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

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

moved that Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, as we return to the House, I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathering today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

I am honoured to rise in this House today to discuss the proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act. The legislation would provide a clear framework for citizenship by descent with the immediate goal of restoring and granting citizenship to lost Canadians.

Some of us, like me, were fortunate to be citizens by birth. Others come from far and wide, choose Canada to be their home and earn their citizenship through our naturalization process. There are those who are Canadians by descent, who are born outside the country to a parent who is a Canadian citizen.

Regardless of how someone acquires their citizenship, I think we all agree that we appreciate each Canadian just the same in this great nation of ours. Whether one was born Canadian or chose Canada as their new land, we are united by a common set of principles and mutual respect for our communities and our country. We are all proud to be Canadian.

Since the founding of what we now call Canada, people from around the world have made this country their home. Canadians are a welcoming people who help others and one another. We demonstrate our commitment to others within the community and the world over when we support charities, volunteer our time and extend a helping hand to those in need.

Canadians are a diverse group, but we share a set of common values and take pride in who we are and what the country stands for. We are welcoming, inclusive, generous; a country that supports human rights, equality and respect for all people. There is no doubt that Canadian citizenship is highly valued and recognized around the world. We want our citizenship system to be fair and accessible and with clear and transparent rules. That is why, when issues arise around our citizenship laws, it is important that Parliament address them.

Given recent challenges to the first-generation limit that Harper Conservatives unfairly introduced, it was clear that changes were needed to the Citizenship Act to address cohorts excluded from citizenship. This is especially relevant for those born outside Canada to a Canadian parent.

It is important that members understand the history of the Citizenship Act in order to better understand how this problem arose. Canada's first citizenship law was passed in 1947. It contained provisions that could revoke some people's citizenship or prevent others from becoming citizens in the first place. Today we view those provisions as outdated, and they were either removed or amended. Those affected by these provisions who lost their citizenship or never became citizens are referred to as “lost Canadians”.

In the past, Canadians could hand down their citizenship to their descendants born abroad not only in the next generation but also beyond the first generation, so long as they met certain conditions and applied by a certain age.

When a new citizenship statute took effect in 1977, children born abroad to a Canadian parent also born abroad were citizens, but they had to act to preserve their citizenship by age 28, or else they would lose it. This requirement was not well understood, so some people lost their citizenship and became so-called lost Canadians.

To wit, my department generally receives 35 to 40 applications for resumption of citizenship per year because of this problem.

In 2009, several amendments to the Citizenship Act remedied the majority of these older lost Canadian cases by providing or restoring citizenship by their 28th birthday. Since 2009, approximately 20,000 individuals have come forward and have been issued proof of their Canadian citizenship because of these changes.

However, the Harper Conservatives introduced the first-generation limit, which the Ontario Superior Court has deemed unconstitutional on equality and mobility rights. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested he would use the notwithstanding clause if given the chance, and that they are considering taking away people's rights when it suits the Conservatives. What the Conservative Party did here is a concrete example of taking away the rights of Canadians. When Conservatives say that we have nothing to fear, Canadians need to take note of what they have done in the past.

This is a record where Conservatives, with the Leader of the Opposition as one of their members, took people's rights away. This should speak for itself.

The legislative amendments of 2009 also allowed anyone born after the 1977 act who was not yet 28 years old when the changes took effect to retain their status and remain a Canadian citizen.

However, there is still a cohort of people who self-identify as lost Canadians. These are people born abroad to a Canadian parent after 1977 in the second generation or beyond who lost their citizenship before 2009 because of rules since revoked that obliged them to take action to retain their Canadian citizenship before their 28th birthday.

Some of these people born abroad were raised in Canada and were unaware that they needed to take steps to retain their Canadian citizenship. We know that the number of people in this cohort is rather small. We know this because the only people affected are those who were born abroad in the second generation or beyond between 1977 and 1981; in other words, only Canadians who had already reached the age of 28 and lost their citizenship before the passage of the 2009 act, which revoked the requirement. As we can see, this is a complicated issue.

Senator Martin of British Columbia introduced public bill S-245 in an effort to address the issue. The goal of the bill and the amendments adopted by the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is to restore the citizenship of this cohort, of these lost Canadians affected by the age 28 rule.

When Bill S-245 was studied by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the bill was amended to include not only a mechanism to restore the citizenship of this cohort but also a mechanism to allow some people born in the second or subsequent generation to be born a Canadian citizen by descent if their Canadian parent could demonstrate that they held a substantial connection to Canada. That is, if a child's Canadian parent had been in Canada for three years before the child was born, they could pass on their citizenship to that child. Bill S-245 also proposes that children born abroad and adopted by a Canadian could also access citizenship. The process for adopted children is a grant of citizenship.

What has changed since we began the review of Bill S-245 is a key decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that determined that the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent was unconstitutional. It is clear that the House must now take immediate action to address the issues the court noted.

Since Bill S-245 went through a number of changes and improvements based on feedback from experts and those impacted, the Conservative Party continues to delay the progress of this bill. Not only that, but Conservatives filibustered Bill S-245 for nearly 30 hours during the actual study. It is obvious, again, that there is little care for Canadians' rights.

During that time, the member of Parliament for Calgary Forest Lawn, who sponsored Senate Bill S-245, as well as the former Conservative immigration critic, recommended the introduction of a private member's bill or a government bill to address the remaining cohort of lost Canadians.

We have a government bill in front of us to do just that. Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, 2024, establishes a revised framework governing citizenship by descent and restores citizenship to lost Canadians and their descendants. This revised regime would also address issues raised by the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling by providing a pathway to citizenship for those born or adopted abroad. Similar to what is proposed by Bill S-245, this bill expands access to citizenship by descent, but in a more comprehensive and inclusive way.

Like Bill S-245, it would restore citizenship to the last cohort of lost Canadians, but it also proposes that all individuals born outside Canada to a Canadian parent before coming into force in this legislation would also be citizens by descent, including those previously excluded by the first-generation limit.

For those born outside our borders, beyond the first generation, or after the legislation comes into force, they would be citizens from birth if their Canadian parent can demonstrate their own substantial connection to Canada. That means that the parent was in Canada for three years, cumulative, and it does not need to be consecutive, before the child was born.

Any child born abroad and adopted by a Canadian parent before this bill's coming-into-force date would have access to the direct grant of citizenship for adoptees, and that includes those previously excluded by the first-generation limit. Today, we are dealing with fundamental issues of fairness for people who should be Canadian citizens.

When the legislation comes into force, the same substantial connection to Canada test will apply for Canadian adoptive parents who are also born outside the country to access a grant of citizenship. If the adoptive parent was physically in Canada for 1,095 days or three years prior to the adoption, their child could access the adoption grant of citizenship.

Finally, as with previous changes to the Citizenship Act that helped other lost Canadians, this bill would confer automatic citizenship on some people born outside Canada who may not wish to be citizens.

