Bill C-37 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act in order to
(a) permit certain persons who lost their Canadian citizenship for specified reasons to have their citizenship restored from the time it was lost;
(b) permit certain persons who, born outside Canada to a Canadian parent, did not acquire Canadian citizenship for specified reasons to become Canadian citizens from the time of their birth;
(c) provide that certain persons born outside Canada to a Canadian parent who was himself or herself born outside Canada do not acquire Canadian citizenship; and
(d) provide for a grant of citizenship, on application, to persons who have always been stateless and meet other specified conditions.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I guess you were given a chance to not let me speak, and I voted to not let myself speak, which is unusual. It's probably the first time in nine years I voted to not let myself speak at committee. It's like I'm at PROC all over again in my first term.

I wanted to address a few of the things I heard from the other side, because I think it's material to everything that we've been talking about on this subamendment, how we got here and the reason for the particular legislation that the main motion is referring to.

Mr. El-Khoury talked about the drops in the interest rate by the Bank of Canada, and then sort of implied—well, not implied, almost said it—that it's going to keep going down. Is the Liberal government going to force the Bank of Canada governor to lower interest rates? That would be most unusual because I thought those interest rate decisions were entirely independent of government. If monetary policy is no longer independent, I think you should put it on the record that it's no longer independent.

On the $10 day care programs, I remember the Conservative side voted for Bill C-35, which these agreements are attached to. It's a disaster in my home province, where there are many day cares, especially private day cares, that are going out of business. Especially in my riding, there are a few of my communities where I have a lot of home care that provide day homes. That's how I grew up in Brossard, on the south shore of Montreal. I grew up in these day homes, basically. They're critical. They're being put out of business by the Liberal government agreement that was forced on my province. You will see a lot of criticism from our Alberta minister at the time, before she was promoted to the environment ministry, on this particular issue.

About the school food program that Mr. El-Khoury loves to promote, it has fed exactly zero children. I'm pretty sure there's letterhead. There's probably some nice writing out there with a beautiful font going around—no children fed, zero. There are a lot of private, not-for-profit organizations that have fed more children than the Liberal government.

I'll give you an example. Brown Bagging for Calgary's Kids has probably fed more children in one week than the entire Government of Canada has in the past nine years. If anything, the government that you keep supporting on the other side has probably taken food out of more children's mouths by making it so expensive than it's actually fed.

This food program is just a total sham. It's a total sham. You should not promote it. There are other things you could talk about that maybe you could convince the public on. Judging from the polls the public doesn't trust you. They don't trust the cabinet and really doesn't trust the Prime Minister. I have not even met Liberals at the doors who would be willing to say “I trust the Prime Minister of Canada.” I've found Liberals at the doors saying, “I want to continue voting Liberal.” It's not, “I'm going to.” They say, “I want to continue. I want to find a reason to vote Liberal.”

I think they're ready for that carbon tax election that my subamendment is calling for. I think they recognize that this has to be done. There are a few more things that were mentioned about C-37, the originating piece of legislation that introduced the first-generation limit, which the superior court judge found was charter non-compliant. Again, if you read the actual judicial decision in the paragraph 60 range, specifically, the charter non-compliance is connected to the incompetence of the former IRCC minister.

The Minister of Immigration's department is incompetent. He's incompetent. He can't seem to get a handle on his file. Some people are just not meant for this. They're on their fifth or sixth immigration minister. Maybe it's time for a seventh. I'm not sure how many it will take to fix this.

Bill C-37 was unanimously voted on not once, where perhaps the argument made by the NDP would make sense, but twice. It wasn't that it was just unanimously agreed to; it was unanimous without dissent.

Because I have been the deputy House leader on the Conservative side, I'm going to reveal maybe some inside baseball things for the public. Typically in this place, House leaders talk to each other. The deputies talk to each other. We all know the positions of our caucuses. I'm not sure how the other caucuses work, but in our caucus, we run our House leadership. We tell them what to do. We have votes, and they are directed on certain matters on what to do. That's the way it works.

On Bill C-37 at the time, my understanding then would have been that if everybody unanimously supported it, you unanimously supported everything within Bill C-37, including the first-generation limit. Bill C-37 also restored citizenship to a lot of Canadians. It was fixing some of the errors in the 1977 Citizenship Act, and I think that is really important to mention.

To make the claim that a third party who wasn't a member of Parliament, who wrote a book and who made a claim that was not backed because that person had not talked to Stephen Harper, as far as I know, or parliamentarians, the House leadership or staffers of the time.... To make that claim...it's just that. It's hearsay: Somebody said something. I would not take that to the bank. It's also, I think, a false interpretation of what was said in Hansard. I don't have that particular page with me. It's upstairs in my desk.

I look forward to debate continuing on Bill C-71 in the chamber, and I'm going to be there every single time it comes up. I'm going to participate. I'm going to keep asking the same question I asked the minister on the first day. How many people would be affected by Bill C-71? I know how many people would be affected by my subamendment right now. It would be 40 million-plus Canadians, who are going to go to the polls and pass judgment on all of us, including the Conservatives. They're going to pass judgment on our performance, and I'm looking forward to it. I have zero fear for my constituents and the residents in my riding. I am more than willing to submit myself to their wisdom, and if they choose to vote me out, they can do so.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to be able to earn their support. I'm pretty sure. I've got a gut feeling. They're pretty satisfied with my work, based on my door knocking in my riding and other parts of the country. I have a good feeling about it this time. Even the vice-chair says he'd vote for me. I want to make sure of that as we continue to talk about this subamendment I've put forward.

I also want to talk about the delays in Bill C-71 and this sudden rush that I see from at least one opposition party and the government side now because there is a court-imposed deadline. There was a court-imposed deadline in June, and the government never bothered to put up Bill C-71 for debate. It did not even bother. It was on notice as of May 23, so at any time afterwards it could have been put up for debate. There was almost 20 days' worth of debate during which they could have put up the bill.

Why didn't they tell their House leadership to do it? This I don't understand. There was a court-imposed deadline then as well, and their side chose not to do it, so it is interesting that, after the summer, they come back and now they claim this must be rushed because there's a court-imposed deadline for December.

I'll also remind us that the court's decision in Bjorkquist from the judge was made in December 2023. Why did it take 156 calendar days for them to table a piece of legislation called Bill C-71? It's not even that long. It's an open question; anyone can answer it. Go back to the minister. That's 156 days for legislation when there were multiple breaks in between, and then not a single day was it debated. However, today we're being told that this committee must approve an aggressive, partisan, anti-Conservative motion with a whole bunch of hearsay in the preamble to rush the bill through the House.

