Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the overall assessment coming from the leader of the Green Party. This bill is indeed a reflection of what came out of the last election. That is the reason it was introduced back in June. It reflects what Canadians wanted to see with regard to building one stronger economy and dealing with specific border issues. It complements the hundreds of millions of dollars in investments for beefing up our borders. This is something Canadians were told about in the last election. I would question the privacy-related issues. This is the party that brought in the Charter of Rights. We are very much aware of civil rights. I agree with the member. Let us at least get the bill to committee and see what happens with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, on that particular point, does the member not see the difference between that and individuals who come to Canada on a temporary visa and are in Canada for over a year? She is talking about many people, whether it is back in 2010 or today. The issue is about ensuring the refugee process is not being abused. There is a political responsibility here. We saw that today in question period. Why will the leader of the Green Party not recognize there is value to that?

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the bill itself. If the Conservatives wanted to show goodwill in dealing with and improving border security, along with other issues related to it, they could actually allow the bill to go to a committee, where it could be further debated and talked about, with amendments proposed. If they do not want it to go to a committee right away, would he not agree that it may be advisable to share some of the possible amendments that the Conservatives have?

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could be clear on this point. Today, if I put a letter in the mailbox and there is fentanyl in it, Canada Post has a legal obligation to deliver that letter to wherever it is going in Canada. Let us say for the sake of argument that for a law enforcement agency to open that letter, it would require a warrant and it gets a warrant to open it. Does she, or the Conservative Party, support that principle?

Madam Speaker, I would like to refer back to the member's quote on my principles with respect to getting a warrant. The problem the member is facing is that he is listening to the Conservatives in the back room. They are wrong. In fact, if we look at the legislation, all we need to realize is that Canada Post has a legal obligation to deliver the mail. With respect to delivery, it cannot open letters. If the legislation were to pass and a law enforcement agency were to get a warrant, it would be able to open a letter. Fentanyl is being mailed today to all sorts of communities. That is why we need this bill. My principal position on this has not changed from years ago. Would the member not agree in principle that getting a warrant to open a letter is a good aspect of the legislation? If the answer to that is that he agrees, then maybe the Conservatives need to revisit their speaking notes.

Madam Speaker, I welcome back all members. During the summer, one of the experiences I had was regarding legislation in general, whether it is Bill C-3 or other pieces of legislation. I found that, whether it is with members of the Conservative Party or other political entities, there is a great sense that the government has to work with the opposition and that the opposition needs to work with the government in passing legislation to ensure that we are doing what is in the best interest of all Canadians. I am wondering whether the member could provide his thoughts, as we go into the fall session, on the expectation his constituents have to look at legislation objectively and look at ways we can deliver for Canadians by co-operating more this fall.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the concerns that the member has expressed. When it comes to consultation, consultations are always done for government legislation. I will put to the member the issue I have. Here we have legislation on which a couple of Conservatives have stood up to say that there are individuals who should receive their citizenship. There is no reason whatsoever why, after having had hours and hours of debate, we should not see the legislation go to committee. It is a minority government, meaning the government cannot ram the bill through a committee. It takes a majority of members to pass an amendment. If the Conservatives are so confident in the need for changes, why would they not want to see the bill go to committee? Conservative voters themselves want to see more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker, I thought we could use his name as long as he has not been brought to the bar. The former member for Carleton consistently talks about Canada being broken. Now he is talking about immigration being broken, yet he sat around a cabinet table where it took years to be able to sponsor a spouse and where the then minister of immigration deleted literally hundreds of thousands of files of people who were in that process for years. Yes, there are issues with immigration. There could even be issues of concern with respect to Bill C-3. Even Conservative speakers have indicated there is a need to pass elements of Bill C-3 in order to provide justice, for individuals to be able to receive their citizenship. One of the first steps in achieving that justice is recognizing that even Conservative voters want to see more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons so we can give that justice. My question for the member is this. Would she not agree that Conservatives can talk and debate, even at committee stage, and bring forward amendments, and all they need to do is get the support of the majority? After all, it is a minority government. If their arguments are that strong, surely to goodness they would be able to pass it at committee stage.

