House of Commons photo

Track Ted

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is liberal.

Conservative MP for Provencher (Manitoba)

Won his last election, in 2025, with 66% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Citizenship Act September 15th, 2025

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-3.

Canadian citizenship is one of the most important things our country has to offer. It is not just a document or a passport; it is a commitment to Canada, its people and its values. It carries not only rights and privileges, but also responsibilities, and that is why citizenship must be defended and upheld. It cannot be treated casually, and it must never be handed out without limits. Bill C-3 undermines that principle. People who may never set foot in Canada, who have not contributed to our society and who have no intention of living here could be granted Canadian citizenship. That would be to destroy what it means to be Canadian.

Canadians understand that our immigration and citizenship systems are already broken. Adding a vast open-ended pool of new applicants without any planning or clear limits would only make things worse. The government has not released how many new citizens Bill C-3 could create. Numbers, costs and the implementation plan are clearly lacking.

This lack of accountability matters. Citizenship must and does mean more than a piece of paper. It represents a real and substantial connection to Canada. That means living here, contributing here and being a part of a united Canadian society.

Conservatives believe in a citizenship system that is fair, is reasonable, is rooted in accountability and puts Canada first. We will not support policies that would so badly skew the meaning of being a Canadian citizen, and we will not put Canadian workers and families at a disadvantage. Conservatives will continue to fight for policies that protect our sovereignty, ensuring that citizenship retains its value and keeps our country strong for generations to come. Canada deserves no less.

Conservatives cannot support this bill. It is an attempt to cheapen citizenship and make it less valuable. Conservatives stand up for integrity, security and responsible immigration.

As many here know, Canada's immigration policy used to be the envy of the world. This bill would potentially radically obscure a common vision of the value of being a Canadian. To hand out Canadian citizenship to people with little or no connection to Canada is insanity.

Regarding its background, Bill C-3 is a re-creation of a previous bad bill with which the Liberal government last attempted to overhaul Canadian citizenship laws. Back in December 2021, 23 applicants from seven families filed a constitutional challenge. The subsequent ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared that the first-generation rule in the 2009 Citizenship Act was unconstitutional and gave the federal government six months to respond. Instead of an appeal of that decision, there have now been four extensions. The current requirement is that a response be legislated by November 20 of this year, so the clock is now ticking, and Bill C-3 represents the new version of the Liberals' unpassed Bill C-71 in the last sitting.

Just because the timer is on does not mean that we should pass bad policy. All we need to do is respond to what needs to be fixed. Instead, Bill C-3 would open the door to abuse by dramatically broadening access to citizenship. This would primarily be done by eliminating the requirement for strong ties to Canada. Where Bill C-3 could have maintained a focused and targeted approach like Conservative Senator Martin's Bill S-245 did, this bill, Bill C-3, proposes sweeping changes that would dramatically impact the face of citizenship.

To give a bit of context on this, back in 2009, the Conservative government at the time addressed concerns about Canadians of convenience, that is, Canadians who hold Canadian citizenship who live outside the country and do not participate in Canadian society. Consequently, Bill C-37 amended the Citizenship Act to limit citizenship access down to one generation. In other words, non-resident parents could pass on citizenship to their children, but grandchildren would not automatically be granted citizenship. From this legislation, we became aware of lost Canadians, who are people who either had Canadian citizenship and lost it or thought that they were entitled to Canadian citizenship but never received it. Senator Martin's Bill S-245 could have addressed these concerns.

Instead, the government is trying to rush through a bad bill when so many other factors need our immediate attention. Not considering factors such as housing, inflation, homebuilding, job security, natural resources, crime and even our drug rate is not being honest to newcomers to Canada.

When people come to Canada, we want to extend the Canadian promise that envisions hard work being rewarded, food and homes being affordable, streets being safe, borders being secure and all people coming together, united under a proud flag, and that is why getting the legislation right is so important. Right now we have the second highest unemployment in the G7, the worst household debt and, in some regions, the highest house prices. To top it all off, our food prices keep going up and up.

Throughout the election, we were promised that we would “build, baby, build”, doubling homebuilding, but instead we are being told homebuilding will fall by 13%. Already in Toronto and the GTA, homebuilding has fallen by half. I know there were announcements made on the weekend by the Liberal government, but as far as I know, announcements so far are not translating into shovels in the ground. Either way, we simply do not have enough homes for Canadians.

In the previous version of the bill, the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that 115,000 new Canadian citizens could immediately be added to Canada at a cost of $21 million just for the processing, that being only one estimate. Ryan Tumilty of the National Post wrote that, in fact, the government has no idea how many people would automatically be granted citizenship if the legislation is passed, because there is retroactivity to the current legislation.

I note that this is all happening after we were promised less spending during the election, and from what we know right now, deficit spending looks to be 100% bigger than what we were promised. This is important, because the proposed cost implications of Bill C-3 to Canadians, related to health care, pensions and education, are not even considered a factor. That was discovered in the technical briefing. Canada is already challenged economically.

Again, the election promise was that we would have more investment, but just last week, we discovered that $62 billion of net investment has left the country since the Prime Minister took office. The National Bank says that this is the biggest net outflow in any five-month period in Canadian history.

Unemployment, the cost of living, the cost of homebuilding, tariffs and crime are all up. Worse yet, CIBC says that unemployment matches levels that are typically seen only during recessionary periods, and our youth are the ones who are suffering the most. Over 17% of students are returning to school this fall having failed to secure a summer job. For younger students, aged 15 to 16, unemployment rose to a rate of over 31%.