Then their own members complained, along with one opposition party, that we Conservatives, and others too, because they all participated in it, spent 30 hours debating different amendments and hearing from government officials, and that was invaluable. They want us to take it to committee, but then they will complain that we have to rush it through committee because we Conservatives will take too much time.

They should go back to their comms people. That's a bad talking point. Their policy people should be writing their talking points. As a former policy guy, I fervently believe this. Let the policy people write the points, not the comms people—with all the blessings to them, because I know we have them on all sides. They exist everywhere I'm sorry to say. Policy people should be the ones writing these points. It just makes no sense.

I now understand the Citizenship Act better, I think, than any other piece of legislation before the House. I'm comfortable now when I read Bill C-71 after what happened with Bill S-245, and we moved many amendments. We all know this. More than 10 of them were Liberal amendments the Conservative side voted for. We proposed over 40 amendments, some of them very substantial. That was not a filibuster. It wasn't a waste of time. It was productive. We were doing actual work.

I also made promises during that meeting so they were on the public record, and I intend to keep those promises. If they play games, then we will be here debating subamendments, amendments and main motions like this from here until the end of this session, because the public is tired of the government side especially. They're in government. They're supposed to govern. If they want to persuade us, then persuade us. Persuade my House leadership and persuade Conservative members of Parliament that they are right. So far, I haven't seen that. What I've seen instead are attempts to circumvent the process.

When Bill S-245 was before you, I said we could expedite that piece of legislation if we stuck to section 8, lost Canadians, which we all agree with. It's even in this legislation. We could still agree with it. It was a Conservative idea from Yonah Martin. I will also add the fact that during the minister's speech, when he was speaking in French, he referred to this.

He said “sénateur Martin” instead of “sénatrice Martin”. Not even knowing that the sponsor of Bill S‑245 in the Senate is a woman, a Conservative senator from British Columbia, is truly ridiculous. His staff did not even check to see who Yonah Martin is, why she tabled Bill S‑245—which is identical to Bill S‑230—and why it passed so quickly in the Senate the last time.

I'd like to see an attempt, a serious attempt. If you want to work together, we can, I'm more than happy to, but I have members on my side who have serious concerns about Bill C-71. They also have concerns, like in my riding, that we will not have the carbon tax election my subamendment is calling for.

I find it interesting too that I heard particular members saying that Conservatives are doing this at all committees. I literally wrote that subamendment on my notepad in what I affectionately call my chicken scratch. I can sort of read it, and then I wrote out the French version right afterwards. There are no games here. I don't go to my House leadership to ask for permission. They know that. They're as frustrated with me as you are.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

—that would have been lost altogether. Isn't that right, Greg?

That would have meant that all of that would have been lost and war veterans who fought for this country would have gone to their graves without having been recognized as Canadians. That is shameful. The gender discrimination of the war brides is shameful. That's what happened with Bill C-37.

Fifteen years later, we're trying to fix all of this and again the Conservatives want to play games with people's lives and their suffering. Children that are born stateless are the result of the Conservatives' bill. Separated families are a result of the Conservatives' bill. It got to the point where enough was enough and courageous people took this to court and won.

Even then, the Conservatives say, “Let's put our politics ahead of everybody else and call for an election.” That would mean Bill C-71 would die on the Order Paper. That means constitutional rights will continue to be violated for these lost Canadians.

Mr. Chair, I would add that the Conservatives claim that they support the family members of lost Canadians. Wouldn't you know it? The leader of the official opposition, in correspondence responding to lost Canadian families, said that they would actually see Bill S-245, which is a Senate bill, go to third reading. How did that go?

Not only did they filibuster the bill in this committee for 30 hours but, after we finally got all that passed and it was reported to the House, the sponsor of the bill, Jasraj Singh Hallan, moved in the order of precedence the motion for Bill S-245 as amended to come up to the House for third reading debate and a vote eight times—I think that must be a record—to pre-empt it from actually getting voted on and passed in the House. That is the reality, folks. They can say all they want in all those speeches they just made so that they can put it on social media and say to their leader, “We did our job.”

By the way, to my understanding, they're using that amendment at every committee. It is absolutely a political stunt they're trying to do. I project that they're using it at every committee because I think those are the tactics they want to engage in. That's what we see with those kinds of tactics, a repeat—throw it in, rinse, recycle, start all over again. Those are the kinds of tactics that we have seen over and over again. That's my projection—that it is the kind of thing they will do with the other committees as well, always putting partisan politics ahead of the needs of their community and of Canadians. That's what we're seeing right here, right now, today.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank very much, Mr. Chair. I'll be very brief about this.

Really, all of this is just a ploy, in my view. It's playing politics at its worst.

What we're seeing here in relation to Bill C-71 is an attempt by the Conservatives once again to kill the bill. I suppose I should not be that surprised because, after all, it was them who brought in Bill C-37, which stripped the rights of Canadians and then deemed them to be second-class citizens. Irrespective of the fact that the Superior Court in Ontario has found this to be unconstitutional, the Conservatives want to persist. I know they'll make arguments and say things like, when Bill C-37 was passed, all the parties in the House supported it.

Let us just be clear on the record. In fact, Don Chapman—who is absolutely an expert about the history of lost Canadians—noted in his book that the Conservative government and Harper at the time, made it clear that, if that bill was not supported unanimously and unchanged by the parties, then he would strip all the other elements that would have impacted veterans and war brides. They would have gone to their graves without having their citizenships recognized.

What did the parties do? They held their noses and did what they had to do in order to honour the veterans and the war brides. Bill C-37 was founded on violations that, in my view, were based on sex discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I should also add that the NDP's Olivia Chow—who was the critic at that time because I wasn't around the House at the time—attempted to raise concerns around the provisions that stripped second-generation-born Canadians of their right to citizenship. She did, in fact, call for that section to be struck or amended. Of course, that didn't happen because if she had ultimately gone down that track to do anything, it would have meant that the war veterans and the war brides and others.... There were some elements that were good in Bill C-37—

Citizenship Act

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, “broken, broken, broken” has been the refrain this summer, a summer that showed Canadians once again that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government are just not worth the cost. I suspect that was the refrain the Liberals felt last night after a brutal loss in a safe riding in Montreal, where Canadians sent the Prime Minister yet another message to say that his plan is not working. Nowhere is that truer than in our immigration system and citizenship system.