In many countries, dual citizenship is not permitted in certain jobs, including in government, military and national security positions. In some countries, having citizenship in another country can present legal, professional or other barriers, including restricting access to benefits. That is why this bill will provide access to the same simplified renunciation process as the one established in 2009.

Most people who would automatically become citizens when the bill comes into force but may not wish to hold citizenship will be able to use the simplified renunciation process. This mechanism has a few requirements. These individuals must not reside in Canada; they also must not become stateless by renouncing their Canadian citizenship. That is an important point. In addition, people must apply to renounce the citizenship granted to them through the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

One moment, please. The hon. minister can start his last sentence over. I believe the hon. minister's phone is on his desk, and that is causing problems for the interpreters. I would ask him to move his phone, if that is indeed the issue.

The hon. minister can repeat the sentence he was saying before I interrupted him.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, please let me know if the problem persists because my phones were rather far away.

I will go back to what I was saying about the statutory mechanism allowing those who do not want to become Canadian to renounce their citizenship. A few requirements need to be met. The person must not be a resident of Canada; they must not become stateless as a result of renouncing their Canadian citizenship; and they must request the renunciation of the citizenship that was conferred on them through the ministerial process.

When the legislation comes into force, the same substantial connection to Canada test will apply for Canadian adoptive parents who were also born outside the country to access a grant of citizenship. If the adoptive parent was physically in Canada for that 1,095-day period or three years prior to the adoption, the child can access the adoption grant to citizenship.

Finally, as with previous changes to the Citizenship Act to help other lost Canadians, this bill would confer automatic citizenship on some people born outside of Canada who may not wish to be citizens, and we will remediate that as the case may be.

This bill introduces changes to make the necessary improvements, to restore citizenship to those who lost it and to expand eligibility beyond the first generation to people who have proven that they have a substantial connection to Canada. These legislative changes address the concerns raised in the recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which calls on the federal government to act.

Don Chapman, a long-time advocate for lost Canadians, who has met many members of Parliament in fighting for this noble cause, has said, “This bill will be the first time in Canadian history that women achieve the same rights as men in the Citizenship Act.” It will be the first time that the Citizenship Act is actually charter compliant.

There is urgency in this matter. It is crucial that we establish an updated framework as soon as possible. I would hope, given the cross-party support from the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party to restore citizenship, that we are positioned to move the legislation forward quickly.

I look forward to working with members and senators to move this bill forward without delay with the appropriate considerations and reviews.

Canadian citizenship is integral to who we are, uniting us through shared values of democracy, equality and inclusion. Through this legislation, we are working to provide a more inclusive Citizenship Act and ensure that those who are rightfully Canadian are seen as such under the law.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, coming back from the summer recess, I was hoping the minister would not start by being so partisan on the bill before us.

I want to remind the minister, because he mentioned it several times, about the Harper government. In the session of Parliament on February 7, 2008, the Liberal Party voted for the first generation limit and then proceeded to vote again for it at third reading. This original ruling, this decision in legislation to introduce a first generation limit, was supported by the Liberal Party at the time.

However, I missed the part today where the minister said how many people would be impacted by the legislation in its multiple parts, which is the key criteria here. It is reckless to continue to forward legislation when government officials have told us at committee repeatedly that they do not know how many people would then be eligible for citizenship by descent.

How many people would be eligible for citizenship by descent through Bill C-71?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, what the member opposite fails to note is that this is a question the rights of Canadians, people to have the right to be Canadian, the right that was denied to them by the Harper government. He wants to talk about numbers, and perhaps that is important from a logistical planning perspective, I do not deny that, but please do not continue to deny the rights of Canadians who duly should be Canadian today.

On the 2009 amendments, as an indicative matter and as I mentioned in my speech, about 20,000 people were affected and became Canadians. We routinely, as a matter of people who apply to our department, have about 40 to 45 people per year who ask us for the restoration of their rights.

There will be more to this, and we will need an organized way to do this. This is why we are responding in an organized fashion to a ruling of the Ontario Superior Court. If the member opposite is concerned with numbers, he will take heart in the fact that we will have a three-year naturalization limit for people to prove that substantive connection to Canada.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to wish everyone a warm welcome back to Parliament.

The Bloc Québécois will support the bill in principle so that it can be studied in committee. We understand that the bill's ultimate aim is to right a wrong. Of course, that is no easy matter. I have the same question as my Conservative colleague. How many people does the government estimate are involved? I understand that the aim is not to put quantity ahead of quality. Still, the numbers matter.

When you decided not to appeal the decision, you also said that the people likely to be affected would have a lot of questions about what it means for them personally and their families, and that you would take the time to explain the process.

Would the minister tell us how he intends to explain this situation?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member used the word “you” several times while addressing the government directly. I would remind her to kindly address her comments to the Chair.

The hon. minister.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the Bloc Québécois members for their support. They are not necessarily the biggest advocates of Canadian citizenship, but they are supporting us in correcting an injustice related to Canadian citizenship. This is a fundamental matter of justice and rights, as they so clearly said, and I thank them for their support.

The first step will be to pass the bill and get royal assent. Then, we will have to implement an internal process, which, obviously, we have started doing, because we have to respond to several questions from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding the process and the mechanism for ensuring that these individuals can obtain Canadian citizenship within a reasonable time frame. Obviously, several tests will be required, as set out in the bill. I would be happy to talk more about this in committee or in person.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing Bill C-71 to the floor. The New Democrats have fought for this ever since John McCallum. It has been more than a decade, at least for me, in this fight.

With Bill C-71, the minister touched on the issue around royal assent. In the bill, there is the commencement provision which confers discretion on the Governor in Council, meaning the cabinet, to determine when to proclaim the act into force, but does not set a specific date.

Could the minister advise the House, and families that are waiting to have their rights restored, how long it will take for the bill to become law. Would it be a proclamation and royal assent?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would expect that to be the case.

Again, I want to thank the New Democrats for their support. This was a modification that we made relatively recently, simply to ensure that the court did not feel like it was constrained to a certain number of days by our legislative process. We have told the court time and again that we plan to put this into force as quickly as possible. Otherwise, it is a bit more of an open application process where I would have the discretion to grant citizenship.

I would implore Parliament to move quickly if members do not feel that my discretion should not be fettered by Parliament. It absolutely should in this case and there should be a number of reasons and concrete bases for people to get their citizenship. The naturalization test is a perfect point.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking members in other parties, and in particular the Minister of Immigration for bringing Bill C-71 forward.

The hon. member for Vancouver East has been tireless, as have many citizen champions, including, as mentioned by the minister, Don Chapman. The work to restore the rights to lost Canadians is urgent.

With all due respect to the minister, I would like to repeat the question from the member for Vancouver East. When might we see this pass into law? It is obviously urgent that it be done as expeditiously as possible, through the House and the Senate.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is probably a question best—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. minister has the floor. I would ask members to please hold their thoughts.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, as soon as possible, obviously.

