Bill C-71

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024)

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.

Citizenship Act

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is exactly what I am talking about. We have Canadians of all backgrounds concerned about the high immigration levels, the fact that population growth has outpaced jobs, housing and social services. Once again, the Liberals go back to their old and tired playbook, of trying to point fingers, smear and accuse us of not caring about people. I hear from my constituents all the time, constituents from all different racial, cultural and religious backgrounds. They are concerned about the strain that population growth is having on our quality of life. That is why it is important that we ask serious questions about Bill C-71.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to oppose Bill C-71. I do so wanting to recognize the context that our country finds itself in right now.

Immigration levels are too high. We are now approaching an average of 1.5 million people coming into the country per year. The reason we know that is too high is because population growth is now outpacing the job market. It is outpacing the housing market. It is also outpacing investment in social services like hospitals, schools and child care facilities. The quality of life for the average Canadian is in decline because of the stress being placed on our local economies and on public services. This is a sentiment held not just by people who may have been in Canada for many generations, but also by people who are immigrants themselves, children of immigrants and grandchildren of immigrants.

When we review Bill C-71, the ultimate question we need to ask ourselves is if this is a logical, reasonable, common-sense approach to citizenship and immigration, or is this is a continuation of an approach that has been in place for years now that is actually harming the quality of life for all people in the country, regardless of their backgrounds.

To advance a common-sense approach to immigration, I would put forward a three-part standard that we can evaluate Bill C-71 against.

The first question that any person would ask is how many people would be entering the country under Bill C-71. It is a very reasonable question, one that I imagine any Canadian would ask. It would be imperative for the government advancing this legislation to have an answer to. Unfortunately, we have tried our best to get specific numbers from the Liberal government on this legislation, and we have not gotten that number. We do not know how many more people would be entering the country under Bill C-71. Given the existing constraints we have, that is a very important question for the people of Canada to have an answer to.

The second part of this test, as my colleague, the member for Calgary Heritage mentioned, would be criminal background checks. Any Canadian, whether he or she just got here or has been here for a long time, would say it is common sense to do criminal background checks on who enters the country. It should be a no-brainer for anyone to agree to, yet, we have been advocating for the provision of mandatory criminal background checks in Bill C-71 without the support from the Liberal government or their allies in the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

We are asking very clearly why proper vetting is not done before granting citizenship to people who do not live in our country and are only being granted citizenship through a weak and watered-down substantial connection test. The question becomes, why would anyone be surprised by this? We have seen example after example of the Liberal government not prioritizing criminal background checks in existing immigration policy.

We have seen examples just this summer of the Liberal government admitting into the country someone who is an alleged ISIS terrorist, granting that person citizenship while he plotted a terrorist attack on Toronto, the biggest city in the country. We have seen an example of the Liberal government granting a student visa in another incident to someone who planned a terrorist attack on New York City. It is on brand for the Liberal government to not be concerned about criminal background checks, and this is yet another instance of where Bill C-71 fails to meet a common-sense standard for appropriate immigration and citizenship policy.

The last point I will make in terms of this standard is about its economic impact. We have asked for a mandatory comprehensive economic impact assessment so that the Liberal government would share with the people of Canada what the impact would be of admitting even more people, adding to population growth, into the country. What would the impact be through Bill C-71 on our hospitals, on our schools, on our child care facilities? What would the impact be on young Canadians who aspire to own a home and are pessimistic about whether that dream will ever come true because we are not building enough houses but we are adding more people?

What would happen to the job market, where we are seeing increases in employment, especially youth employment? Would contributing more people to the country have a negative effect on our young people's ability to get a job and start their careers?

This is what a common-sense approach to immigration and citizenship would be seeking to answer and yet with Bill C-71 we are very far from getting answers to these questions.

Many people hearing my words today may have some questions of their own. How did we get to this point? How did we get to a point where a Liberal government can advance legislation that so clearly does not respond to the context that our country is living in? How did we get to a point where we can walk into the House of Commons and have legislation put in front of us that does not address the specific concerns that many Canadians of all backgrounds have about our current immigration levels?

That is fundamentally the result of what has been a concerted effort to stifle debate and criticism of immigration policy in the country. For a long time now, daring to ask a question about how immigration policy affects Canada, daring to criticize the Liberal status quo on immigration has gotten us smeared, labelled, name-called, fingers pointed in our face, people questioning whether we have compassion or concern for people of all sorts of different backgrounds and cultures. The reality is that they can finger-point all they want. They can do all the name-calling they want. They can do all the smearing they like. The reality is that we have a very specific purpose when we enter the House of Commons, which is to ask the fundamental question of what is best for Canada.