Let us go back to 2015, the last time the Conservative government was in charge. We had a consensus in this country, and it was a multi-generational consensus that existed long before 2015. It was a system that worked for our economy, with inflation low and home prices half of what they are today, and a system that kept our nation safe from terrorist attacks and multinational criminals. It was a system that was truly the envy of the world, through which a person could come to this country, welcomed with open arms, in an effort to build a life better than the one they left behind.

However, in just nine short years, none of that is true today. Housing prices keep going up, reaching record highs in cities small and large everywhere. International students are living seven, 10 or 15 to a basement, or even resorting to homeless shelters and food banks. Opportunity keeps slipping away in the face of higher taxes, more expensive groceries and, yes, more and more people in the way. People who came here after being promised a new beginning are instead finding that their hard work does not pay off, and shockingly, they do not want to stay. In fact, they want to leave. It is all made worse by a government that cannot seem to exhibit a single ounce of competence and organization in immigration. That is why the consensus is broken.

The Liberals lost a million people and still cannot tell Canadians where they are. The Minister of Public Safety, just a couple of weeks ago, insisted that the system is working when a terrorist was given citizenship. The member for Kingston and the Islands, who I missed very much over the summer, claims that the Liberals are delivering results for Canadians. However, Canadians keep sending them the same message that this is simply not the case, because nobody with an ounce of common sense can step back and say that things in Canada are working as they should right now. If this is what the Liberals consider delivering results, then I would hate to see what not delivering results looks like. Even when they do not know where people are, the system still does not work and incompetence still reigns supreme.

The government gave citizenship to a terrorist who appeared in an ISIS snuff video and who somehow passed six security checks while plotting an attack in the country's biggest city. It gave a student visa to a guy planning a massacre of Jews on the anniversary of October 7, all while being exposed for not even checking his criminal record, the record check we do for any temporary resident. This was just in the past month. With each successive blow, the confidence among Canadians and our peers abroad in the integrity of our immigration system, in who we grant citizenship to and in the basic ability of government to get anything done is certainly in question.

No one of us should relish the fact that the Canadian immigration system seems to be falling apart right in front of us. I am a child of immigrants. There are many children of immigrants. There are many immigrants among us, many of our colleagues and constituents. We can testify to the power of a necessary immigration system, but a system that lacks integrity just does not work, and Canadians will not trust it. If not for immigration, my family would have never been able to experience the freedom of opportunity that this country gave us. If not for immigration, our communities would never benefit from the skills and expertise of countless doctors, nurses, engineers, tradespeople and the many people who built this country. If not for immigration, our country would never be strengthened by the values and pluralism of our newcomers, who are rooted in their culture, and what that provides for us.

What happened in less than a decade is nothing less than a tragedy, which is why it is even more disappointing to see the Liberal government plowing head-first into more misguided policies like this one rather than taking the time to fix what is wrong, further extending the reach of Canadian citizenship in the same ham-fisted and incompetent way that we have come to expect. The Liberals cannot even tell us how many people will be eligible under this piece of legislation. Surely, they can come up with a model.

The government cannot possibly believe it still has the confidence of anyone in this country when it simply says, “Trust us. We got this.” This bill threatens the integrity and security of the citizenship system. In December 2023, as we have said here in the House, the Ontario Superior Court declared that the first-generation cut-off rule for the Canadian Citizenship Act was unconstitutional. The Ontario Superior Court itself found a 50% error rate in the Liberal-run citizenship department, with abnormally long processing times and malpractice.

The NDP-Liberals took six months to respond to Bill C-71, showing a blatant lack of urgency, which they claim to have found today. This bill proposes to grant citizenship to individuals born abroad to at least one Canadian parent who has spent 1,095 days in Canada. We know that. This is without requiring that these days are consecutive and without provisions for checks in the Criminal Code. We know that other countries require more time and certainly more consecutive time. I do not think it is out of line to ask for a security check given what we have seen in just the last month in this country, with a public safety minister who says that the system is working as it should.

We see in this debate that the Liberal Party voted in favour of Bill C-37. That is the bill that was here prior to this one, which the Liberals seem to have conveniently forgotten about entirely today and certainly have forgotten that they supported not once, but twice. It was passed at first reading and second reading and there was unanimous consent to pass it. The Liberals voted in favour of the very ideas they are attacking in this bill today. This further erodes the lack of consensus I spoke about that exists in our system.

The Liberals are doubling down on citizenship by Zoom and pushing forward with the present path, even as evidence shows that we are not building enough homes, that we are not credentialing those who should be able to work here in their professions and that we are not doing our due diligence. That is clear. That is a message they should have heard over the summer and is a message they probably heard at the doors in Montreal last night.

Perhaps most egregious is giving people who created this mess even more responsibility in running the government. The guy who used to be the immigration minister, the guy responsible for losing those million people, is now being promoted to the guy who is supposed to build houses in this country. This is a guy who ignored advice from his own ministry and instead chose to pursue a blind political agenda. What happened? He was given a promotion. It is the guy under whose nose blossomed a corrupt and phony international student program alongside a foreign worker program called a “breeding ground” for modern-day slavery. This is the guy who is in large part responsible for the debate we are having today, as the Ontario Superior Court cited bureaucratic incompetence at the IRCC as a major reason for its decision. Spoiler alert, that minister could not run the system, and he cannot build homes either. That should not surprise anyone.

We need to fix this broken system. We need to fix it for those who want to come here and create a better life, for the promise of Canada, for the promise that if they come here and work hard, they can buy a home in a safe neighbourhood. They should be able to work in their profession to the scope of its practice and to the scope of their education, and they should know that when they come here.

What we have right now is a broken consensus in the public because the system does not work. That is because people who come here cannot achieve the dream that we have promised and cannot achieve the dream that so many of us and our constituents have benefited from. That is a shame.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask a question about numbers, but I just want to preface by saying to the member that Bill C-37, when it was passed in 2009 and introduced the first-generation limit, was actually supported by all parties in the House twice, on February 8 and on February 15, with unanimous consent votes.

With respect to numbers, I looked at Statistics Canada, and in 2016, a study done by Bérard-Chagnon and Canon said there were four million Canadians living abroad, which was a 36% increase since 1990.

According to the study it was using for the United Nations, dating back to a 2017 study showing the progression, the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada found, in its estimate, that there could be as many as 2.7 million Canadians living abroad. An updated estimate in 2016 said there could be between three million and 5.6 million.