This question is best answered by the Conservative Party. A lot of us in the House would like to see it approved at all stages and get it enforced, so we can get these rights recognized by Canadians who are waiting, and have waited for a hell of a long time, to become citizens.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did shout out to the minister, because there seems to be a will to see this legislation advanced. I was yelling out to say that we should call the question.

What is clear from the official opposition is that for the Conservative Party of Canada, whether under the current leader or under Prime Minister Harper, there has always been two classes of Canadians and a change that they made left certain Canadians behind. One of the reasons I ran for office was that the Conservatives never wanted people like myself to have their voices heard.

I would ask the minister the following. What is it about the legislation and the constitutionality? We know that there have been a couple of rulings. On the comments of Don Chapman, I worked for the Hon. Andrew Telegdi when Don Chapman was leading this charge to ensure that their rights and their abilities were also advanced. It was important that it happen then but it did not, and here we are today. What is the importance of this legislation and is there a willingness to have the question called so we can see the legislation advance as quickly as possible?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is fundamentally about rights. The court case that generated this is a pretty short one. I would invite members to take a quick read of it.

One of the telling statements by the judge in the case was to highlight the fact that women, in particular, were unduly burdened as to where they would have to decide to have their child, failure of which to have them in Canada would result in the the individuals in question losing their citizenship. These are not faraway examples. My children were not born in Canada. Their next generation could possibly have been in jeopardy. Therefore, it hits home in a lot of ways.

It is not about people who have never been to Canada. Obviously, this is about Canadian citizenship; it is not for all. There are tests to become a Canadian citizen. We know, or at least I and my department know, how important it is to ensure there are rigorous rules to decide who becomes a Canadian citizen or not.

This is a question of rights, and the court case in question is about women's rights. As Don Chapman said, and as the court said, this will perhaps be the first time where the Citizenship Act is charter compliant when it comes to women.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be the first member of the official opposition to rise for Bill C-71. After hearing the minister speak, it tells me that he came here unprepared to deal with the substance of the legislation that he himself tabled in this House.

First of all, I will debunk a bunch of things that were said that are incorrect. They are not true. If we look at the record, as I said in my question, on February 15 and February 7, 2008, in the original debate on Bill C-37 on the first-generation limit that introduced the rules that existed between 2009 and the end of 2023, when the Ontario Superior Court ruled that there were two charter violations, the Liberals voted for it, supporting a motion to move forward with the legislation at the next stage. They did not do that once such that we could perhaps say they were not paying attention, but they did it twice. They accepted the logic of it.

Not only did they accept the logic of it, but there is a report from the 2005 immigration committee that recommended putting something like a first-generation limit rule in legislation. In 2005, former prime minister Paul Martin was in charge, which means there was a minority government and a majority on the committee decided to push forward that recommendation. It was then adopted in 2007 by Diane Finley, the immigration minister at the time.

The ridiculous claim that we on this side are taking away rights or that rights are being taken away is absolutely false. All Liberals supported it. In fact, even the NDP supported the motion at the time. There are some members sitting here today who were in their seats at the time they supported the Bill C-37 motion, not once but twice. Let us start with that.

Nobody would lose their citizenship through this legislation. That is not what we are talking about. The Conservatives believe that everybody has a right, if they meet the rules, to apply for citizenship, but new rules would be created for citizenship by descent with a substantive connection clause that a judge said was necessary. We disagree with how the substantive connection test is created and what the rules for it are. That is a substantive reason to oppose this legislation at second reading, something that all other parties knew about because, as the minister mentioned, we were going through this during the Bill S-245 debate.

I think I have shown that this is not anything new. Other parties supported the first-generation limit at the time. They were all onside to push through Bill C-37. Our belief is that naturalized Canadians like me are treated exactly the same in the Citizenship Act and the law as Canadians who were born here. My children were born here and I am a naturalized Canadian. We are considered generation zero for the purposes of current legislation.

I am not the only one saying that. It is a judge saying that. In paragraph 9, he said, “gen zero: the applicants belonging to gen zero are Canadian-born citizens who had children abroad, or naturalized Canadian citizens who had children abroad after their naturalization, and whose children acquired Canadian citizenship automatically by descent.” We are really talking about grandkids.

The critical question that government officials have been incapable of answering is about sound logistical planning, the words the minister used just now. As sound logistical planning indicates, when we are passing legislation and proposing it to the House, members in the House should know how many people would be affected by it and how many people would be included, because this is about grandkids who are born abroad to parents who were abroad when they get citizenship by descent. That is the critical question here, and the Liberals have not been able to answer it. They have not been able to answer how many people this would apply to.

With all the benefits we give out to Canadian citizens, which Parliament has voted on, such as transfer payments, the ability to travel on a Canadian passport, one of the strongest passports in the world, and the ability to be evacuated from certain countries when there are issues and problems overseas, as we saw during the pandemic, we would think the government would take the summer to do its homework. However, the minister did not do his homework. Instead, he came here to accuse the Conservatives and anybody who disagreed with him and, frankly, did not even read the record from 2008 to know how his own party voted. The Liberals were in support of the same rule that the Superior Court in Ontario found for two reasons is not charter-compliant. That should have resulted in an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. On a matter as important as the Citizenship Act, I would have liked to see the government appeal it. The minister refused to explain to the House why he did not seek that appeal, why he chose not to go forward with it.

As found later in the ruling, which I am going to read from partially because I think it is important, one of the reasons that the legislation was found not to be charter-compliant is the bureaucratic incompetence at the immigration department. That is entirely on the back of the minister. He is responsible for the logistical planning, which are his words, to make sure there is no backlog, that applications have the correct information in them and that officials are held accountable.

I am going to read from sections 263 to 265 of the ruling, which are different parts. The judge noted:

On cross-examination he testified that his source for this information were various unnamed IRCC case managers. However, the information Mr. Milord obtained from these case managers was replete with inaccuracies. With respect to Ms. Maruyama, these include misidentifying the year Ms. Maruyama’s father was naturalized as a Canadian citizen, Ms. Maruyama’s mother’s citizenship, the reason for rejection of Ms. Maruyama’s children’s application for permanent residency.... There were also errors in Mr. Milord’s evidence about how Mr. Chandler’s child acquired Irish citizenship.

Paragraph 264 states:

I note that in addition to these errors, at the outset of the hearing, I was advised that Mr. Burgess had been told that his child, QR—

This is to hide the identity of minors.

—had been granted permanent residency or citizenship status. However, counsel for Mr. Burgess was unable to confirm exactly what was going on, because in the mail, the Burgess family had received citizenship documents pertaining to someone else entirely, unrelated to the family or this application.

In paragraph 265, the judge found in a very small sampling that there was an error rate of 50% in these particular case files. I think for many of us in our constituency offices in our ridings, about 80% to 90% of the work is immigration case files. I hope members will agree with me that we find them replete with errors time and time again. It was because of errors on the bureaucratic side by the minister and the department he runs and is responsible and accountable for that the judge found there were charter violations. That is not a problem with the original idea that the Liberal Party of Canada supported. I am going to repeat that to them: They supported it not once by accident but twice. They knew exactly what they were doing at the time.