In order to apply that lens to Bill C-71, we would need those three critical pieces of information. Number one, how many people are entering the country? Number two, are there appropriate vetting mechanisms in place and background checks? Number three, what is the impact that increasing the population even further will have on our economy?

By not answering these questions, I have a very hard time understanding how any member in the House can say that this legislation is complete and deserving of a vote. In my view, this has failed every single measure of a logical, reasonable, common-sense immigration and citizenship standard, and that is why we must oppose it.

Last, I will say is this. Whether it is immigration policy, housing, citizenship, whatever it might be, it is imperative that we put the Canadian people first, and I do believe that this is a window into how that is not being met. Every time we vote in here, every time we come in here and debate a matter of legislation or policy, we should have at the top of mind the Canadian taxpayer, the Canadian who voted for us to be here to represent our local communities and represent our interests. The immigration status quo in our country is not doing what is best for Canada. With this legislation we are seeing a very clear example of that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. I wonder if he actually realizes that, under Bill C-71, what we are talking about is restoring the rights of Canadians that were taken away unconstitutionally by the Conservatives 15 years ago. This is what we are talking about. We are talking about Canadians having lost that right. The courts have said that it is a violation of their charter rights and mobility rights. I wonder if the member understands that.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that you did try to remind me and the member why we were here, and the fact that the member did not actually talk about Canadian citizenship.

It is important for us to come back to Bill C-71 and to understand that, under the amendments under Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government, for Canadians serving in the Canadian Forces who had their babies on a Canadian Forces base abroad, those children had their citizenships stripped from them. How are those children not Canadians when their parents are serving in the Canadian forces, proud Canadians? We really need to come back to this legislation.

I recognize and hear the concerns that the member is raising on other matters. We should discuss and debate them. The Conservatives spent the morning talking about some concurrence motion, and I am sure they will do it again tomorrow. However, right now, let us debate Bill C-71. Let us get our points on the record and then let us get to the vote so we can get the bill to committee and get this legislation either passed or not. Members can vote.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret to interrupt. I miss the member being closer, but I am glad to see him and welcome him back.

This is a really important conversation on citizenship. I recognize the member wants to talk about immigration. I waited patiently with hope that he would come back to it. I really believe that we need to debate Bill C-71 and that we stay focused on the topic. Therefore, I would challenge him on relevance.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. I will be splitting my time with the most hon. member for Durham.

“Broken immigration policy, dangerous loopholes”: Somewhere between abject incompetence or willful malice, these five words summarize this reckless bill. It would tragically add to an already reckless NDP-Liberal immigration policy that destroys lives and breaks apart the cohesion of Canada. It proposes granting citizenship to individuals born abroad with at least one Canadian parent who has spent 1,095 days in Canada without requiring those days to be consecutive or ensuring basic criminal record checks. The Liberals have failed to disclose how many people would gain citizenship under the legislation or how they plan on tackling the existing immigration backlog with the extra pressure that Bill C-71 would create.

Under this Prime Minister, our immigration system has become a revolving door for exploitation. Criminals and con artists take advantage while hard-working Canadians and newcomers pay the price. Over these past nine years, it is remarkable how badly this Prime Minister has failed Canadians and newcomers.

How did we get here? The answer, regrettably, is ignorance. These NDP-Liberals have always believed they know best, arrogantly so, even when the facts tell a different story. To understand the damage, let us look at their inheritance in 2015. In 2015, we were the envy of the world: a balanced budget; a roaring economy; an expanding middle class; low crime; and the most successful immigration policy in the world. Housing was affordable. When our common-sense Conservative leader was Minister of Housing, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment was $1,172. Today that has doubled.

This was not by accident. It was intentional. It took hard work by a Conservative government that cared about the prosperity of all Canadians and that cared about ensuring that newcomers succeeded. Our immigration system was structured to ensure newcomers contributed to our economy and that by working hard and playing by the rules, the Canadian dream was theirs to realize. That promise is now broken.

