling a spring budget? How come he is not asking for and demanding it, if he believes budgets are so important?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is the Liberal government's anti-energy policies that are blocking critical energy projects in this country. Bill C-69 , the no new pipelines law; Bill C-48 , the shipping ban; the job-killing oil and gas cap; and the industrial carbon tax are all driving away investment and killing Canadian energy development. If the Prime Minister is serious about his so-called “build, baby, build”, will the Liberal government repeal its anti-energy agenda to get vital energy projects built?”
“Mr. Speaker, for a decade, the Liberal government's anti-energy agenda has driven away Canadian jobs and investment. The consequences are clear. Building energy projects will boost our economy, reduce reliance on the United States and create good-paying jobs for Canadians. The only thing still standing in the way is the Liberal government. At a time when our economy needs strengthening, will the Liberals finally approve and build a pipeline?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to go a little further. Just because we do not see eye to eye, that does not mean we cannot work together. It is important that we can have conversations and debate. Iron sharpens iron, and this is something that should be honoured in this place. As for how the government wanted to read the throne speech, it is baffling to me that the Governor General could not have read it on the government's behalf, as opposed to His Majesty.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague brings up a very good point. Throughout the campaign, we did not hear that the candidate who is now the Prime Minister quietly ended the retaliatory tariffs that he campaigned on, saying that the government would give the revenue to the affected businesses. We know we did not hear that. Also, if the Liberals are certain about supporting businesses, they would remove the industrial carbon tax. We look at our steel and aluminum manufacturers and what is coming from south of the border, the threat of doubling those tariffs. One would think that common sense would tell us that maybe we should try to remove the red tape and the extra expense of doing business, which is doing nothing for the environment, by the way, and make it easier for those producers.”
“Madam Speaker, I am in no way being partisan. As this is my first speech in the House of Commons in the 45th Parliament, I am simply relaying the information and the concerns of my constituents in Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake. To address this holistic agenda, there was no plan and no details. There were many subjects missing and omitted from the throne speech. I talked about the energy sector and oil and gas, and a colleague of mine rose in this place earlier and asked about the opioid fentanyl crisis, which is missing. The member should take a good long look in the mirror and commit to himself to be non-partisan this session.”
“The Conservatives are committed to fighting for those priorities so that together, we can build a stronger Canada where all Canadians can get ahead and contribute to the success of our great country.”
“At a time when Canadians are already faced with the highest inflation in decades, this reckless spending will only make life harder for everyday Canadians. The Liberals must stop burdening Canadians with debt and start implementing policies that make life more affordable. With no budget in sight and no clarity in the throne speech on how the government intends to tackle the challenges facing Canadians, it is clear that the repackaged Liberal government is not showing the leadership our country so desperately needs. While the throne speech fails to offer the leadership Canadians need, Conservatives remain committed to holding the government to account and bringing about changes that will make this country more affordable, safer and self-reliant. We must work together to deliver the hope that Canadians are so desperate for.”
“The proposal would increase government spending by 8%, with much of that increase funnelled into bureaucracy, consultants and contractors, none of which will directly benefit Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. The bureaucracy is set to grow by 6%, which is more than double the combined rate of inflation and population growth. What is worse is that spending on consultants is set to increase by 37%, reaching an astonishing $26 billion annually. This means that the average Canadian family will now be paying an extra $1,400 a year just to fund these consultants. In just this short time, the Prime Minister is proving to be even more expensive than Justin Trudeau, whom he advised.”
“Despite the talk of spending restraint, the throne speech offers no real numbers, no specific targets and certainly no credibility, especially after a decade of inflationary waste and economic decline. The tabling of the main estimates last week paints a distinctly different picture from the promise of spending restraint that was made in the throne speech. The Liberal government has tabled $486 billion in spending, and yet again, it has done this without the presentation of a budget. This is the first time in decades that this has been done, outside of the pandemic. This is not the change that Canadians wanted. This is a troubling continuation of the pattern we saw under Justin Trudeau: escalating spending with no clear plan on how the money will be spent efficiently or effectively.”