The minister talked about the substantive connection test without referring to it directly, saying that there would be a three-year naturalization limit. That is an incomplete statement. It is an incomplete answer. The suggestion to use the same rule that we have for permanent residency is found in three out of five applications for permanent residency to Canada. I do not think that is enough, and I made that case at the immigration committee during the Bill S-245 debate. The reason I do not believe it is enough is the way it is going to be calculated.

The rule would be applied if the parent of a child can demonstrate 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada at any time before the birth of the child. If someone is having children later in life, they would have more time to prove the 1,095 days to pass on their citizenship by descent. If they ever travelled back to Canada, they could obviously give birth to their children in Canada. As a Canadian by descent, they could do that here, and they would have birthright citizenship, just as my children did when they were born in Calgary. All four of them were born in Calgary.

For the 1,095 days, we proposed to make them consecutive so that someone could prove a substantial connection to Canada. The Conservatives agreed at committee that three years seemed like a reasonable amount. If someone went through a K-to-12 system or went to school for a few years and then their parents left Canada for whatever reason, such as for work opportunities or take a year off, three years consecutively would be a good demonstration of a substantial connection to Canada.

That was voted down by the Liberals. In fact, they voted down nearly all of our amendments. We proposed over 40 of them, and let it not be said that we are unreasonable. We actually voted with the Liberals on 10 of their amendments. We said that we could see the wisdom of them. There are sections in Bill C-71 that we agree with, like treating adopted children of Canadians equally to those who are naturalized or born Canadians. That seems like a reasonable thing to do. For the faster revocation rules for citizenship, if someone does not want their citizenship and wants to give it up, we agree that there should be a simpler process.

The example the minister gave is incomplete. The best example to give would be members serving in the Australian Parliament, who cannot be dual citizens. That is directly in their constitution. Certain members here might have Canadian citizenship eligibility by descent, and we do not want to make them ineligible. In my case, I am a dual citizen. I am a citizen of Canada by naturalization and a citizen of the Republic of Poland by birth. They would charge me about $565 to give up my citizenship, and I am not giving up one red cent for that. There are still some red cents in circulation, and I will not pay one red cent to the republic to give up my citizenship. The application is entirely in Polish as well. Our rules for individuals to renounce their citizenship if they do not want it would be much simpler. I find it interesting that the minister did not even know that about his own legislation.

We also support another important part, which was in the original Senate bill, Bill S-245. It came from our colleague on the Conservative side, Senator Yonah Martin, who wanted to address 50 months of lost Canadians between 1977 and 1981. We agreed. That is why the legislation came here. At the time, we asked if we could pass it quickly enough to look after the section 8 lost Canadians. We agreed that they should have their citizenship restored because they missed the cut-off date. In fact, one of our members from Saskatchewan almost became one of those lost Canadians. He only found out within a few months that he needed to apply to maintain his citizenship. We agree with the principle that this group of Canadians should have their citizenship restored and protected.

The other changes the government is proposing are not what I would call proper logistical planning, to use the minister's term. Why should we believe that the minister is capable of managing the new applications that would result from people seeking their proof of citizenship documents? That is why I asked how many people there would be and how many resources would be needed to process them. Are they in the thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands? Are there more than that? That would be a huge burden on the department.

Back in September 2022, the former minister announced that we would have all digital applications. The claim was made at committee, in both public and private, that it would help to reduce the backlog of immigration applications. It has not done that. We are still at over two million backlogged applications in the system, and some of the wait times are just as long if not longer than they used to be for some of the major PR programs.

I will read a few of the headlines about this from different commentators and immigration consultants. The first one, by Sergio R. Karas, is from Law360 Canada: “Bill C-71 depreciates Canadian citizenship”. Here is another: “First reading: How the Liberals keep dropping the barriers on who can become a Canadian”. This is by Jamie Sarkonak: “Liberals water down citizenship for grandkids of convenience Canadians”. “Government bill will allow Canadians to pass citizenship rights to kids born abroad” is a Canadian Press article. Here is another one, from Brian Lilley: “Trudeau Liberals making moves to cheapen Canadian citizenship”. Another says, “Canada Introduces New Bill to Restore Citizenship by Descent”.

We should go into the provisions on the substantial connection test, about which I have, again, a lot of concerns. At committee, we proposed a change to make it 1,095 consecutive days.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt the member. The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville is rising on a point of order.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, we cannot hear the French interpretation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We were having problems with the interpretation, but I am told that everything is working properly now.

The hon. member was reading titles and mentioned the Prime Minister's name. I would ask him to say “Prime Minister” as opposed to his name.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, forgive me for the error of reading the Prime Minister's name into the record. Thank you for reproaching me for doing so.

I see that I have about six minutes left to address the backlog of applications at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. We always forget that it is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. These are two matters we are dealing with at the same time.

If we look at the backlog in the department, we see that it is over two million applications. At the same time, the minister insists that he knows what he is doing. He spends far too much time on Twitter, or X, fighting with anonymous users and others and taking cheap shots at other politicians who disagree with him. That is what he is doing instead of managing his department.

On the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, we often see a number of issues. There is a one-, two- or three-year backlog. Sometimes it could even take five, six or seven years. These applications should be easy to process in the allotted time.

Let us talk about the commission that is responsible for asylum claims. This is an excellent example of what happened in this country under this government and this minister in particular. Today, the department has a backlog of more than 220,000 asylum claims. More than 300,000 applications are on hold, and the waiting period is three and a half years before a file is reviewed and an answer is given. There is a backlog of 220,000 applications.

In 2016, an estimate published online indicated that there was a backlog of 17,000 applications. Under the Liberals, the backlog in the asylum management system went from 17,000 to 220,000, with more than 100,000 applications currently being processed. Some 220,000 people are waiting. These people came to Canada through another immigration program or crossed at Roxham Road. They applied for asylum, for refugee status. One would have thought that the government would have allocated enough resources to manage the number of people in the system in order to protect their rights. That is what the minister says.

Every year, the numbers grow. I have them here. In 2022, when the minister took office, there was a backlog of 70,223 applications. In 2023, the backlog was up to 156,023 applications. In July 2024, it was 218,593 applications. Today I received an answer to an access to information request, which I read very closely. It states that almost 18% of people who request an answer to their asylum claim are international students. Their applications are now part of the department's backlog.

When the minister is talking about not knowing the numbers so that he could not respond to the question, this is critical to how immigration and citizenship and refugee systems are managed in Canada. The minister does not know the impact of his own legislation. It greatly worries me that he is not aware of the details.

We Conservatives had a private member's bill, which was proposed from the Senate side, that offered to fix section 8 regarding lost Canadians. For those 50 months, we were on side. We proposed substantive amendments, once the scope of amendments was expanded, to the substantive connection test, and we proposed to introduce what I think was the most critical requirement, which was to have a police record check, to actually do a security record check. That was one amendment, I will say, that the Liberals voted against, with their allies in the NDP, at committee.

