Marc Miller Liberal
Second reading (House), as of Dec. 12, 2024
Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-71.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen;
(b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation, on or after the coming into force of this enactment, to a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s birth;
(c) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen;
(d) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to persons born outside Canada who are adopted on or after the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s adoption;
(e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not make an application to retain it under the former section 8 of that Act or because they made an application under that section that was not approved; and
(f) allow certain persons who become citizens as a result of the coming into force of this enactment to access a simplified process to renounce their citizenship.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, I will discuss it with my team, as they say.
I would be happy to study such an amendment, but in order to propose such an amendment, we must vote in favour of the principle of the bill and send it to committee. I therefore humbly suggest that my Conservative friends vote along with everyone else in favour of the principle of the bill so that it can be sent to committee.
Then we will study those amendments. I am sure we can find common ground.
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?
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, I was not in fact elected at the time. However, Meili Faille, who was the Bloc Québécois member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, worked on the file and knew Mr. Chapman very well. This is important.
We in the Bloc Québécois have a lot of expertise when it comes to Canadian citizenship. As I said, that will be useful when it comes time to work with Quebec citizenship.
Right now, I do not want to talk about what happened in the past. My colleague will understand why. Anyone watching the debate might be surprised to note that the Bloc Québécois is probably the only adult in the room right now. I am not badmouthing anyone. I do not want to cause friction with the other parties over a bill that I feel would be easy to work on if everyone did their part. I am not going to badmouth anyone.
I think that we could quite easily send it to committee, since we know that three parties so far will vote for it in principle. Then we will study the Conservatives' amendments.
I am willing to work with everyone here, because we in the Bloc Québécois are responsible people. When we study a bill, we set electioneering aside. We simply want what is best for the people who elected us to represent them.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, his intelligent and constructive attitude and his open-mindedness.
Of course, he talked about the prospect of Quebec citizenship. We are currently talking about Bill C‑71, which solves some of the problems. Does the member not think that the entire immigration and citizenship process needs a solid overhaul and that we could commit to contributing to it in a constructive and intelligent way?
As he mentioned, it would be good practice for us for Quebec citizenship.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, Bill C‑71 is a good start for correcting a flagrant and absurd injustice. It is a good start and it can also give us a guideline we can follow should there ever be a complete reform of citizenship status, in terms of what it means, what it represents and what being a citizen of a country entails.
It is indeed a good idea that we should all be working on. Bill C‑71 is a step in the right direction. It is something that many people want. Many people want this to be resolved at last. It has been dragging on for far too long.
The Bloc Québécois will collaborate on this.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the member's speech.
I get the impression from today's debate that the Conservatives want to present amendments in committee. The Bloc Québécois has its position and also wants to debate the issue in committee. We will listen to what the NDP wants to say, but from their questions, it seems as though they support this bill.
Does the member think it is important that we proceed with the vote so that we can debate this bill in committee, ask experts and witnesses questions and study the amendments that will be proposed by the Conservatives and perhaps by other parties as well? Is it time to vote so that we can move forward on the other bills that are before the House?
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, yes, I tend to agree with what the member opposite just suggested.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to emphasize that achieving one's citizenship is very significant. I have had opportunities, as no doubt others have had, to witness the swearing-in for citizens. We should not be taking it for granted.
One of the things that is quite upsetting, and I made reference to it in the question I asked of the Conservatives, is the idea that the Conservative Party feels very easy and relaxed in using the notwithstanding clause. We have a superior decision from the Province of Ontario that says that the first-generation issue that the Harper government brought in is, in fact, unconstitutional. Can I get the Bloc's perspective on having the Citizenship Act in compliance with the Constitution?
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, the notwithstanding clause is back on the table.
As I was saying, there is a strange atmosphere in Parliament at the moment. I just gave a speech, but I am not sure whether my colleague was listening. When he asked his first question, however, he seemed to have understood my remarks to the House.
Earlier on, I said that when it comes to a bill like Bill C‑71, there should not be any mudslinging. That is basically what I said. As I said, we should work together, and most people are generally in agreement about Bill C‑71. In asking a question about my speech, my colleague was really trying to get in a dig at the official opposition. He did not understand what I was trying to say at all.
Here is what we want. It is Monday morning. Parliament has just resumed. Could we behave like responsible people, like parliamentarians representing the people of our ridings, without slinging any mud or setting any partisan parliamentary traps?
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.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
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.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, once again, it is disappointing that the Conservatives do not see the value of, at the very least, allowing the bill to get to the committee stage.
My question for the member is about passing legislation of this nature and how it would directly impact many people in different regions of the country. They would literally be getting their citizenship, which is something they should have today. I am wondering if she could reflect on the impact today on the individual who would benefit by the legislation passing.
