Thank you.
I will not take a long time because I think my speaking notes have already been circulated to the members, but definitely I have some ideas. Maybe they'll be very politically incorrect, but that's very important. We have to be very honest and call a spade a spade.
Immigration or citizenship, the way I came, is always a matter of choice. It's not compulsory. So when immigrants come, it is their bounden duty to understand the Canadian values and the Canadian systems. The so-called politically correct attitude of showing them accommodation must not be there. This is putting the real Canadians, the original Canadians, at a disadvantage, this show of accommodation.
I know that the former immigration minister, Jason Kenney, did cause some sense of déjà vu as far as the reformation of the immigration system was concerned, but this bill doesn't go the whole way it should have gone.
First, the so-called evidence of citizenship is half-hearted evidence that is required by the minister. One of the important parts he has forgotten is that Canada has two official languages, English and French. When we say that they should have some understanding of an official language, we are not being honest with ourselves. We must ensure that anybody who wants to be a citizen must be proficient—and I repeat, must be proficient—in one of the official languages. Imagine, last year in Ontario alone, $378 million was spent on providing services like translation and interpretation. Why should taxpayers pay to show that help to those immigrants? Anybody who doesn't know an official language has no right to be a citizen.
The second part is the so-called family reunion. We are under the mistaken notion that the seniors need to come here. They don't want to come here. They're forced to come here. We shall be doing an act of mercy to them if they're not transplanted here to be a burden on the economic system of the country.
Third, the social welfare system is a big burden on society and the taxpayer pays for that. Any permanent resident who goes on social welfare should immediately lose his PR status—that's what we feel—because he's not contributing. He's just a burden.
For the person who is guilty of treason and terrorist activity abroad, his citizenship is to be revoked. What about the victims of domestic violence? Under the so-called cultural accommodation, or multicultural help, we permit those people to exploit their wives, children. Why should their citizenship not be revoked? It's a very hot potato, the revocation of citizenship. You revoke the citizenship of a new immigrant, what happens to a second-generation citizen who was born here and has nowhere else to go? The change of service ....
By the way, there is one thing I'd like to add. In one bill made by one of the MPs, Devinder Shory, service in the armed forces was a prime need. That should be stressed again and again.