Madam Speaker, I will use a hypothetical example: A third-generation Canadian, who was born, raised, everything, here in Canada, has a child, and that child, upon hitting five years old, moves with the family to any European country, or to any other country in the world, lives there for 30, 40 or 50 years, and then makes the determination that they want to come back. Would the member then apply the very same principles he is espousing today of them not having that connection? The 1,095 days that the Conservatives continue to talk about is something that qualifies an individual to become a permanent resident to Canada. There are some requirements to qualify to become a citizen. Depending on the age, there might be an English requirement or a French requirement. There is the 1,095 days requirement. Is the Conservative Party suggesting that we should be changing the 1,095 days? The Conservative Party needs to recognize that its members might have some ideas that are good to have some debate on, but let us respond to what Conservative voters are saying and have a more robust sense of co-operation in getting legislation to committees, where they can have the kind of debate the member seems to want to have. Would the member not agree that it is time to allow legislation to actually go to committee, as opposed to talking endlessly in regards to it, so that Canadians would get what they want, which is a robust opposition that wants to co-operate, just like the government?

Madam Speaker, I would like the member to listen to a hypothetical situation that is a possible reflection of reality. There are many Canadians, generations of Canadians, who move to another country, and after living in that country for 50 years, 60 years or maybe even much longer than that, come back to Canada. Applying the same principle, would the member say to those individuals that they should not be entitled to OAS, GIS or Canadian health services? Would he apply that very same principle? The bottom line, I believe, is that there are some concerns. Let us bring the bill to committee, as opposed to filibustering the legislation, and listen to what even Conservative voters are saying, which is that they want to see more co-operation among all parties in the House. Would the member not agree?

Madam Speaker, we have been here all morning listening to Conservative after Conservative stand in their place to say that there are some just cases for which people would be able to have their citizenship if we were to pass this legislation. Members on all sides of the House recognize the value of it, so if the member says that the Conservative Party wants to show progressive forward movement, one of the things it could do is recognize that there have been hours of debate. Back in June, we were debating this legislation. There is no reason whatsoever that we cannot continue this debate at committee and look at the amendments the Conservatives have. It is a minority government. That means all they have to do is convince a majority of MPs to be on side with them. The opposition has a majority membership on the standing committee. My question for the member is this: If he is convinced of the amendments the Conservatives apparently have, why not allow it to go to committee?

Madam Speaker, the 1,095 days that we often hear about from the Conservative benches is not just a number pulled out of the House. Today, it takes 1,095 days in order to be able to qualify for citizenship when people who are permanent residents apply. That applies to a lot of people today in Canada. What I consistently hear from the Conservatives is that they have amendments, but when asked to share them, the amendments magically disappear. Conservative voters want to see more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons. A lot of the debate that we have seen in the last three hours could have been taking place in the committee stage, when we could actually do what, in part, the Conservatives want. That is to provide citizenship for some individuals who should have citizenship today. Does the member not agree that we should be listening to Canadians, being more co-operative and at least allowing legislation to get to the committee stage without having to use time allocation?

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3, 5, 10, 15, 16, 26, 29, 34, 39, 41 to 44, 50, 51, 57 to 59, 66, 67, 75 to 77, 81, 97, 100, 102, 103, 110, 111, 118, 120, 122, 126, 129, 130, 132, 133, 138, 148, 149, 151, 153, 158, 161, 163, 166, 167, 170, 173, 177, 179, 181, 182, 184, 190, 193, 197, 201, 207, 208, 210, 213, 215, 216, 219, 224, 225, 228, 229, 234, 236, 238, 240 to 244, 246, 249, 252, 253, 263, 268, 269, 273, 275 and 276.

Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada does not perform preliminary audits of registered third parties. The interim returns that are filed during the election period are for information purposes only and are not subject to audit. Audits will be conducted following the submission of Third Party’s Electoral Campaign Returns, which are due on August 28, 2025. Below are links to the third party interim returns that have been published for the 45th general election, or GE, as well as to the tools for third parties page. Third party financial returns for the 45th GE can be found at https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=fin&dir=oth/thi/advert/tp45&document=index&lang=e. Tools for third parties can be found at https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=thi&document=index&lang=e.