Regarding the last breakdown, I will put the question to the member. They did a breakdown, thanks to the United Nations, the World Bank and the OECD, and they found the following: 51% are citizens by descent; 33% are Canadians by birth; and 15% are naturalized Canadians, like I am.

I am going to put to the member the same question I put to the minister the other day. How many persons living abroad will therefore be eligible to apply to the department for a proof of citizenship document and thereafter a Canadian passport?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate the shout-out that was given to Don Chapman. As I mentioned today and yesterday, I came to know Don Chapman when I worked for Andrew Telegdi, the former member of Parliament for Waterloo.

I also really appreciated the member's insights at countering this false narrative by the Conservatives regarding Bill C-37, who then are intentionally choosing to forget that former prime minister Stephen Harper basically gave an ultimatum to members to either take this step that lost Canadians were fighting for or none of it would happen. People like Don Chapman were leading the charge to ask for this step to at least be taken, because we were never going to get the Conservatives to truly be inclusive. They are the most uninclusive party possible.

My question to the member is in regard to the Ontario court ruling and the fact that this legislation would make Canadian citizenship more equal, especially when it comes to kids being adopted or who are born abroad. I would like to hear what the member thinks the benefits are of having legislation that would be constitutional. What kind of value does that have when it comes to Canadians and the pride we share?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure the member understands the 1977 Citizenship Act was amended in 2009. Actually, those portions would not be amended here; that was done way before.

In 2009, Bill C-37 introduced the first-generation limits. It was supported by all parties. It was supported twice by the Liberal Party of Canada, by the NDP and by the Bloc, and yes, it was a Conservative bill.

It is interesting that the member introduces a novel argument that we would violate international treaty commitments, because that was not an argument made at any point by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

If it is the case that it would be a violation, why are the first-generation limits in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom not violations of their international treaty commitments?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for London West.

It is a pleasure to rise for the first time in this House after the summer recess to represent the good people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. It is especially important today because we are debating Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. It is very important that we start our session with this legislation because it strikes right at the core of what it means to be Canadian or, rather, how.

What do Mary Pickford, Leslie Nielsen, Ricky Gervais, Jimi Hendrix, Glenn Ford and Roméo Dallaire all have in common? These folks are well known as eminent Canadians, but they are also what are known as lost Canadians. Lost Canadians are individuals who were born in Canada or believed they were Canadian citizens but who lost or never acquired citizenship due to certain provisions in our outdated and confusing citizenship legislation.

For instance, first-generation Canadians born abroad are unable to confer citizenship to their children, and those born to a first-generation Canadian abroad automatically lose their citizenship at the age of 28 due to a cruel and unconstitutional law passed by the Harper Conservative government. The legislation we are debating today would fix these issues by amending the Citizenship Act to extend access to citizenship to descent beyond the first generation.

Once passed, Bill C-71 will automatically confer citizenship by descent to all those born abroad to Canadian parents before the coming-into-force date of the legislation. For those born after the coming-into-force date, there would be a new framework governing citizenship where citizenship by descent can be passed on beyond the first generation if a Canadian parent is present in Canada for 195 days straight, in what is being called the substantial connection test.

Bill C-71 would also allow people born abroad and adopted by a Canadian citizen who was born abroad to have a pathway to citizenship by way of a grant of citizenship. This different process is required because to comply with the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which seeks to protect the child's best interest and prevent abuses such as the abduction, sale and trafficking of children, an assessment is necessary to ensure that an adoption complies with international adoption requirements.

Many of those currently affected by this issue are, in fact, children who are unable to access Canadian citizenship and the benefits that we so often take for granted, such as access to universal health care and education. The consequences these children face as a result of this outdated legislation are unacceptable. Take, for instance, the story of 12-year-old Zach Hirschfeld. He was born in Mexico to his Canadian father Bert, who was born in the United States and later naturalized to become a Canadian citizen. At the time, Zach's Canadian grandmother could not confer citizenship to Zach's father due to the discrimination against women that remains embedded in the Citizenship Act, which I will get to later in my speech.

Last year, Zach applied for proof of citizenship and was denied. As a naturalized Canadian, Bert was deemed to be born in Canada and thus could confer citizenship to his son, but this was later rescinded by Conservative Bill C-37 when it became law. Under Bill C-37, Conservatives took away the right for Canadians born abroad to pass on citizenship to their children. This law not only separated families, but created an undemocratic tiered system of citizenship and a new class of Canadians.

Today, Zach does not have citizenship in Mexico or Canada, and there is a legitimate question of him being stateless. Zach's father tragically died during COVID and his family in Vancouver wants him to live with them. The problem is that Zach has no legal status in Canada and thus cannot enrol in school, get medical coverage or get a social insurance number. To access these things, he needs to become a Canadian citizen. Under Bill C-71, he would.

To be clear, this is not an issue of immigration, as some members of the opposition claim. This is an issue of citizenship. As we can see from Zach's story, it is also an issue of equality and women's rights.

Prior to 1977, women could not confer citizenship on their children. Instead, children were seen as property of the father if they were born in wedlock, and property of the mother if born out of wedlock. This inequality has lasting impacts on new generations of Canadians born abroad. Bill C-71 would correct this by acknowledging the rights of second-generation Canadians born abroad to obtain citizenship, including descendants of women who previously could not confer citizenship due to these inequalities. This is not only the right thing to do; it is also necessary in order to make sure the legislation is compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill C-71 would also bring our laws into compliance with international standards set by the United Nations. Currently our legislation violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that all children have a right to education. It violates the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, which outlines the measures countries must take to provide a nationality to those who are stateless. It also violates the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

While the bill is a step in the right direction, there is more work that needs to be done to ensure that citizenship remains protected. However, we know that not all parties in the House share this view. With the passage of Bill C-37 in 2009, the Conservatives demonstrated their willingness to strip Canadians of their rights and identity. In 2014, the Conservatives also passed Bill C-24, which allowed them to revoke the citizenship of dual citizens. This created an entire category of second-class citizens whose status as Canadians is insecure.

Further, we know that the Leader of the Opposition's flagship bill as the minister of democratic reform was to make it harder for indigenous people, youth and less affluent people to vote. We already know that the Conservatives would not care about being out of compliance with international law, because they have openly committed to withdrawing from the United Nations. Even more concerning is that the leader of the Conservative Party has committed to ignoring charter-protected rights and freedoms by invoking the notwithstanding clause. We would not be able to rely on the courts to protect us from the Conservatives' revoking citizenship, which can be changed on a whim.