NDP-Liberals ignored the principle of Chesterton's fence. That is, never tear down a fence until you understand why it was put up in the first place. Within 18 months, they tore down each fence put in place to protect our system. They increased the number of temporary foreign workers while scrapping measures to ensure Canadians had the first opportunity for jobs. They watered down language and citizenship knowledge requirements, exempting anyone under 18 and everyone over 54. They arbitrarily ramped up permanent resident targets to 300,000 a year without considering the impact on everyone's housing needs.

Today, housing prices have doubled; international students are packed into inhumane conditions, at times eight people to a small apartment, or worse, homeless under bridges; suicides are rampant; and housing builds have not kept pace with population growth. Last year alone, over 1.2 million people were added to the population, while Canada only built a third of the housing needed for those people to live.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reports that we need 5.8 million new homes to restore affordability, but we are building fewer homes than we did in the 1970s, with housing starts on the decline. Nobody believes the government's so-called targets, and hundreds of thousands of human beings are paying the price. Instead of firing those responsible, the Prime Minister rewards them. The same person who lost track of one million people as Minister of Immigration is now in charge of fixing the housing hell he helped create.

The rule of law has been shattered. Since 2015, violent crime has surged by 50%, and reports this summer reveal that the NDP-Liberal government has granted both citizenship and student visas to known terrorists. Take Ahmed Eldidi, who slipped by two national security screenings before being rewarded citizenship in May. He appeared in an ISIS terror snuff video, cutting a victim into pieces in 2015. Only at the 11th hour, with allied intervention, was the RCMP tipped off to his attempt to conduct an ISIS terror attack on Canadian soil. What did our Minister of Public Safety have to say? He said that this is the way the investigative and national security system should work. No, it is not.

Then we learned that another terrorist, Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, was awarded a student visa. Khan was plotting what he called “the largest attack on U.S. soil since 9/11”, a large-scale attack on Jews in Brooklyn.

This is not just limited to two cases. Communities across our country are subject to attacks and crime in their places of worship, their schools, their businesses and their homes. Almost daily here at home, mobs are on the march, threatening individuals' dignity and freedom.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague's dad for making the choice to come to Canada and establish Canada as his family home.

To the question around the lost Canadians bill, interestingly, yesterday, after the debate in the House, we went to committee. At the committee, there was a similar motion calling for the committee to support that Bill C-71 be deemed read through all procedures at second reading and be referred to the committee immediately.

The Conservatives moved an amendment to that motion and the amendment was to have Bill C-71 referred to the committee after the next election. I think that clearly indicates how the Conservatives intend to filibuster the opportunity for Canadians to restore their constitutional rights.

What does the member think of that? What does that indicate about the Conservatives' intention to thumb their noses at the Superior Court decision?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do have a concern with Bill C-71. My concern has to do with the measure that would allow a Canadian citizen to have their children be Canadian citizens if they were not born in the country, and even their children be Canadian citizens, in perpetuity.

What would happen would be that we would then have all these people who do not live in Canada and are Canadian citizens. Elections Canada allows each person who is a Canadian citizen who lives outside the country to choose on their honour system where they want their vote to count. We cannot identify how many people this could affect, and we know elections sometimes get won by maybe 100 votes or less. Therefore, how is the government planning to address this part to make sure that we maintain our democratic purity?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was hoping to not get the commentary from the other side, but here it comes.

I will just stay focused on the fact that this legislation is supported by a majority of members in the House. Conservatives actually sponsored a Senate bill along the lines of this bill. Members of this place expanded the scope of it, so Conservatives did not want to see that Senate public bill come to third reading.

However, Bill C-71 is government legislation. We could advance this and send it to committee. Let us discuss the amendments. Let us get it right.

The last thing I have to say is that, 50 years ago on this day, my father became a permanent resident of Canada. Today is September 17. It is a big day. I just want to remind my father, Gurminder Singh Chagger, that I love him and I am really happy that he chose Canada.

[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.

The House resumed from September 16 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.

Recent Deaths of First Nations People During Police Interventions

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nunavut for raising this topic this evening. After reading the letter that the member for Nunavut put forward in asking for this emergency debate under Standing Order 52(2), the first thing I would like to say is that I want to express my condolences, and the condolences of everyone in my riding and in the city that I live in, for these individuals who are no longer with us. We all know, as parliamentarians, that life is so precious. Life is very special. As a person of deep faith, if I can use the term, in the context of modern times, every single life is precious. Every single life is to be lived to its fullest. These individuals have perished. In 11 days, six first nations people were killed. That is a tragedy. I even want to add that not seeing the coverage in the media that it perhaps should have received much more thoroughly is obviously disappointing. To the member of Nunavut, I thank her again.

