I have said explicitly from day one when I announced this policy in, I believe, November of 2011, that I and our government oppose the idea of banning the wearing of the niqab in public.

I do believe there is absolutely space for legitimate debate in a liberal democracy about immigration selection, screening and integration.

The public citizenship oath done in a court in front of a judge and one's fellow citizens should be done publicly.

I find the niqab symbol profoundly offensive. I believe it reflects a misogynistic culture that - a treatment of women as property rather than people, which is anchored in Medieval tribal customs as opposed to any religious obligation, but I do not seek to regulate people wearing this objectionable symbol if they choose to do so.

Many, many times I would shake my head in dismay at the goings-on in the House of Commons, but that never caused me to lose my fundamental faith in the values of our parliamentary institutions.

I think very few people in Canada are seeking - to regulate any public expressions of individuals' religions.

Sometimes there are no good choices for government.

I think I've chosen the right path.

Rural Alberta is a lot less homogeneous than it used to be, partly because of my immigration policies.

My response to my friend Naheed Nenshi was simply to say that some of the hyperbolic language that's being used to critique this sensible reinforcement of the public nature of the citizenship oath is, I think, unhelpful, and is actually inflaming the situation.

Sometimes the government has to answer questions with ambiguous language.

For members who have only ever been in government, the negativity and aggressiveness of the opposition is easy to caricature.

The federal court has not commented on niqab as being a violation of any putative Charter right, but rather has said that the court believes that the policy ought to be anchored in legislation or regulation as opposed to an administrative order from the Minister. We disagree with that. But this is not a Charter ruling.