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 to 9, 11 to 14, 17 to 25, 27, 28, 30 to 33, 35 to 38, 40, 45 to 49, 52 to 56, 60 to 65, 68 to 74, 78 to 80, 82 to 96, 98, 99, 101, 104 to 109, 112 to 117, 119, 121, 123 to 125, 127, 128, 131, 134 to 137, 139 to 147, 150, 152, 154 to 157, 159, 160, 162, 164, 165, 168, 169, 171, 172, 174 to 176, 178, 180, 183, 185 to 189, 191, 192, 194 to 196, 198 to 200, 202 to 206, 209, 211, 212, 214, 217, 218, 220 to 223, 226, 227, 230 to 233, 235, 237, 239, 245, 247, 248, 250, 251, 254 to 262, 264 to 267, 270 to 272, 274, and 277 to 283 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened throughout the debate today on what is a very important piece of legislation. I know, in the past, the member opposite has been very supportive of individuals who should have their citizenship today. In fact, that is universally felt. There are people who should be Canadian citizens today but are not, because the House of Commons has not co-operated in getting the legislation passed. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on the mandate that all politicians of all political parties were given, which is to have a higher sense of co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons. Can she provide her thoughts on being able to see this ultimately passed to committee?

Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge right at the beginning that, at the end of the day, there is no doubt that members of the Conservative Party of Canada have amendments to make changes to the legislation. Hopefully, we will see it go to committee sooner as opposed to later. Conservatives seem to give the impression that they want to delay the passage to committee, which is unfortunate. Having said that, my concern is with some of the wording that is being used, which is trying to give the impression, for example, that our health care issues and problems are because of immigrants and the numbers. The member, like me, is from the province of Manitoba, and whether it is the Premier of Manitoba, the Minister of Immigration or other ministers, they are saying that not only do they want to retain the people who are there today, but they want more, and they are also responsible for health care. Can the member provide his thoughts in terms of what he believes the numbers are like in the province of Manitoba today?

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would provide his thoughts on how we could continue to have the debate and even look at possible amendments. The members opposite have talked about the possibility of amendments. Could the member provide his thoughts on how we could further advance the legislation and deal with the issue of people who should be citizens not being citizens because of a sense of unfairness within the current law that the Superior Court made a ruling on?

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way might have said this is the first substantive speech he has given since the last election, but he has been around for many years. He knows the importance of a minority versus a majority government. We hear constantly that the Conservatives are not feeling comfortable with the legislation. The member knows that any opposition party can prevent legislation from ultimately going to committee by just continuously talking about it. Would the member not agree, as many Conservatives across the way have said this, that there are aspects of the legislation that should be dealt with so that people who are not Canadian can be deemed Canadian? We have a superior court ruling on the issue. Would he not agree that many of the discussions and debate can continue at the committee?

Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to the member that even Conservative voters want more co-operation taking place on the floor of the House of Commons. At the end of the day, it is a minority government that requires a majority in order to get things through, whether from second reading into committee or ultimately passed into law. If the Conservatives are so confident in their arguments, why not, at the very least, allow the debate to continue at the committee stage and bring forward amendments? If they are sound amendments and the majority supports them, and the majority could just be opposition members, they are going to pass. Why do Conservative Party members appear to once again want to filibuster legislation?