Let us think of what those whims may be, because we know the tried-and-true playbook that the Conservatives use to ostracize minority groups to create fear in the population of people they do not know, to rally support. We know this is an effective method, but that is why we should be concerned to see the Conservative leader cozying up to white national groups, and it even filters into the anti-trans policy.

The complete and utter silence of the Conservatives on the plight of Palestinians over the last year has been deafening. How safe would someone feel in protesting in support of the Palestinian cause under a Conservative government? We already saw the Conservatives label environmentalists as a violent threat to Canada's security, pass legislation to spy on environmental NGOs and weaponize the Canada Revenue Agency to silence awareness that these groups were raising about the impact of fossil fuels.

How safe would someone feel speaking out about the impacts of climate change? How safe would someone feel about their Canadian citizenship? The answer is that they would probably feel a lot safer in an insurrection to overthrow the government because they might get brought coffee and donuts.

Therefore, I believe that citizenship should be enshrined as a right rather than a revocable privilege, so that we can protect all Canadians, whether dual citizen or not, born in or out of wedlock, adopted or not, from the Conservatives or any future government, from manipulating citizenship laws to exclude those they do not agree with. This risks eroding our democratic principles and turning citizenship into a privilege rather than a fundamental human right.

There also remain questions regarding when citizenship in Canada began. For many, it is assumed it began with the introduction of the Citizenship Act in 1947. However, that would mean that thousands of Canadian servicemen and women who died in the First World War and the Second World War would not be technically considered Canadian citizens. This ambiguity goes beyond just legal definitions; it influences how we remember our history and those who contributed to it.

Citizenship provides us with a sense of duty and belonging to the country we all are proud to call home. With the passage of Bill C-71, the Citizenship Act would have laws that are equally enforced and consistent with international human rights principles for the first time in Canadian history. It would grant citizenship to individuals like Zach, for whom there is genuine fear they may become stateless. It is an opportunity for us to modernize our citizenship legislation to ensure that those who rightfully deserve to be Canadian citizens do not get left behind. I hope all members of the House will support the legislation.

I want to give a special shout-out to Don Chapman, a constituent of mine in Gibsons who has worked so hard to move the legislation forward through the courts, and today through legislation we are debating.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, what has become clear is that the Conservatives are refusing to acknowledge that Bill C-71 would restore the rights of Canadians that were taken away from them unconstitutionally 15 years ago by the Conservatives. That is what we are talking about. These are not immigrants. They are Canadians. They were deemed to be a lower class of Canadians by the Conservatives.

The Conservatives keep saying that the NDP and the Liberals voted with them on Bill C-37 15 years ago. Do members know why? It is because Stephen Harper, at that time, put out an edict and said that if the bill was not passed unanimously, it would mean that war veterans and war brides would go to their graves without citizenship, and that was wrong.

I wonder if the Conservatives will just take a moment to understand the history and understand that by voting against Bill C-71, they are denying once again Canadians the right to citizenship, unconstitutionally.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by sharing that I put my phone on airplane mode to make sure that, if any interference were to in, it would not impact the interpreters. I just wanted to put that on the record as we go through the process of ensuring that our interpreters can do the important work that they do. I am on airplane mode in the hope that there will be no feedback.

I appreciate that we are back to debating Bill C-71 and able to have this conversation. I was on House duty all day yesterday and had the privilege of being a part of the debate. Unfortunately our time came to an end, and I was looking forward to continuing that debate today. Having observed and listened to the emergency debate that took place last night, I was impressed with the calibre of the debate and the discussion taking place in the House of Commons. It demonstrates that we are able to rise above and do important work.

Today, as I finish off my time, I want to come back to Bill C-71 and the fact that this is legislation that has been introduced because the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that these individuals, also known as lost Canadians, are entitled to their citizenship. These are people who were always eligible for their citizenship but were under the previous Conservative government that advanced Bill C-37. At that time, there were many members in this place, of whom I was not one, but I did get to work closely with some of them. They had advised the Conservative government of the day that we could do better, saying that the legislation, yes, would correct some spaces and some issues, but there would be some people who would be left behind. They advised that they should do it right, but no, that is not the Conservative way. We saw some of those tactics again this morning. It is either the Conservative way, which is helping Conservatives, or, if we do not believe in the Conservative mentality or the Conservative mantra, we are not Canadian enough.

Here is breaking news for Conservatives: Conservatives do not get to determine who is and who is not a Canadian. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects our rights and freedom. People sacrificed their lives for us to be able to have these rights and freedoms and with rights and freedoms come responsibilities. As the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled, Bill C-37, which former prime minister Harper and the Conservative government of the day passed, was unconstitutional. The Superior Court of Justice primarily named mobility rights, as people have the right to come and go, and equality rights, namely women's rights, as they are rights and freedoms that are protected in our country.

I am not going to go down the rabbit hole of why Conservatives do not support women and the fact that they are constantly trying to threaten a woman's right to choose, along with all these battles we have already had.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-71. I would like to sincerely thank those who spoke before me and defended the interests of Canadians who lost their citizenship due to the complexity and shortcomings of previous legislative amendments to the Citizenship Act.

Today, we will take the next step toward fairness and inclusion.

For me, being Canadian means taking steps to tackle inequality and injustice within our society. We do this not only through our words but also, and more importantly, through our actions. Bill C-71 proposes amendments to the Citizenship Act in response to issues raised in both Parliament and the courts.

In 2007, this place was studying the matter of lost Canadians and Canadian war brides. In March 2007, a witness testified at the CIMM committee and shared how it all started when her brother, by then retired from the Canadian navy, went to get a passport in 2004. That is when she and her brother learned that her family had been stripped of their Canadian citizenship. She thought she was alone, but she soon learned that there were many people like her. They had family members who were World War II veterans and war brides and had learned that they were no longer Canadian citizens. She shared how Melynda Jarratt of Fredericton, the founder of the Canadian War Brides website, put her in touch with Don Chapman and the lost Canadians. Don worked closely with a former member of Parliament, the Hon. Andrew Telegdi, which is how I learned so much about this file.

Today I have listened to a mostly fruitful debate. We know where each party in this chamber stands; all agree that the bill needs to go to committee, but for that to happen, it needs to be called to a vote. Canadian citizenship should not be a partisan issue.