We have some catching up to do, which is one of the reasons Bill C-3 is just not doable in its current form. Ministers have expressed that they are open to edits and changes, but the bill has massive flaws. There is an old proverb that reads, “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.” Conservatives want better legislation. We want legislation that will be passed and that will be successful.

The Liberals are proposing that we streamline multi-generational foreign residents to claim citizenship with minimal presence in the country. We would be extending multi-generational access, generation after generation, when a parent has to spend only 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada, and with no criminal record check. One immigration lawyer asked what kind of evidence would be required to demonstrate one's physical presence in Canada. Citizenship is not about having minimal connection to Canada or joining a club for convenience; citizenship is a commitment to Canada, to its people and its values, and it carries rights and privileges but also carries responsibility.

Finally, it is about people coming from different backgrounds, different languages, and different countries and cultures, all uniting meaningfully with common vision for the country we love.

God keep Canada, the true north, strong and free.

Main Estimates, 2025-2026 June 17th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, one thing that troubles me about this program is what I hear frequently in my constituency office. People come in and say, “The government said this was a free program and that my dental expenses were now covered, but they were not covered.”

One of my questions is, why did the government do such a poor job rolling this out, misleading people to think that all of their dental care was going to be free? The other one is, would it not have been nice to present a budget to the House so we could know what we can afford and what we cannot?

Main Estimates, 2025-2026 June 17th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to the member for her focus on our Canadian military. We truly are proud of it, and we want to support it in the best way as we can.

However, I am a bit curious. The member states that she wants to give the military the tools and the resources it needs to do its job, yet the Liberals cancelled the F-35 contract. At the very best, that is going to be a delay. How do you respond to that, with your passion to give it the tools it needs and then cancelling the contract for jets we desperately need?

Business of Supply June 17th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North mentioned the whole progression of lighting from incandescent and then fluorescent to LED. That was maybe a natural progression. I would suggest to him that rather than mandate the change to EVs, maybe there will be a progression as the technology improves and as the demand is there, but we should not force people to do it. Let us get rid of the mandates and let people live here in Canada.

Business of Supply June 17th, 2025

Madam Speaker, Liberal members have several times today indicated that they are not banning gasoline vehicles. While that may be partially true, what they are banning is the production of new gasoline vehicles in 2035, and they are introducing a strictly 100% electric vehicle mandate. I am wondering whether my colleague could provide a little more clarification on that.

Business of Supply June 17th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to sit with the hon. member on committee, and I know he is very passionate about everything environmental. I have a question because I know he is just as passionate about Quebec and Quebec sovereignty.

Why is the member comfortable with the government imposing a mandate on Quebeckers? Let the market go where it will in Quebec, let Quebeckers do what they want, but why is he comfortable with Canadians telling Quebeckers what to do?

Public Services and Procurement June 16th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, that is right; GC Strategies is under RCMP investigation. The Auditor General exposed millions paid without proof of work, without oversight and without security rules being followed. The ministers responsible did not get fired; they got promoted, rewarded by the Prime Minister. Only with the Liberals do they fail upwards, collect promotions for incompetence and leave the taxpayer on the hook. It is the same scandals, same ministers.

Why is Liberal corruption always rewarded while Canadians get the bill?

Public Services and Procurement June 16th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General confirmed that GC Strategies, a two-person company, got $64 million from the Liberals, often without competitive bidding. In nearly half the contracts, there is no proof of any work even being done. In 82% of cases, departments did not check if taxpayers were overpaying, and in 50% of contracts, security clearances were not properly enforced, including by departments like Global Affairs and National Defence. It was a total collapse of basic oversight, but taxpayers are still forced to pay while Liberal insiders get rich.

Will every member of the House vote to get Canadians their money back?

Message of Faith June 12th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians prepare to celebrate Canada Day, we are reminded of the foundations upon which our country was built. When the Fathers of Confederation founded this country in 1867, they recognized that Canada's strength would rest not only on law and government, but on the recognition of God's authority. There are 25 verses from the Bible in the architecture of Parliament, such as Psalm 72:8, which says, “he shall have dominion from sea to sea”.

From these stone walls, the words taken from God's word remind us that freedom does not come from bureaucrats, global bodies or unelected elites. It comes from hard work, personal responsibility and the recognition of a higher authority. These words teach us that good government needs vision, justice and accountability to the people and to God.

As Canada Day approaches, let us give thanks to God for the blessings of freedom, peace and abundance, and recommit ourselves to being faithful to the biblical principles that have guided our nation since its birth. God keep our land glorious and free.

Business of Supply June 10th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, I agree with part of the member's speech, which is how badly the Liberals misled us about the carbon tax. They told us that everybody was going to get back more than it cost them. The Parliamentary Budget Officer made it very clear that, in fact, not everybody who contributed to the federal carbon tax program was going to get back what it actually cost them. We got a lot of misinformation and disinformation from the Liberals on that. Now they have done a complete flip-flop on it, and they say how bad it is and that it really has created inflation and driven up the prices of everything.

We also know that provinces like British Columbia and Quebec did not contribute to the federal carbon tax program. The cheques that were issued were rebates. They were issued during the election, which was totally wrong. It was totally irresponsible of the Liberals to do that. However, does the member really think that someone who did not contribute to a pool should be entitled to a rebate from that pool?