Mr. Speaker, the member made an empathetic comment about lost Canadians. The issue of the lost Canadians is dealt with in this bill, yet it would appear that the Conservatives want to filibuster this legislation. Why not recognize the good that is within the legislation and allow the legislation to be discussed and debated at committee stage so that we can actually pass the legislation? I think the Conservatives are starting to already fall into their old ways of filibustering and not letting legislation pass when Canadians want us all to co-operate more.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's time and effort in putting on the record a number of situations that have had a fairly profound impact. That is why it is so important that we see some form of the legislation actually pass. If we were to focus, let us say, on this and Bill C-2, a couple of bills, and every member were to speak to the legislation, we would not even be able to bring in the budget until the end of November or beginning of December, or that type of thing. At the end of the day, we need to see this legislation sent to committee. I wonder if the member opposite could provide his thoughts in terms of the important role that a standing committee of the House can play in terms of improving legislation and advancing it, keeping in mind the superior court's decision.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about a very important message that is rooted in the April 28 election. Liberals throughout the country campaigned extensively, during a federal campaign, during which we heard some very common themes at the door. The predominant one was the issue of how, as a nation, we are going to be able to face the threat of potential tariffs, concerns about trade and President Donald Trump from the United States. There was a great deal of concern about what was taking place. We can reflect on what was happening during the election, and we saw that, for Canadians, there was that contrast between the Liberals and the Conservatives. On the one hand, we had a leader who was a former governor of the Bank of Canada. By the way, he had actually been appointed by Stephen Harper at the time. The Leader of the Liberal Party also had the background of being a former governor of the Bank of England. He is an economist, someone who truly understood how an economy works. Contrast that to the leader of the Conservative Party, who is a career politician. Personally, I do not have anything against career politicians. Some might say that I am one, too, but I do know that, during the election, that weighed heavily on the minds of Canadians. We had the right leader at the right time going into a federal election, and he was able to address the concerns of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that members opposite would be somewhat more respectful when members are speaking. At the end of the day, when the voters spoke on April 28, they sent a very strong message to all members of the House that the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, had a mandate to build one economy instead of the 13 that we currently have in the country, and that is what the legislation is all about. If we look at the election platform on page 1, if we look at the throne speech and if we look at the announcements made by the Prime Minister, we will see that the primary focus is to build one strong, healthy economy. The strongest economy in the G7 is the goal; that is something that the Prime Minister and Liberal members of Parliament are four-square behind. The focus of the government has been to enhance and build on that theme, and that is why we have Bill C-5 before us today, because the people of Canada were concerned about the economy, jobs and the direction that we were going in. There is a new Prime Minister and a new administration, with a focus on building our economy. When we think in terms of trade and in terms of opportunities, there is a special focus in regard to exploring ways in which we can trade with other countries around the world, expanding our opportunities. We have a Prime Minister who, just over two weeks ago, met with all the first ministers, all the premiers of provinces and territories across the country, about the idea of building the one Canadian economy. There have been provinces that have taken initiatives to build upon that. We have to be able to demonstrate here on the floor of the House of Commons that we are listening to what Canadians want and to their expectations. Their expectations are that there would be a high sense of co-operation, political parties aside, focused on what is in the best interest of Canadians, and that is exactly what our new Prime Minister has done. We met with first ministers of all political stripes. When meeting with indigenous leaders and with all the different stakeholders to date, the first priority has been Canadians and building our economy. That is what we are striving to do. Imagine April 28 to six or seven weeks later; look at what we have been able to accomplish in that very short period of time. We can talk about legislative measures, such as Bill C-5, which we are talking about today, which in essence captures the one Canadian economy by looking at special projects and encouraging labour mobility, in law. We also have Bill C-2, which is to strengthen our borders. It is a tangible investment, not only from a legislative perspective but also from a budgetary perspective, where we would commit to 1,000 more CBSA officers and 1,000 more RCMP officers. This would have a real impact on making our borders that much more secure, dealing with issues such as extortion and illegal immigration of different forms. These are the types of things—

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has pointed out, it deals with fentanyl too, a very serious issue here in Canada. In fact, around the world, fentanyl is a serious issue. As a government, we are looking at ways in which we can protect Canadians, and that is Bill C-2, not to mention Bill C-4. Bill C-4 is the legislation that would put into law the tax cut for Canadians. Contrary to what the Conservatives are saying, it would be a substantial tax cut through which people would realize, in a fiscal year, over $800, for an average family with two workers in the home. They could get up to $840, I believe. It is a significant amount of money. There are 22 million taxpayers who would benefit by that—

Mr. Speaker, in a 10-minute speech, there have already been two interruptions. I would encourage members to be a little more courteous. I would suggest taking a look at the legislation. I referenced Bill C-4, and it would be a tax break for Canadians not only in terms of their tax policy but also in terms of first-time homebuyers. First-time homebuyers who are purchasing a new home would actually get a GST exemption on it, up to a significant amount of a tax break for those first-time homebuyers, thereby making homes more affordable and ultimately increasing the number of houses being built. These are substantial legislation measures and substantial budgetary measures that we have seen in a very short window. We made an investment, for example, of two—