I did not choose where I was born or whom I was born to, but I am proud that my grandfather chose to come to Canada and that I was born and raised in the Waterloo region. I could not imagine someone arbitrarily taking my citizenship.

The CIMM committee witness also spoke about numerous people she met; they had in common that they were lost Canadians. She also shared some of the reasons Canadians lost their citizenship, including being born out of wedlock or being born on a Canadian Forces base overseas. We can let that register for a second: When a person serving in our Canadian Armed Forces had a baby born on a Canadian Forces base overseas, that child could be stripped of their Canadian citizenship.

Bill C-71 proposes to restore citizenship to the remaining lost Canadians, the individuals who either could not become citizens or lost their citizenship because of outdated legislated provisions. While previous amendments helped many, a small cohort of lost Canadians remains, so lost Canadians and their families launched a constitutional challenge in court of the two-generation citizenship cut-off.

In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that it is unconstitutional for Canada to deny automatic citizenship to children born abroad because their parents also happened to be born abroad. It gave the federal government six months to repeal the second-generation cut-off rule and amend the Citizenship Act.

Several constituents within the riding of Waterloo questioned what this ruling meant. It means that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down Bill C-37, the old citizenship law of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government, which prevented parents born outside Canada from passing on their citizenship to children also born abroad. The court ruled that the Conservative bill, Bill C-37, violated these people's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely, their mobility rights and women's rights, or equality rights.

Today, I hear Conservative members saying that the government should have appealed this ruling. To me, this is telling, and I hope Canadians are watching and seeing their position. The Conservative Party of Canada may have changed their leader several times, but they have not changed who they are or what they believe. They believe in two tiers of citizenship. They support people who agree with them; everyone else does not belong in their vision of Canada. This is appalling and should be very concerning.

My Canada is an inclusive Canada. I respect and value the diversity of people, of perspectives, of experiences and so forth. However, I digress.

In response to the courts, in May, our government introduced Bill C-71, which proposes changes to Canada's citizenship laws that would address the concerns of the court and the constitutionality of the Conservative bill, Bill C-37.

As I mentioned earlier, a small cohort of lost Canadians remains. These lost Canadians launched a constitutional challenge in court of the two-generation citizenship cut-off, and they won. The legislative amendment outlined in Bill C-71 respects the court's decision; it would help lost Canadians and their descendants regain or obtain citizenship. As the independent courts have ruled, that is their right. It would also address the status of descendants affected by the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit.

The revised law would establish clear guidelines for acquiring Canadian citizenship by descent. After enactment of the legislation, the harmful Conservative first-generation limit would no longer apply. Canadian citizens born abroad would be allowed to pass their citizenship to their children, provided they could demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. Within the legislation, a Canadian parent born outside the country would be able to transfer citizenship to their child if they lived in Canada for a cumulative total of three years before the child's birth. These changes would result in a more inclusive and fair Citizenship Act and would right the wrongs of the Harper Conservative government.

What is more concerning is that, under its new leadership, the Conservative Party continues to support two-tier citizenship in Canada. It is appalling that Conservatives in this place refuse to respect the courts. They refuse to accept that the Conservatives do not get to choose who should or should not have Canadian citizenship. However, this mentality has existed before. It existed with the previous Conservative government, which introduced and passed Bill C-37. At that time, the point was raised that we could make the legislation better. However, the Conservatives refused; thus, the lost Canadians had to accept a small step. We know today that what was passed is unconstitutional legislation. Lost Canadians took this matter to court and won, and that is what brings us here today.

The Conservative opposition repeats the same behaviours. Bill S-245 is sponsored by a Conservative member. This Senate public bill passed the Senate, completed first reading and second reading in this place, and completed consideration at committee on June 12, 2023. Although it should have been called for third reading debate, the Conservatives continue to trade it down so it cannot be called to a vote. Some people will ask why.

To pass a bill while elected, especially as a private member, is a massive privilege. However, do members know what happened? The Conservatives did not get their way. At committee, a bill can be studied and scrutinized, witnesses and experts can testify, members can ask questions and amendments can be proposed. The majority of the members of that committee proposed and passed amendments. I believe all did so except for the Conservative members. However, because the Conservatives did not support them, they refused to see Bill S-245 be debated at third reading. To me, that is disgusting, as well as disrespectful of the work we do in this place.

I am not surprised, as I have seen the Conservative Party in action for a long time. I know the Conservatives love to change their leader, but they refuse to change their ways. Let us remember what I mentioned earlier: Conservatives support two-tier citizenship, and they only support those who think as they do. That is not an inclusive Canada.

I would also like to mention that Bill C-71 would continue to reduce the difference between children born abroad and adopted by Canadians and children born abroad to Canadian parents. It should be noted that any child adopted overseas by a Canadian parent before the law takes effect would be eligible for the current direct citizenship grant for adoptees, even if they were previously excluded by the first-generation limit. With the law in place, the same criteria would apply to children adopted by Canadian citizens abroad, meaning that, if the adopted parent born outside Canada could show a substantial connection to Canada, the adopted child would be eligible for Canadian citizenship. Bill C-71 would restore citizenship to those who have been wrongfully excluded and establish consistent rules for citizenship by descent going forward.

Our citizenship process and rules should be fair, equal and transparent. Recently, it has become clear that the act must be amended to address the 2009 legislative amendments, which excluded individuals because of the first-generation limit. The Ontario Superior Court has been clear: The Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit is unconstitutional in terms of both mobility and equality rights.

Bill C-71 introduces inclusive changes that would address the challenges raised by the courts on citizenship by descent. This applies in particular to those born overseas to a Canadian parent. For example, former senator and lieutenant-general Roméo Dallaire was born in the Netherlands to a Canadian father and a Dutch mother. He grew up in Montreal. When he was 24, he was a Canadian Army officer stationed overseas. Because of the rules in Canada's Citizenship Act, which have since been amended, he found out when he tried to apply for a passport that he was not actually a Canadian citizen. He was, in fact, a lost Canadian.

Today we have a choice. We can commit to addressing past wrongs, take care of those among us who have faced injustice and inequality, be more inclusive and share the benefits we enjoy as citizens with others who deserve to call themselves Canadian too. As proud citizens of this country, we must uphold the commitments that define us as Canadians. Whether we are citizens by birth, by choice or by descent, whether we were born in Canada or in another country, we are bound by our shared values, by our mutual respect for our country and for each other. This matter is very close to my heart. It is something that I have known for a really long time.