We have now seen, over the last six to 12 months, many security issues with different types of visa applicants who have been approved and who have come to Canada. I think the security of Canadians is incredibly important. The integrity of our citizenship system is critical. I do not trust the minister. I do not trust the Liberal Party. I do not trust its ally in the NDP, either, that it would be able to manage the new flow of applications because it just does not know how many people would be eligible, through Bill C-71, for citizenship by descent.

As the judge found in his own ruling, the reasons for charter non-compliance were not that there was an overall violation of it but that there was incompetence of the minister and the bureaucracy, which failed to provide accurate information. There were 50% errors in applications being processed: dates were wrong; names were wrong; and some even received a citizenship document for someone who was not even related to the same family. Those are serious errors in administration that the minister should have had fixed.

Therefore, we will be opposing this piece of legislation. We will then propose amendments. We are going to put forward amendments at committee to try to fix the legislation, and if we can fix it, then we will revise our position. I think that if we can fix it by providing the substantive connection test, the 1,095 or more consecutive days, we can come to some type of agreement on what Canadians expect. Also, a security record check is an absolute requirement.

We already have chaos in the immigration system. The immigration minister and the government he is part of have destroyed the consensus in Canada that immigration is a great thing. I think it is a great thing, but I was sad to see so many Canadians come up to me during door knocking and at town halls to say that they do not agree with it anymore. Therefore, because we cannot trust the Liberals with something as important as our citizenship, we are going to vote against them.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I found it really fascinating listening to that member's comments. It is interesting that, in Canada, we have an elected House, so Canadians get to choose who they vote for. However, we also have an independent judicial process, and that independent court ruled the Harper legislation unconstitutional on multiple grounds. The member, rather than actually respecting our independent court processes, is suggesting that the government should have appealed that decision rather than give Canadians their rights. Members of the Conservative Party today, no different from those under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, believe that they can pick and choose Canadians' rights. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

I would like to understand from the member, when he challenges the substantive clause, why he believes a second-generation born abroad should need to do the substantive clause, yet people born prior to that should not. Why does he believe he has the ability to determine who should be a Canadian and who does not have the right to be a Canadian?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, to the point I think the member was making, nobody would lose their citizenship through Bill C-71. There is no new person who would lose their citizenship.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is heckling me now. If she would allow me, I will give a thoughtful answer, as best I can.

Her own party voted for this legislation twice, back when it was Bill C-37, the first-generation limit—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has had her opportunity to ask a question.

I want to remind members that if they want to have other conversations, they should take it outside so as not to disturb the member who has the floor.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Waterloo.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that I do sometimes speak in the House when it is not my turn, but when I do not speak and I am given that credit, I do not appreciate it. In the case the member referred to, it was actually not me speaking.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the hon. member was having a conversation with someone across the way. I would just ask her to step out and have that conversation, if she wishes to speak, because it does disrupt, as there is an echo in the House; therefore, we can hear what is going on at the other end.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, to continue what I was saying, when we had Bill C-37, the first-generation limit was introduced, and the Liberal Party of Canada voted in favour of those changes, twice. The Liberals cannot now claim that it is a charter violation and that they have changed their minds. They supported it then for the reasons they had, and I do not know exactly what those were, but they did, twice, so it was not a mistake.

I believe that with this legislation, the key is what the impact would be on our citizenship system and our immigration system, and how many people it would impact. The minister is incapable of answering, and I think it is a critical question that Canadians need to know the answer to.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard. We get along very well, he and I. We are able to work together. I think we are both able to set aside partisanship and work on improving bills sent to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, on which we sit.

I agree with some of the points my colleague made in his remarks, particularly when he said that the situation at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is chaotic. This department is probably the most dysfunctional of all the federal government apparatus. On that point, I think we see eye to eye. When he talks about politicians who should stop being aggressive and insulting people on X, I agree with him. I think this is the right way to view things. Here again, I agree with my colleague.

As for the bill itself, the only thing I have trouble understanding about the Conservative position, which I respect, by the way, is that my colleague plans to table amendments to improve the bill if and when it is sent to committee. My understanding is that we must solve this problem. We agree on the principle of the bill. Now, it is possible to improve the bill, so why would my colleague not vote in favour of sending it to committee? We will work on these amendments, and then we will vote yea or nay on the bill based on the amendments that will have been adopted.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague. We work together on the committee as much as we can. Sometimes we are on opposite sides, but I do not make it personal when we have differences of opinion or political differences. It happens. We are in different parties. People in our ridings voted for us because we belong to different parties.

The problem is that the last time we studied this issue in committee, we put forward nearly 40 amendments to change various parts of the Citizenship Act, including requiring that the 1,095 days be consecutive. There was also the need to run security checks to be able to say, yes or no, whether any of the applications received by the department raised any national security concerns.

The governing party, namely the Liberals, joined the NDP in voting against. For us, that was very important. We see the same thing happening in committee. We will vote against the bill at second reading.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the Conservatives actually filibustered Bill S-245 for 30 hours at committee. Even after it had gone through the committee and had been referred back to the House at third reading, they traded down that bill in the order of precedence eight times so that we would not get to debate it at third reading in the House and vote on it.

The leader of the official opposition's office wrote to family members who were concerned about their rights being taken away and about their constitutional rights being violated stating, “Conservatives will...preserve what it means to be a citizen of this country and fundamentally what it means to be a Canadian. Please be assured we will continue to support and advocate for this legislation to reach its third reading in the House of Commons.” That is in reference to Bill S-245. This is blatantly false. If that is the case, why did the member for Calgary Forest Lawn trade the bill on the order of precedence eight times so that it cannot come to the House for a third reading debate?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the NDP complain about committee work because they always want to send things to committee. I want to do the work at committee, and when it is presented to me, I do it. We proposed well over 49 amendments. I am looking at them because I have them with me. Ten times, we voted with the Liberals in support of their amendments that we agreed with, so we were willing to do—

[An hon. member]

It was 30 hours.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am being heckled again.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I want to remind members who have had an opportunity to ask a question, if they wish to ask more questions, that they please wait until the appropriate time.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that this is the first day back, and I think I have been heckled more as a member today than I have, probably, in the entire last session. I am not a member who does the heckling. I hope you will agree. I try to restrain myself. I am not always perfect. I have a member next to me who sometimes does the same.

With respect to the committee work and the amendments, we proposed substantive amendments that would improve the bill. I told the members of the committee that if we could seek consensus on our amendments, we would vote in favour of the legislation, but we could not find it.

Police record checks are important. Making sure a person has a substantive connection to Canada is important. At the very minimum, it should be consecutive, not just spending a few days in a year. There is also the question of how would one prove 1,095 days in the previous 40 years of their life if they started having kids when they were 40? These are important administrative questions. The minister recognized that, but he could not answer how many people would be impacted.

