Mr. Speaker, there are the practical aspects of the rejection of the language amendment, and then there is the more macro-level impact. Practically, by rejecting the language requirement, somebody could be an adult, gain citizenship through descent, and not be able to speak one of Canada's official languages. My colleagues opposite are mocking that. To me, that goes to the macro-level narrative, which is that the Liberals do not believe there is a national identity, and they do not believe in the importance of language rights.
By rejecting this amendment, they are sending a signal that it is okay to gain citizenship by descent, as an adult, without being able to speak one of Canada's official languages. How can we be unified as a nation if there is not a requirement to speak one of Canada's two official languages? How can we continue to respect how Canada operates if that is not in place?
My colleague mentioned that we have travelled with the Inter-Parliamentary Union before, and travelling with her has given me a lot of insight into why French language rights are so important in Quebec. She helped me rediscover my family history, too, and how language rights have impacted me. I have to say that, by rejecting this amendment, the Liberals have sent a strong signal that they do not give a rip about language rights and they do not believe that language is an integral part of Canadian national identity or the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.