We have the ability today to see legislation advance. It is okay for us to disagree. It is okay to propose amendments. This government, more than any government in our history, has accepted amendments at committee, on the floor of the House of Commons and from the Senate. That is important to do. Getting legislation right is important because we are here to serve Canadians. Today, we have the ability to actually see the legislation advance. Perhaps we need another day of debate. That is okay. I wanted to speak to the legislation as well, and it is important for people to discuss and raise points that will actually improve this legislation and raise any concerns.

However, what is concerning is that the Conservatives today keep talking about how many Canadians will benefit from this. The reality is that these people are Canadian. The court is telling the government and every member here that these people are entitled to their Canadian citizenship. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects them. They should have the ability to be Canadian, and the courts are ruling on that. Therefore, the legislation is really about righting the wrongs of the past. We can move the legislation to committee and debate on amendments, but what will be clear is that something of a consensus is being achieved. I heard from the Bloc and the NDP. I heard from and have spoken with Green members. I have heard the points they are raising. I know where the Liberals stand. The Conservatives are actually not the majority of voices today. Just as they did for Bill S-245, they are making sure that we cannot call it to a vote. They will most likely slow it down in this place. They will read their scripted speeches. They will probably try to move some kind of tactic, or whatever else. Once it goes to committee, I am sure there will be a few tantrums thrown there as well.

However, what is important is that we do this right. As I mentioned in my speech, Canadian citizenship should not be a partisan issue. We have a choice in our country. We can actually ensure that we are not following the lead of other countries. We can do democracy well. We can think about the people who fought in uniform for us to have our rights and freedoms. With rights and freedoms come responsibilities, and I hold those responsibilities very near and dear to my heart. When my grandfather immigrated, he would never have imagined that his granddaughter would put her name on a ballot, let alone be elected.

To represent the good people of the riding of Waterloo is truly an honour and a privilege. To hear their voices and represent the diversity of their perspectives is something I take seriously day in, day out.

I have been here since the day started and have been very impressed with a number of points raised in today's debate. I have really appreciated that even with differing views within our political parties, at the end of the day, we have all been talking about Canadian citizenship and the importance of respecting the independent judicial system.

I believe we should have the question called sooner rather than later. I hope the committee is anticipating this legislation so we can hear from experts and witnesses who can help us ensure this legislation is right. It is the time to do it.

I look forward to receiving some good questions and having the emergency debate that will take place after we adjourn for the day.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to re-enter into debate on Bill C-71.

What is this bill about? It is about a group of Canadians whose constitutional rights were stripped by the Conservatives 15 years ago. Bill C-37 was brought in by the Harper administration. Through that process, the government tried to fix some of the issues of lost Canadians, which Bill C-37 did in part.

However, in that process, the Conservatives also created a brand-new class of lost Canadians. That is, they brought in a provision that took away the rights of first-generation Canadians born abroad to pass on their citizenship to their children who are also born abroad. By doing that, the Conservatives essentially indicated that some Canadians are more equal than others. Second-generation Canadians born abroad did not have the right to become citizens.

This has caused untold harm, pain and suffering to Canadian families. I have met lost Canadian families whose children, as a result of this unconstitutional law, were born stateless. I have family members who have faced deportation as a result of this unconstitutional law. I have met families who were separated, the parent torn away from their children, as a result of this unconstitutional law. This law went on for 15 years.

I joined the House of Commons back in 2015. One of the first things I did was to draft a private member's bill in an attempt to fix this problem. The then minister John McCallum was a minister who, while in opposition, said this needed to be fixed. Successive Liberal ministers have failed to do so until now.

I will grant the minister some recognition for bringing this bill forward. It was not without a fight, because I do not think the government was going to do it. As the NDP critic for immigration, refugees and citizenship, I had to lobby, endlessly, successive Liberal ministers to get us where we are today.

There was an opening to get this dealt with when Senator Yonah Martin brought in a private member's bill, Bill S-245, in the Senate. The bill would fix only a very small portion of the lost Canadians issue, what they call the age 28 rule. I will not go into all of the details around that, because most people already know what it is. That bill, in my view, and I said this to the senator at the time, was deficient because it did not deal with a variety of other lost Canadians resulting from the Harper Conservatives' punitive bill, Bill C-37. I had every intention to move amendments to her private member's bill to fix it.

Most notably, I wanted it to ensure that the new class of lost Canadians the Conservatives created, the second-generation Canadians born abroad, would have the right to citizenship, albeit subject to a substantial connections test. They have the right to be recognized as Canadians and their children have that right. We went through this whole process at committee.

Some 30 hours later, the vast majority of the NDP amendments I negotiated with the government were adopted. Where the government supported my amendments, they were passed. However, the Conservatives filibustered that committee for 30 hours over 12 committee meetings. I have to say that committee meetings are precious because we only get two a week. Sometimes we lose them, depending on the calendar day; it could be a stat holiday or whatever the case may be. It is precious time and an important time to get work done.

The Conservatives filibustered that bill for 30 hours. Even then, we persisted and managed to get it through. The amendments were adopted and the report was tabled in this House with a wrong recommendation. Then what happened? The sponsor of the bill from the House was a Conservative member, because Yonah Martin is a Conservative senator. The member for Calgary Forest Lawn was the sponsor of the private member's bill, Bill S-245, which was supposed to be brought back to the House of Commons for third reading debate more than a year ago.

Then what happened? The Conservatives traded the order of precedence for the bill to be brought back into this House eight times. They traded it over and over again to delay the bill from coming back to the House for third reading debate and a vote. To this day, it has not been debated. When I saw that indication, it was as clear as day that the Conservatives had zero intention of doing what is right, despite the court ruling, by the way, that the provision was unconstitutional. Even then, they would not do the right thing.

Then I approached the current Minister of Immigration to say that the government must bring forward a government bill because Bill S-245 would never come back to the House of Commons, as the Conservatives would continue to use delay tactics. After much discussion, the minister agreed and we worked together to bring Bill C-71 here. That is how we got here.

Just to be clear, what did the courts say? I want to put this on the public record. The court decision by the Ontario Superior Court, in a 55-page ruling, found that the second-generation cut-off rule violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it "treats Canadians who became Canadians at birth because they were born in Canada differently from those Canadians who obtained their citizenship by descent on their birth outside of Canada.” The ruling went on to say that “the latter group holds a lesser class of citizenship because, unlike Canadian-born citizens, they are unable to pass on Canadian citizenship by descent to their children born abroad.”