Mr. Speaker, when a member is standing and speaking, especially if it is a relatively short speech, I think that as a common courtesy at times, it would be much nicer if members could wait until the end of the speech. It is very interruptive, especially if one is not speaking from notes. I would think that, going forward, additional consideration should be given that when members are interrupted, you might want to consider resetting the clock at times.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that our election mandate is to build a strong, healthy economy, an economy that is the strongest in the G7. We have a new Prime Minister, a new administration. In a very short window, whether it is for legislation or budgetary measures, what we have witnessed, I believe, is a Prime Minister and a Liberal government that are committed to serving Canadians every day in order to build the dream that Canadians have. I for one am very grateful for the opportunity to be able to do that. On a final note, I would like to thank a very special person who works in our MP lobby: Sarah is a wonderful research person and has been a great support over the years, and I thank her.

Mr. Speaker, really and truly, the Conservative Party knows absolutely no shame. When Stephen Harper and the member's leader, Pierre Poilievre, sat around the cabinet table, do members know that they did not build one inch of pipeline to tidewaters? They talk a lot about it, but they were an absolute, total disaster in terms of building any pipeline. The Liberal Party has nothing to learn in terms of building a pipeline to tidewaters, because Pierre Poilievre was an absolute, total failure when it came to building a pipeline in the 10 years in which he sat on the government benches.

Mr. Speaker, it was not just the Liberals. The Liberals worked with the Conservatives to bring in the closure and time allocation motions, which actually set the time frame in terms of how long the committee would meet. There were some restrictions. The members should be a little more straightforward in telling the full truth in the sense that there were many amendments, some of them Bloc amendments, that actually passed at the committee stage as well. I assume that the Bloc members at committee did have some consultation before they proposed those amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I have a reality check for the member. If we contrast the Trudeau administration to the Harper administration, we will find that the Trudeau administration created close to two million jobs in just under 10 years. Contrast that to one million jobs with Stephen Harper. If we want to talk about the manufacturing industry, we can take a look at what happened in Ontario. Stephen Harper virtually destroyed the manufacturing industry in Ontario during that 10-year period of time. I would have no problem doing a comparison at any time on that issue.

Mr. Speaker, as I emphasized during my comments, we have a new Prime Minister, who brought all the first ministers together, and they had very successful discussions. We had individuals like Doug Ford, a progressive Conservative in Ontario, working along with Wab Kinew, a New Democrat from Manitoba: different premiers, different political parties, working with a Liberal national government, building a team Canada approach to building a stronger and healthier country. I am grateful that the Conservatives saw the light to support Bill C-5. We appreciate that. I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts in regard to having a team Canada approach to building these projects, which include the stakeholders and beyond: indigenous concerns, premiers' concerns and many others.

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing, the degree to which the Bloc does not support Bill C-5. Every region of the country will benefit from it. The Bloc members seem to be concerned about the process, when we know it is not just the Liberals; we have Conservatives and Liberals who have recognized the theme of the national election that was held on April 28. It was universally accepted in terms of developing and promoting one Canadian economy, because it helps the people of Quebec. We can think in terms of hydro in the province of Quebec. Why is the Bloc putting their separatist attitudes above the interests of the people of Quebec when, even in the most recent mandate, April 28, just weeks ago, we got that very strong message? The Bloc members are ignoring the people of Quebec. I say shame on them.

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the member from the Bloc was uncomfortable with the question, but it does not necessarily justify the answer he provided, because the people of Quebec, much like the people of Canada, see the merit of this particular piece of legislation. We have a vast majority of members of Parliament who see the value, who want to see Bill C-5 pass, yet if it were up to the Bloc, this legislation would never pass. They would like to postpone it indefinitely. The question that the people of Quebec and Canada have for the Bloc members is, why does the Bloc disagree with building one stronger, healthier Canada, with the potential of billions of dollars that would be saved for everyone?