I will just remind the NDP that they voted for Bill C-37, with a first-generation limit, back in 2008.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I think there is a very simple question that many Canadians are concerned about. The leader of the Conservative Party has no issue raising the notwithstanding clause. We have a former Conservative government that tried to establish the first-generation limits, and we have a superior court in Ontario that says it is unconstitutional.

Will the critic for immigration give clear indication to the House that the Conservative Party, the official opposition, would never use the notwithstanding clause in order to invoke its will with respect to Canadian citizenship? Will he give us that assurance?

[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.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, some might find it strange for a Bloc Québécois member to speak on a Canadian citizenship bill, but it will be easier for these “lost Canadians” interested in reclaiming their Canadian citizenship to acquire their Quebec citizenship once Quebec becomes a country. I am therefore pleased to speak on this question.

A few months ago, I stood in the House to speak to Bill S‑245, which sought to right a historic wrong by granting citizenship to Canadians whose cases had slipped through the cracks. I spoke about children of Canadian parents who had been born abroad and had lost their citizenship because of changes in the federal rules or for reasons that struck me as hard to justify at the time. In fact, what Bill S‑245 basically said was all these people who had lost their status due to overly complex and often unjust provisions of previous Canadian laws should have their citizenship restored.

This is the idea behind Bill C‑71, which we are dealing with today. In fact, the bill replicates all of the proposed amendments in Bill S‑245, which sought to rectify the Citizenship Act's well-known injustices and mistakes.

Bill C‑71 responds to the decision handed down by the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, which ruled that the first-generation limit to citizenship by descent for children born abroad to Canadian citizens was unconstitutional. As we are seeing yet again, the Bloc Québécois is defending the rule of law and a Canadian Constitution that Quebec did not sign. That should come as no surprise, since we will one day have our own.

At that time, the government had six months to amend the act. Bill C‑71 was tabled as a fallback, because Bill S‑245, unfortunately, could not get across the finish line. Why is that? Part of the reason is the partisanship at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Speaking of which, I would like to bring up a point. As everyone knows, and as my colleague pointed out earlier, despite my differences of opinion with members from other parties in the House, I do not indulge in partisanship. What is more, I believe that being cross-partisan often helps me better do my job as a parliamentarian and better represent the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, who trusted me enough to elect me to work in the House of Commons. Whoever I am dealing with, from whatever party, if I can move a matter forward, I will, with no regard to political stripe. I do that for my people and on principle, because that is how I was raised. I often find the partisan-driven comments I hear in the House disheartening.

Today I will speak not only for Quebeckers, but also for a good number of Canadians whose files at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada have fallen through the cracks for far too long. Today, as the Bloc Québécois critic for immigration, citizenship and refugees, I want to talk about Canadian citizenship, because this affects everyone here. I am also the critic for international human rights, so obviously, matters of justice are also of concern to me.

Today, more specifically, we are talking about Bill C‑71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. I want to focus primarily on those individuals who are commonly known as “lost Canadians” because of a little-known but truly ridiculous provision. According to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's estimates, there are still between 100 and 200 people who have still not regained their citizenship. They are the last group of “lost Canadians”. This bill corrects an oversight in the 2009 act, which missed a golden opportunity to do away with the requirement for these people to apply to retain their citizenship when they turned 28.

At the risk of ruining the surprise and mostly for the sake of consistency, something that is often sorely lacking in the House, I will say that I was in favour of Bill S‑245. Obviously, I am also in favour of Bill C‑71, as are all the Bloc members here. We will vote in favour of the principle of Bill C‑71 when the time comes to do so.

If we think about it, this bill is perfectly in line with what our contemporary vision of citizenship should be. Once citizenship has been duly granted, it should never be taken away from an individual, unless it is for reasons of national security. Only a citizen can freely renounce his or her citizenship.

Like all parties in the House, the Bloc Québécois supports and defends the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It states that all are equal before the law. In fact, citizenship is an egalitarian legal status granted to all members of the same community. It confers privileges as well as duties.

In this case, the Canadian government has failed in meeting its obligations to its citizens. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. As I was saying, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, citizenship must apply equally to all. This is simply a matter of principle. I do not believe I am alone in thinking that it is profoundly unfair that, in 2024, people can lose their citizenship for reasons that they probably do not even know exist. These provisions are from another time, a time long ago when there were questionable ideas about what it meant to be a citizen of Canada. Since time has not remedied the situation and since the reforms of the past have not been prescriptive enough, then politics must weigh in. That is what we are doing.

As we know, the process to regain citizenship is quite complicated. As I said earlier in a question to my colleague, the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is probably the most dysfunctional federal government department. Even my colleagues on the other side of the House, who currently form the government, must agree. They too have constituency offices, and most of the telephone calls they receive are about complex immigration cases. Even the Speaker probably agrees with me. Despite the fact that she has to remain neutral, I am sure that her constituency office probably gets a lot of calls about cases that are too difficult to resolve.

Everyone knows that that department is broken. There is sand in the gears and water in the gas. There is clearly a structural problem within the department itself. It is already complicated enough to deal with that department, so there is no need to be so secretive. The problem must be resolved as quickly as possible. We must at least identify the problem and find a solution. I think we have a pretty clear consensus to send Bill C‑71 to committee.

A look at what has previously occurred shows just how thorny this matter is. The act was reformed in 2005. It was reformed in 2009. It was reformed once again in 2015. How many reforms do we need? There are now a large number of Canadians who have been overlooked. Men and women, soldiers' wives and children, children born abroad, members of indigenous communities and Chinese-Canadians have been overlooked through every reform. People have been left behind because we have not properly fixed the act. With Bill C‑71, we want to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.

I therefore urge my Conservative friends to propose their amendments. The Bloc Québécois members will study them, as they always do. If they are good, we will vote in favour. If they are bad, we will vote against. We are easy people to talk to. We do thorough work on our files, and we will carefully study the amendments that our Conservative friends send us.

The bill seeks to amend 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...;

(c) allow citizenship to be granted...to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen;

(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;

Normally, Bill S‑245 would have gotten royal assent a long time ago, but we did not quite get there because of filibustering. That is what brings us here today. Constituents are having to wait because of petty politics. That is the way it has been over the past year in this Parliament on many files, in many committees. Both sides of the aisle are just the same. I have seen filibustering from the government side and from the official opposition. They are all just as bad. Unfortunately, there are people caught in the middle of all this. People are being held hostage by political or even electoral stunts. That is even worse.

As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois is here to work for our people. We are here working for Quebeckers who care about Quebec's future, and not just when it is time to cater to our electoral ambitions. According to the polls, things are going very well for the Bloc Québécois. We are here to work for our people. If it is good for Quebec, then we will vote for it. If it is bad for Quebec, then we will vote against it. Bill C‑71 will be able to give us far more Quebec citizens when Quebec becomes sovereign.