The second-generation cut-off rule denies the first generation born abroad the ability to automatically pass on citizenship to their children if they are also born outside of Canada. In her decision, the judge accepted claims that women are particularly impacted because the second-generation cut-off rule discriminates on the basis of gender, forcing women in their reproductive years to choose between travel, study and career opportunities abroad or passing citizenship to their children.

One family member, who was one of the appellants in the case, was actually told by officials that all she had to do was go back to Canada to give birth. That was during COVID, by the way, when travel was not safe, and she had no family doctor here to follow the pregnancy. She would have had no health insurance and, of course, no family support because her husband was abroad, continuing to work. That means she would have had to give birth by herself here. She would have had to seek an extended leave from work to facilitate that. It makes zero sense to even suggest such a thing, yet there we have it. Her child was born stateless.

That is the reality of what we are talking about. Those are the impacts, real impacts, on the lives of Canadian families. I am so happy the court made this ruling and made things clear. I urged the government at the time not to appeal the ruling, and I am also grateful the government did not.

We heard the Conservatives say earlier they would have appealed the court ruling. Of course they would have. They were the ones who brought in the unconstitutional law to begin with 15 years ago. We also heard from the Conservative member for Calgary Shepard, who said they would apply a criminality test to this issue. Are the Conservatives going to apply a criminality test to Canadians who are born here? It is absolutely absurd to make these suggestions and to hold true to the idea that some Canadians have more rights than others.

This has been struck down by the courts. It is time to do not only what is morally right but also what is legally required by the courts.

The amendments I put through in committee on Bill S-245 essentially call for a substantial connections test for parents who are the first generation born abroad to be in Canada for at least 1,095 days. That would mean the connections test would be extended to the second generation born abroad and subsequent generations.

My amendments also restored those impacted since the second-generation cut-off rule was enacted in 2009, and we would also apply the same amendment to adoptee families. It took some work, a lot of work, to negotiate and get to where we are today with this bill. It took at least 10 years of my time, but that is nothing in comparison with people like Don Chapman, who has dedicated his entire life to this. He was deemed a lost Canadian. He has fought for this and helped so many families regain their citizenship and other families who have suffered, those who have been lost because this law was never fixed.

We have to do what is right, and I hope Conservative members will not filibuster. They said to the family members that they will support this provision, but actions speak louder than words, and all of the actions to date indicate otherwise. I am going to give them another chance now to do what is right, because we have to get this passed. We have to make this law, according to the courts, and because it is the morally right thing to do.

At this juncture, I ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I am asking for this because it would expedite the bill, get it to committee so we can hear witnesses, make this law and do what is necessary and what is right for the people of Canada.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to enter this debate on Bill C-71. Because the House will be getting ready for statements and question period, I will be interrupted in my speech, so I am going to put a few things on the public record.

To the member from the Bloc's point that this is not about partisanship, I think it is important to put on the public record the history of what happened with respect to lost Canadians. Members will know that, 15 years ago, the Conservatives brought in Bill C-37 for an act that was supposed to fix a lot of the lost Canadian issues. It did fix some of those issues, but in that process, the Conservatives also put a poisoned pill in the bill, which was the first-generation cut-off rule deeming those of the second generation who were born abroad would not be able to receive their citizenship from their parents. That was incorporated into Bill C-37.

At the time, I was not here, but those who watched that debate saw what happened. The Harper government was clear to say that, unless Bill C-37 passed in its entirety, the bill would die. They would get rid of it and kill it. That is information from Don Chapman, who is the king of experts on lost Canadian issues because he has dedicated his life to addressing this injustice. That is the knowledge that he brings to this floor by sharing with me what happened. That is why the NDP and the Liberals had to vote for it.

They voted for it because they had no choice. If they had not, what would it have meant? It would have meant that thousands upon thousands of Canadian World War II vets, along with tens of thousands of Canadian war brides and their children, would have gone to their graves disenfranchised from their own country. A 20-year-old war bride in 1946 would be 98 years old today. Most of the Canadian brides and their World War II soldier husbands are now dead. If they had not accepted the first generation cut-off limit under Bill C-37, all these folks would have died without citizenship, all because Harper would have killed Bill C-37.

That is the reality. That is why people were jammed to do that. Despite that, the critic for the NDP at the time, Olivia Chow, put this on the public record: “We could get this bill done very quickly and accommodate this element by doing something very simple, by just amending subclause 2(2), or actually taking it out of the bill, because right now it limits citizenship to the first generation born to, or adopted by, Canadian parents.”

The NDP tried to raise the issue, and Olivia said that we should get rid of the first-generation rule that the Conservatives brought in, but that was not allowed to take place because it was the poison pill that the Conservatives put in the bill. Otherwise, they would have taken away all of those rights for war veterans and the war brides. That is the reason, and that is the history.

Is this partisan politics? No, it is not, but it is an important part of the history to know what happened, where the lost Canadian issue stems from, why we are here and why the Superior Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to take away those rights.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his collaboration and co-operation at committee on Bill S-245. I was delighted to work with him and to see that he supported the NDP amendments. That is the right thing to do, to restore the rights of Canadians, the rights that the Conservatives took away.

I want to ask the member a question. He may not have been elected at that time, and neither was I, but to my understanding and to the knowledge of Don Chapman, who is an extremely knowledgeable guy on the lost Canadian file, when the Harper government brought in Bill C-37, it actually put forward an edict for all the parties that, if they did not support it in its entirety, it would take away the bill. That meant that the Conservatives were able to put a poison pill in that bill with the first-generation cut-off rule.

Would the member agree that is the wrong thing to do on an issue as important as people's basic fundamental rights?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member well knows, as the parliamentary secretary on the government side, who speaks often in the House, that we will only use it with respect to justice bills. This is not a justice bill; this is the Citizenship Act.

I want to remind the member, because again he implied or basically said that there is a taking away of rights here, that the Liberal Party of Canada, on February 7, 2008, voted in favour of Bill C-37 at second reading and referred it to a committee. On February 15, it was again the same thing, seeking unanimous consent. It was not for unanimous consent and a vote on division, but for unanimous consent to simply proceed with the motion at third reading, to pass it at report stage and to have it concurred in. The Liberal Party supported the 2009 first-generation limit at the time, so it cannot now back away from it.

We just want legislation that is reasonable, not reckless, where the numbers are provided to parliamentarians so that we know what we are voting on and we know what the impact would be on Canadian citizenship and on Canadians in general.