I am a member of Parliament from a very urban riding in Ontario that borders the city of Toronto but my roots are in small-town British Columbia, on the north coast of B.C. and Prince Rupert. As the member for New Westminster—Burnaby knows, up in northern British Columbia there is a very rich history, dating back millennia, of first nations people.

Growing up, in terms of my interaction with and learning about first nations people and what they have gone through, we did not comprehend the colonialism, the systemic barriers, the racism, the residential schools, that many of these individuals were put through and that the communities were put through. It is absolutely horrendous. Over the last eight or nine years our government, as well as governments prior to ours, has done a lot to work with and build a nation-to-nation relationship with first nations and indigenous peoples. I am very proud of that, but there is obviously much work to be done still.

I want to begin my remarks this evening by thanking the member for Nunavut again for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I acknowledge her advocacy in seeking ways that we can work together to meaningfully address the challenges facing the first nations and Inuit policing program. I recognize, and I do not need this written for me, that the current state is completely and utterly unacceptable.

The government has offered additional funding for uniformed officers and equipment, including 17 additional officers for the Treaty Three Police Service, the UCCM Anishnaabe Police Service, and eight additional officers for Anishinabek Police Services. However, we know that we need to continue to work with these police services to ensure our full understanding of their concerns, including where improvements can be made to the program, and collaborate on a true path forward. We must recognize that the funding issues highlighted by specific police services are indicative of our larger program challenges, which is why the Prime Minister has mandated the Minister of Public Safety to continue to co-develop legislation that recognizes first nations policing as an essential service.

Important work in this area is under way, and the Government of Canada continues to work with first nations partners. We heard, through the Government of Canada's engagement, the many challenges faced by first nations police services, including access to stable, sustainable and equitable funding. The co-development of this legislation is our opportunity to change the status quo to better meet the needs of communities and to transform first nations policing to a more sustainable model, one that is well-funded and respectful of the communities it serves. While the co-development of a legislative framework for indigenous policing is a key responsibility of our government, it must also be done in partnership with provinces and territories, given their role as regulators and funders in this area. First nations communities, like all communities in Canada, should be places where people and families feel safe and secure. That is a fundamental duty of any government.

Every first nations individual, wherever they live here in Canada, in whatever community, needs to feel safe and secure. I tell my residents all the time that we live in a great city. We are safe. We have the York Regional Police department. Whatever challenges we have, we can face them together. We are a great city, a great province and a great country. If we have this nation-to-nation relationship, the first nations need to feel safe and secure in their communities.

A properly funded, culturally sensitive and respectful police service is essential for community safety and well-being. In addition, in order to support safer indigenous communities, budget 2021 provided the mandate to stabilize the FNIPP by adding new officers to existing self-administered police services, expand the FNIPP by creating new first nations police services, transition some community tripartite agreements to self-administered agreements, provide dedicated funding for community safety officers and provide dedicated funding for community consultative groups.

Budget 2021 provided new funding in the amount of $540 million over five years and $120 million ongoing. Most of that funding is being dedicated to self-administered police services; it will allow the services to add new officers and sustain investments in training and equipment. For the first time, it includes an escalator of 2.75% to help mitigate the cost of inflation.

The FNIPP aims to provide culturally responsive policing services, which are being established in many first nations communities that would not otherwise have a dedicated on-site policing presence. However, the issues raised earlier by my colleague are valued. They serve as a reminder that we have a long way to go when it comes to reconciliation. That is why our government remains committed to continuing this important work in partnership and in collaboration together with indigenous communities, based on respect for community needs.

While change does not occur overnight, meaningful actions have been taken to date, and our government remains committed to supporting community safety improvements and advancing reconciliation with indigenous people. I can read a few simple stats with regard to the FNIPP: There is $181 million under the first nations and Inuit policing program to support 1,410 officers in over 426 indigenous communities in Canada; $43.7 million for first nations policing to recognize first nations policing as an essential service; $540.3 million and $126.8 million ongoing to support indigenous communities currently served under the first nations and Inuit policing; and finally, $108.6 million over five years to repair, renovate and replace policing facilities in first nations and Inuit communities.