When I hear members of the federal parties arguing and then shouting nonsense at each other in the House or playing politics like they did with Bill S‑245, I imagine what it must be like for those who have been waiting impatiently and for far too long for royal assent. There are specific examples in Quebec. Take Jean‑François, a Quebecker born outside Canada when his father was completing his doctorate in the United States. Even though he returned to Quebec when he was three months old and spent his entire life in Quebec, his daughter was not automatically eligible for Canadian citizenship. This type of situation causes undue stress for families who should not have to deal with the federal government's lax approach.

Right now, the government is dealing with more and more delays every time we check. Every single immigration program is guaranteed to be backlogged. A new program has been created, and it is already behind schedule. There are already people on the waiting list. When we look into it, it is a mess. This is very hard for people. These are human beings. These are men, women and children who are caught up in the administrative maze of a department that seems to have forgotten that it should be the most compassionate of our departments; it is probably the least compassionate. It is frustrating. We are seeing horror stories every day. As the immigration critic, I see it all the time.

My point is that we will be there. We are there for people. We put people first. That is why we are going to vote in favour of Bill C-71 in principle. We will work hard. We will look at all the amendments brought to the table. I think that is why we are here. That is why we were elected, despite our differences and despite the fact that the Bloc Québécois wants Quebec to be independent. That should not come as a surprise to anyone. We will get there one day. The people who send us here to Ottawa know that we are separatists. They know that it will happen one day. They know that one day, with Bill C-71, we will have more Quebec citizens when Quebec becomes a country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I think we need to put it in perspective, as the member made reference to, in terms of the people it actually affects. There are many individuals in the different regions of the country whose ability to get their citizenship recognized is being challenged. Whether it is Senate legislation or, now, government legislation, it is imperative that we try to see the legislation at least get to the next step.

Conservatives say that they have amendments, and I would welcome seeing the types of amendments they have. Maybe we can come up with some sort of unanimous support in getting the legislation through.

Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to advocating for getting the bill out of second reading and into committee, where we would at least be able to advance it?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, that rarely happens. I get the impression that my colleague took my speech and summed it up as a question. He is repeating the question back to me as if it was a short, one-page summary of my speech. That is exactly what I said.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-71, just as it supported the principle of Bill S-245. We are working hand in hand with the NDP and the Liberals. If the Conservatives propose amendments that make sense, of course we will look at them. If the amendments make sense, of course we will vote for them. We are here to work. I do not think that Bill C-71 should stir up any partisan wars. It is not an issue that should get us yelling and calling each other names. When we take a good look at it, the bill is fairly simple. Its underlying principle is clear, namely, that an injustice must be fixed through a bill. That is pretty much a parliamentarian's most basic job.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, if this bill goes to committee, would the member be willing to support a Conservative amendment that would require a criminal record check for everyone who applies for citizenship by descent?

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the heart of the question is this. Bill C-71 would effectively make Canada's immigration law, particularly for the class of what we call lost Canadians, charter-compliant. It would mean that family members who have not been able to pass their citizenship to their children because their children were second generation and born abroad would have those rights restored.

These are not new rights. These are citizens who should never have lost those rights, per the Superior Court of Ontario. We are not creating a new class of citizens. We are restoring this class of citizens, who were unjustly and unconstitutionally penalized. It would mean that children would not be born stateless. It would mean that families would not be separated. It would mean that people would not face deportation because of this unconstitutional law.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, desperate NDP members have been supporting the government for the last two years and are making a disaster out of immigration in Canada. How can they sit here and talk about better immigration when they made a mess out of immigration law in Canada? The results are showing for every Canadian.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the very member who said no to my motion has asked this question. This very member was part of the Conservatives who created this unconstitutional law, which said that some Canadians are less Canadian than others. They are the very same Conservatives who had been told by the courts that their law was unjust.

It is time for the government and all parliamentarians to bring in a law that is charter-compliant. That is where I stand.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, when I read the outline of this bill, I thought that there was no way we would dither and debate this for long, because there is still a pressing need to correct an injustice. I do not see how anyone could justify waiting to correct an injustice.

That is why I was very surprised to see the Conservatives say no just now to the motion that would have allowed us to move quickly to correct these injustices.

What does the member think of this refusal?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is shameful, because justice delayed is justice denied. It has been 15 years already. Canadian families have suffered from this punitive, unconstitutional law created by the Conservatives, and now they want to delay it even further. We have debated this ad nauseam. I have lost count of how many times I have made speeches on lost Canadians.

It is time to act, and it is shameful that the Conservatives will not do what is necessary and what is right.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, indeed, and I recall attempts by the hon. member for Vancouver East to put this through by unanimous consent before we adjourned for the summer. One would have thought that reflection over the summer might have changed the automatic chorus of nays from across the aisle, because this is a matter of restoring rights to Canadians, not inventing new rights and not expanding a class of people. It is a matter of fairness and justice, and I lament the fact that the quite consistent efforts with real integrity from the member for Vancouver East have been thwarted here this evening.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Greens, Bloc members and the Liberals. We all stood together to say that we have to do this in a non-partisan way. Let us make sure that we restore the rights of Canadians. The only party standing in the way of that right now is the Conservative Party.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, for all of the work she has been doing on this. It is incredibly disappointing to see that the actions of the Conservatives, which began before the summer, are continuing. We know that it is vital work for us to restore the rights of Canadians.

For the Conservatives, unfortunately this is a trend. They voted against provisions that would have rectified the unconstitutional second-generation cut-off amendments. They then, as my colleague mentioned, filibustered the bill for 30 hours at committee. They punted third reading debate eight times.

As the member said, actions speak so much louder than words. I wonder if the member can share her thoughts on why the Conservatives are saying one thing to families yet doing something very different in the House of Commons.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the simple answer is that the Conservatives want to mislead families. In fact, the leader of the official opposition, in a reply to family members urging them to take action to fix this injustice, said that the Conservatives supported passing Bill S-245. However, what did they do? They did everything they could to delay and obstruct its passage, to the point that they are even refusing to have the bill come before the House for a third reading debate and vote.

They are misleading Canadian families. They are pretending that they stand for justice. They are pretending that they stand for the rights of Canadians and treating all Canadians equally. They do not. It is the very opposite of what they say and who they claim they are.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments the member has shared, and I especially acknowledge the work that Don Chapman has done. I remember working for the former MP for Kitchener—Waterloo, Andrew Telegdi, and they had many conversations. I also take the point that this has been a long time coming and it is important that we get it done.

I would like to ask the member about a private member's bill, Bill S-245, which I understand was sponsored by a Conservative member, and the Conservatives' continuous approach to not see it debated or come to a vote. What I find challenging in regard to that piece of legislation, which the government bill would rectify, is that the majority of members in the House of Commons helped to expand the scope of it and the Conservatives rejected that. The Conservatives tend to believe that there should be two classes of citizens in Canada. They tend to believe that only those who think like them should have the ability to advance.

I would like to hear the member's comments on why the Conservatives did not want to see this bill go to committee so that we could debate and advance it or at least call the question.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge Don Chapman, and, of course, the family members who took the matter to court and the legal team that fought this issue so we can now have this rectified.