“There is no mention of how we can get our energy to new markets and there is certainly no mention of how Canadian energy can displace our dependency on foreign oil from countries with lower environmental and human rights standards. There is no mention of how Canadian energy can help reduce our global energy dependence on those same countries. This glaring omission in the throne speech speaks volumes about the government's priorities. It is not the bold leadership needed when our sovereignty and our economy are under attack. When outside forces are threatening our industries, we need a federal government that strengthens and protects them, not one that weakens and continues to undermine them.”
“He has appointed many former Trudeau ministers who have actively worked to put up barriers and red tape, making it impossible to get big nation-building projects off the ground. (1335) The lack of sincerity in wanting to get projects built is further evidenced by the Prime Minister 's refusal to repeal the very laws that are stopping these projects, laws like Bill C-69 , Bill C-48 , the energy cap and the industrial carbon tax. These policies are suffocating our economy and job creation. In fact, there is no direct mention of Canada's oil and gas sector in the throne speech, one of Canada's most important industries and the lifeblood of entire provinces.”
“However, instead of presenting a plan to cut the red tape that is driving up the cost of homes, the Liberal throne speech proposes a brand new bureaucracy. We need solutions that make housing more affordable, not more layers of red tape. This lack of direction might stem from the very fact that the Prime Minister appointed a housing minister who has already publicly stated that, no, housing prices do not need to come down. How can Canadians trust the government to address the housing crisis when even its own minister does not believe in bringing prices down? The Prime Minister also says that he wants to get big projects built, but his own ministers do not seem to agree.”
“Rightly, that declaration was met with immense blowback and criticism, not just from Conservatives, but from Canadians, political pundits and people from all sides of the political spectrum. After all that backlash, the government has backtracked just a little, promising a fall budget. However, a fall budget is simply not good enough. Serious leadership requires a plan and a plan that should be presented this spring. The Prime Minister himself repeatedly said throughout the election that a “plan beats no plan”, yet here we are left wondering where that supposed plan is today. The throne speech offers nothing but vague rhetoric and lofty promises. It talks about wanting to bring down housing costs, which is a very important priority for many Canadians, especially young Canadians who have lost the dream of home ownership.”
“My constituents want to know how we can chart a path forward that ensures our province has every opportunity to succeed. To unite our country and create an environment where every Canadian, regardless of where they live, can work hard and succeed requires a plan. Unfortunately, the only thing that the Liberal government's throne speech makes clear is that it does not have a plan. While there are some lofty ideas in this speech, there are no details on how the Liberals will accomplish these goals and no specifics to give Canadians the confidence they need in the government's direction. A budget would provide that direction, but right out of the gate, the finance minister announced that the government would not be presenting a budget this year.”
“I also want to express my steadfast commitment to fighting for the change and hope needed to address the immediate challenges facing our country and to strengthen it for the next generation. During the recent election, as I spoke with constituents, I heard the same concerns time and time again. The rising cost of living is making it harder for families to make ends meet, and many no longer feel safe in their own communities. While the issue of protecting our sovereignty was at the forefront of political discourse, the overwhelming concern I heard from constituents was about protecting the livelihoods and values that define our communities. For a decade, the Liberal government has attacked the industries that form the backbone of our economy. The government has also threatened the values and way of life in Saskatchewan.”
“Madam Speaker, as this is my first time rising to speak in the 45th Parliament, I want to begin by expressing my deep gratitude to the constituents of the newly redistributed riding of Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake. I thank them for placing their trust in me to be their voice in this chamber. It is truly an honour and a privilege to stand in this place, and I do so with a sense of deep responsibility, one that I do not take lightly. Of course, none of this would have been possible without the support of my family, volunteers and the many dedicated individuals who believe in our vision for a stronger Canada. I want to take a moment to thank them for standing with me. I want to especially thank my husband Adam and my children, Annabelle, William, Victoria and Eloise, for their unconditional love and their unconditional support.”