We tend to rise in the House and speak about programs, our opinions, the economy and what is happening in our communities. Earlier today, I had the opportunity to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister and finance minister, which is always an honour for me to do. It is a privilege to be in the House, and earlier this afternoon, I had the opportunity to speak on Bill C-71 with reference to a piece of immigration policy for lost Canadians. There was a bit of debate. There is unanimity among us, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois, the three parties there, and the official opposition is on another side, pursuing another path, and that is fine. That is what our parliamentary process involves. That is what debate is about, bringing forth our ideas and sharing opinions.

This evening, with regard to this debate, to be honest, I rather wish we were not here tonight and that this debate was not taking place. All of these individuals' circumstances are unique, and I hope there is a full investigation, obviously, into what has gone on. We ask in some terms from economic business if this is a cluster of this. How could such things happen in an 11-day period? I hope that, in the days to come, we do not read about these stories. I understand that these stories do not happen and these events do not happen. I understand there is a desire to bring this to committee and to have it studied. Obviously, for those individuals who sit on the indigenous services committee, or INAN, I encourage them to do the work that a committee does. Committees are destinies of their own domain, as we always indicate from all parties, because more work needs to be done.

Indigenous communities and indigenous people deserve better all the time.

With that, I thank the Speaker for his attention. It is great to see him. I hope he and his family are doing well. To my hon. colleagues tonight, good evening.

Citizenship Act

[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.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-245, which was the original legislation, led to Bill C-71 partially because of the Ontario Superior Court decision. The Ontario Superior Court decision in Bjorkquist states specifically, in the 260 paragraph series, that one of the reasons the judge found the current legislation non-compliant was because of all the administrative burdens, delays and incompetence of government officials.

In fact, in several cases, it was found that out of the sample that the judge took, 50% of the files had errors in them, including sending the wrong Canadian citizenship documents to the wrong family, errors in permanent residency and errors in when a person became a citizen of Canada. It goes on and on, and because of those errors, the judge considered it non-compliant.

Therefore, one of the things we did at committee is introduce an amendment to the original legislation that is not in Bill C-71, which is to block a person from having their citizenship restored or gaining citizenship by descent if they are facing current criminal charges in another country. The Liberals, at the time, voted down that amendment. I thought it was a very reasonable amendment. It would make sure nobody facing criminal charges or who had been charged and convicted of a criminal offence would be able to get Canadian citizenship through this process.

I wonder if the member could reflect on what has happened over the last six to 12 months with other temporary and permanent visa applications, where we have seen the government fail to do proper security screening.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House among friends of all colours.

Before I speak to the bill before the House, if the House will indulge me, I would like to make a few brief comments about a constituency matter. I would like to recognize the immense contributions of Dr. Ryan Topping during his period of service at Newman Theological College in Edmonton. The college is not in my riding, but Dr. Topping is a constituent and the college is very important to the Edmonton Catholic community. All of us are, therefore, deeply invested in the institution's success, its fidelity to its mission and its decisions around ensuring ongoing, strong Catholic leadership.

Dr. Topping played a central role in significantly developing and building up this institution. He was central in the design and accreditation of a new B.A. program and a significant expansion of the student body in bringing new programs to the college, establishing fruitful partnerships and bringing in significant new funding.

Since Dr. Topping's announced departure, I have heard from many students and community members who are immensely grateful to Dr. Topping for his contributions and are sorry to see him go. I want to add my voice, and will continue to add my voice, to those recognizing Dr. Topping's noble, selfless and effective service.

The act to amend the Citizenship Act introduced by the Liberal-NDP government threatens the integrity and security of Canadian citizenship. In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the first-generation cut-off rule was unconstitutional. The court stated that there was a 50% error rate in citizenship-related services managed by the Liberals, along with abnormally long delays.

The Liberal-NDP government responded by introducing Bill C-71, which grants citizenship to children born abroad to a parent with Canadian citizenship who has spent at least 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada. I should also point out that Bill C-71 does not require a strict criminal background check. Bill C-71 is irresponsible, since it will bring in tens of thousands of new Canadians with no plan to integrate them. If this bill becomes law, the government will have no idea how many people could be automatically granted Canadian citizenship.

Registration, eligibility checks and resolution of legal disputes require considerable resources that could better be spent in other areas. They could be spent on housing, our health care systems or our defence, but, unfortunately, these are not priorities for the Liberal-NDP government. Its priority is creating thousands of new citizens without verifying who they are or how they will contribute to Canadian society.