Mr. Speaker, I have expressed to members of the Bloc that, on April 28, Canadians sent a very strong message, not only to the leader of the Liberal Party but also to all members of the House, and the Prime Minister of Canada has made it very clear that this is in fact a reflection of a very clear mandate that was given to the House. We appreciate the support coming from the Conservatives, but the Bloc and the New Democrats are completely offside, coming up with issues to filibuster or to not allow the bill to even pass. Fortunately, because of working with the Conservatives, we now will be able to get the bill passed. Why is the member not respecting the mandate that was actually given to every member of the House to build one strong Canadian economy—

Mr. Speaker, let me get this right. The New Democrats, the seven independent members, have decided that they are going to vote in favour of part 1, but they are in opposition to projects deemed to be in the national best interest, even though there are all sorts of safeguards in play to protect things such as indigenous consultations and rights, and so forth. Let us be very clear that the New Democrats are becoming more and more irrelevant, for the simple fact that they are not putting Canadians first—

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the leader of the Green Party has been very consistent over the years. The concern I have, which was really emphasized in the last federal election, is that we need to be able to build a strong, healthy economy, and that means looking at national projects. If it was up to the leader of the Green Party, the studies that would be done would ultimately be endless. We would not even be able to pass legislation. Does the member see any sense of passing legislation of this nature given the concerns that she raises?

Mr. Speaker, page 1 of the Liberal Party election platform made it very clear that we want to have one Canadian economy. The Prime Minister has delivered on that commitment to Canadians. By July 1, because we will be passing the legislation in the next couple of hours, we will have an opportunity and a framework that are going to enable and complement things such as the first ministers' meeting that the Prime Minister had with all the premiers, the first ministers, and there were a lot of good discussions that took place. Premiers of all political stripes are on board. The national government needed to step up, and we have stepped up with a new Prime Minister and a new administration. My question for the member is this: How would he reflect on the overall team Canada approach that was clearly demonstrated at the first ministers' meeting just two weeks ago?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to a new government, and it is, in fact, a new government administration with a new Prime Minister. We have seen tangible actions since April 28, just a number of weeks ago. The Prime Minister, working alongside the Liberal caucus, presented legislative initiatives, such as the one that we are debating today, which was on page 1 of the election platform. We are checking it off. It will, in fact, pass. The Prime Minister has already met with the first ministers. He has met with the G7 countries. We have a very proactive Prime Minister, fixated on Canada's economy and making it the strongest in the G7. My question for the member is, does she not believe in a team Canada approach?

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the approach that the NDP has chosen to take on Bill C-5. The member and I both represent Winnipeg ridings. Both of us understand what Canadians, and Winnipeggers in particular, want to see. They are very much concerned about the economy. They are concerned about jobs. They like the aspect of having one Canada economy. We have Premier Wab Kinew, who understands that, has been working with other provincial jurisdictions and participated in the first minister's conference that was hosted by the Prime Minister. There is a great team approach, yet we have the NDP playing around. It is just becoming more and more isolated and irrelevant to the whole debate. Why does the member not recognize what the people of Winnipeg, and Canada, said during the last election? They want a one Canada economy.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very significant day today. The Prime Minister and Liberal candidates from across the country made a solid commitment as part of our election platform to build one Canadian economy. It was on page 1 of the platform. Sometime in the next half-hour, we are going to be passing Bill C-5. That is a checkoff. That is something the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus pushed through to fulfill a solemn commitment we made to Canadians. I will conclude by saying that in the last number of weeks, we have seen all sorts of initiatives from a new Prime Minister and a new administration. We are making a difference. We will continue to work hard for Canadians. Could the leader of the Green Party explain why, in a nutshell, she feels that this bill should not pass?

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the minister to continue. The minister talked about a Supreme Court decision that obligates the government to take a specific action. Many of us have participated in citizenship courts. We all have an appreciation of the true value of being able to travel in Canada or around the world with a Canadian passport, how meaningful that is and the types of rights we have as Canadian citizens. This is indeed important legislation, and it is a direct response to a court decision. I very much appreciate the manner in which the minister opened the legislation up for potential amendments and to listen to what members might have to say. Would she like to provide further thoughts on how important it is?