Apart from its economic costs, Bill C-71 could compromise Canada's national identity. Citizenship represents more than just legal status. It represents a shared acceptance of national values, culture and responsibilities. A sudden increase in citizens with no real connection to Canada could weaken the country's identity and undermine its social cohesion.

Once the Conservatives are back in government, we will stabilize and fix our broken immigration system, which the Liberals and the NDP neglected. We will set a more responsible bar for obtaining Canadian citizenship. We will reduce, if not eliminate, the error rate in citizenship-related services and end the unjust delays in our immigration system.

After nine years, this Prime Minister is not worth the chaos or the incompetence. Only the common-sense Conservatives will stop this government's reckless mismanagement and fix our broken immigration and citizenship system.

We are debating Bill C-71, a bill that would make a number of significant changes with respect to citizenship in Canada. I want to say a few words about citizenship before I delve into the specific components of the legislation.

I think it is important to understand and reaffirm that citizenship is a profound compact between a group of people, a people who take on membership in a shared community, who commit to working to advance a shared common good, who commit themselves to being invested in the common good of a people in a particular place, and to understand the common good in terms of, generally, particular virtues, particular practices and reverence for a particular history.

It is not the process merely of claiming certain rights or entitlements. Of course, there are rights that flow from citizenship, but citizenship is not merely a collection of rights. Citizenship is a moral commitment that we make to each other as part of a common community. I am very glad that in Canada, citizenship is not defined by ethnicity, by religion, by race or by a single language, and that Canadian citizenship is understood in terms that are accessible to anyone, regardless of their background. However, that does not mean that anybody who wants to become a Canadian citizen necessarily can, nor that anyone who asserts that they are or should be a Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen.

Our citizenship is not constrained or defined by a particular ethnic identity. Our citizenship is defined by certain shared civic values, by a place and by the commitments we make to each other in that place. Citizenship ceremonies, the times at which people who were not Canadian citizens become Canadian citizens, are therefore profound and monumental moments, comparable in many respects to a wedding.

We have seen under the government, I think, a declining appreciation for the power and moral significance of citizenship, expressed in the declining reverence for citizenship ceremonies. Imagine if we or someone in our life were getting married and needed to get a justice of the peace to perform that ceremony. They called and were told that their only option would be a virtual marriage. That is all that would be available now as there are no in-person weddings anymore. People have to go on Zoom calls and take their vows that way. That is all that is available. That would be, obviously, outrageous.

However, the message, for a long time in some cases, for people seeking to go through the process of becoming new citizens was a virtual citizenship ceremony. Still, I think, in many cases, people are pushed or encouraged toward that option. I think that is unacceptable. We should recognize and appreciate the profound significance of citizenship and citizenship ceremonies.

I encountered another problem this summer. I think it is important to bring it to the attention of the House. There are instances where public servants, representing the executive branch of the government, are demanding the right to vet and approve the remarks of members of Parliament being given at citizenship ceremonies. I experienced this. I was invited to participate in a citizenship ceremony that served people in my own constituency. I was excited to be there. A very good personal friend of mine was receiving her citizenship at that time, as were many other new Canadians.

I was told that I had to send my remarks to public servants in advance, who would then review and approve those remarks or not. The parliamentary secretary is shaking her head. I welcome her comments on this, because I think it is a serious matter that should concern all members in all parties. As happens from time to time in this country when there are changes in government, I suspect that Liberal members in opposition would have the same feelings that I do if public servants told them they had to have their remarks reviewed and vetted in advance.

These are the kinds of things we see from the government around citizenship ceremonies: a push to virtual and to more executive control of what is said, and I think that is unacceptable.

Citizenship ceremonies are profound and important moments because they are the moments at which people are entering into the Canadian family. I sent in ChatGPT-generated remarks for review by officials at a citizenship ceremony this summer. I did not deliver those remarks. I delivered different remarks in which I emphasized the importance of freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, indeed freedom as an essential part of the core of Canadian identity, and I was very pleased by some of the feedback I received from new citizens who were welcomed into the Canadian family on that day.

We were talking about citizenship, but now let us talk about rights. A right is something that is due in virtue of justice. Justice obliges that certain things be given to certain people in particular situations. A right is what is due, generally speaking, to a person in virtue of justice. When we talk about human rights, we are talking about rights that are due to all people in virtue of their humanity. There is a certain category of rights there, and then there are other rights that are not due to all humans, but that are due in particular contexts. For instance, a worker has a right to wages in virtue of justice, because they have done work and are therefore entitled to receive their wages.

There are certain rights that flow from citizenship, rights that are due in virtue of justice to an individual who has made the commitments associated with being a citizen. The right to vote in a Canadian election is not something due to all human beings because they are human beings; rather, it is a right due to all citizens because they are citizens. A right flows from justice, but justice provides for certain entitlements in certain contexts, which may not exist in other contexts. Therefore citizenship entails certain rights that come from the moral commitment that is citizenship.

This is the sort of philosophical framework I bring to the discussion of the bill, so let us talk about what the provisions of the bill are. There are a number of provisions that Conservatives agree with. I may have a chance to touch on the ones we agree with, but I will not spend a lot of time on those because I think it makes more sense to spend time talking about the areas that are contentious. The point of contention in the bill, and the reason we are concerned about the bill, is that the bill would change the rules for how citizenship is passed on through multiple generations to people who are living outside the country.

Right now the rule is that if my wife and I are abroad at a time when we have another child, let us say in two and a half years we have a seventh child, hypothetically, which is not implausible, that child would be a Canadian citizen. However, if that child is then abroad when they have a child, that next generation, not my child in this hypothetical, but my grandchild, would not be a citizen. The principle behind the present legal reality is that if a family relocates and lives outside of Canada generation after generation, and is engaging with that particular community, then over time there is necessarily a kind of diminishment of connection to Canada.

We are not talking about someone who has gone to work for a couple of years and then come back. We are talking about generation after generation. Again, it is not the children of a Canadian born abroad; it is when the child of a Canadian born abroad then has a child also born abroad. That is the present law.

The Liberals are proposing, with Bill C-71, to change that law to allow, without limit, Canadian citizenship to be passed to generation after generation. It would mean that if one of my children moved out of the country, married someone there and had children, and their children had children, for an unlimited number of generations, provided that they visited Canada at certain points in their life, they could retain that citizenship.

It seems unreasonable, to me and to us in the Conservative Party, that people should be retaining Canadian citizenship for dozens of generations living away from this place. It does not seem obvious to me that someone who is not living here, whose family has not lived here in generations, should have access to the rights that flow from citizenship, because their lives involve engagement with and moral commitments to communities that are elsewhere.

Obviously there is nothing wrong with a person making that choice, for whatever reasons, to live somewhere, but at some point they recognize the reality that they are not connected to this place in the same way as someone who is living here, working here, paying taxes here and volunteering in a community here.

Many Canadian citizens choose to live abroad for periods of time, of course, but it is reasonable to establish some kind of parameters around how long a series of generations would be abroad before we might say, okay, it seems like there has been an opting out of being Canadian and an opting into being somewhere else.

Conservatives are opposed to this proposal from the government for a dramatic expansion of citizenship, such that citizenship would be passed on by those living outside of Canada for an infinite number of generations.

In defence of this bill, the member for Winnipeg North talked about how these are people who believe that they are Canadians. Of course we understand that the way the law works is that people are not Canadians just because they believe they are Canadians. There are certain criteria that we establish in a democratic way.

What we are proposing on this side of the House is that it is reasonable to establish those parameters in the way they presently are defined and not to further expand them in this unpredictable way. The government cannot answer how many people are affected by this.

I do want to briefly touch on the absurd nonsense from the member for Timmins—James Bay, which is rarely worth dignifying with a response. However, it is important to point out that citizenship is important. It is not something that everybody is entitled to. We should agree that it is legitimate for a people to democratically set parameters around what it means to be a citizen.

The member for Timmins—James Bay would have us believe that even trying to have that conversation about what those parameters are is necessarily bigoted. I would say that that kind of rhetoric is very dangerous. It delegitimizes legitimate and serious conversations about immigration. We can have legitimate, serious, substantive conversations about immigration and citizenship that recognize resource challenges, that recognize the need for reasonable parameters and that also recognize universal human dignity.

We need to have those conversations. If legitimate conversations about immigration are shut down by this constant and malicious, unsubstantiated charge of bigotry, then we are not going to be able to talk about what reasonable, just and fair rules are. That kind of extremism from the NDP really undermines our ability to have substantive, thoughtful conversations that advance the common good.