The Conservatives, on eight occasions, moved the debate for third reading on Bill S-245. They did it in 2023 on October 16, October 25 and November 6, and then in 2024 on January 29, February 15, March 22, April 10 and May 1. That is their record. They moved it eight times. What does that tell us? It tells us that they do not support ensuring that Canada ends the practice of having two classes of citizens.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I am pleased to rise in this chamber today to give some more context to the proposed legislation to amend Canada's Citizenship Act.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I would also like to recognize that indigenous peoples have been here since time immemorial. The contributions they have made in this country in the past, present and future have been and will continue to be significant. It is our responsibility to continue to work toward reconciliation in coordination and collaboration with indigenous people each and every day.

Being Canadian means taking steps to tackle inequality and injustice within our society. We do this not only through our words but, 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. These changes would restore citizenship to the remaining lost Canadians, individuals who either could not become citizens or lost their citizenship due to outdated legislative provisions. While previous amendments helped many, a small cohort of lost Canadians remains. The legislative amendments outlined in Bill C-71 would help lost Canadians and their descendants regain or obtain citizenship. They also address the status of descendants impacted by the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit.

The revised law would establish clear guidelines for acquiring Canadian citizenship by descent. Once this legislation is enacted, the harmful first-generation limit will no longer apply, allowing Canadian citizens born abroad to pass their citizenship to their children, provided they can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. A Canadian parent born outside of the country will be able to transfer citizenship to their child if they have 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 previous Conservative government.

Additionally, the new legislation would continue to reduce the differences between children born abroad and adopted by Canadians and those born abroad to Canadian parents. 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. Once the law is in place, the same criteria will apply to children adopted by Canadian citizens abroad. If the adoptive parent born outside Canada can show a substantial connection to Canada, the adopted child will be eligible for citizenship.

Bill C-71 would restore citizenship to those who have been wrongly excluded and would establish consistent rules for citizenship by descent going forward. These updates build on the work done by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill S-245, further refining the proposals and more comprehensively addressing the recent issues raised by the courts.

Being a Canadian citizen is a privilege that we should never take for granted. In fact, we should all advocate as strongly for our right to citizenship as the lost Canadians have done. Canadian citizenship represents more than just legal status. It embodies an ongoing commitment and responsibility.

What does it mean to be Canadian? There is no right answer to this question, and that is one of the great things about our country. Since Confederation, many diverse people have chosen Canada as their home. With the exception of indigenous peoples, every Canadian's history began with the story of a migrant. As Canadians, we have an ongoing commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples as we continue to strengthen our relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples across the country.

Another commitment we make as Canadians is to come together to build a stronger country for everyone, which is evident in many ways. Canadians spring into action to help those in need, and it is not limited to family, friends and neighbours. We know that our country's future prosperity hinges on our sense of goodwill and our continued collective efforts.

Canadians are also committed to inclusion. We choose to welcome diverse cultures, languages and beliefs, and that makes us unique. We value the experiences that have made our fellow Canadians who they are, just as we value the experiences others have. We respect the values of others as they respect ours. Celebrating our differences helps us learn from one another and better understand the challenges and opportunities that arise in our communities. In turn, we can identify new solutions to the problems we must overcome together.

Though we are diverse, there are certain ties that bind us. In addition to helping others in times of need, Canadians also work to build opportunities for success and seek to share the benefits of that success with our communities. How we become Canadian can vary greatly. As the minister said, it is important to recognize that, regardless of how one becomes a Canadian citizen, we can all agree that we value each and every Canadian equally.

Some of us are lucky enough to have been born in Canada, so we are Canadians by birth. Others are newcomers who choose Canada, and they join our communities and earn their citizenship. They are referred to as naturalized Canadians. Lastly, we have Canadian citizenship by descent, which is when individuals who are born outside of our country to a Canadian parent have their citizenship proudly passed down to them. We hold and value each of these citizens as equal and part of our diverse country.

While we all define how we are Canadians in our own way, Parliament defines who and how we become Canadian through the Citizenship Act. Our citizenship process and the rules should be fair, equal and transparent. Recently, it became clear that the act must be amended to address the 2009 legislative amendments that exclude individuals due to the first-generation limit. The Ontario Superior Court has been clear that the Harper Conservative first-generation limit is unconstitutional on both mobility and equality rights.

Bill C-71 introduces inclusive changes that would address the challenges raised by the courts. This applies in particular to those born overseas to a Canadian parent. Today, we have a choice. We can commit to addressing past wrongs, taking care of those among us who have faced injustice and inequality, being more inclusive, and sharing 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 or by choice, born in Canada or in another country, we are bound by our shared values, our mutual respect for our country and each other, and our enthusiasm to call ourselves Canadians. Canadian citizenship is a fundamental part of who we are. It unites us, opens up opportunities to us, and challenges us to live up to our values of self-knowledge, service to others, democracy, equality and inclusion.

This legislation would lead to a better Citizenship Act, benefiting not only Canadians, but also anyone who is seeking to understand what it truly means to be Canadian. By restoring citizenship to those who have been wrongfully excluded, we all stand to gain. Our country becomes stronger when we embrace diversity and acceptance.

I am thankful for the members' attention to this crucial piece of legislation.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a level of desperation in the NDP members and the Liberals that is continuing to take place. Why would the hon. member not tell Canadians about the mess that he and the government have made out of the immigration law in Canada? Why would he not tell Canadians the sad stories about how the mismanagement of immigration has caused Canadians a lot of suffering at all levels, including cost of living, housing and everything else? He should tell Canadians that story.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I gave a speech on the subject of immigration, citizenship specifically, and how to better protect the citizenship of people who rightfully deserve it. The member chose to go off topic to talk about what Conservatives always want to talk about, which is basically anything but the content before the House. I will refrain from engaging with him on that because there will be another time for that subject.

I want to highlight that, although I was born in Canada, neither of my parents were. My mother immigrated from Italy; my father immigrated from Holland. When they came to Canada, their parents brought them here because they shared the Canadian dream. They saw an opportunity to raise their children after leaving war-torn countries after World War II. I am a product of that. I am here. I was born in Canada, and I had opportunities because they chose to do that.

We need to make sure we preserve those opportunities for future Canadians, in particular for those who rightfully deserve that citizenship. That is what this piece of legislation would do. It would correct the mistakes, in particular the mistakes of Stephen Harper and that member's government from 2009, so that those people could properly get the citizenship they deserve.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, we recognize that this bill is a step in the right direction.

That being said, I would like my colleague to talk to us about the fact that, like many laws in this federal system, it is often a real headache. Although this is a first step in the right direction, should we not instead overhaul the Citizenship Act, which is so complex and such a headache? I would like my colleague to say a few words about that.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the opportunity for the member to raise other concerns she might have will come up at committee, and a discussion of it can be had there.

When I was giving my speech, I was thinking of a good friend of mine. He was born in Germany on a Canadian military base. Both his parents were Canadian. His father served in the military and was at CFB Kingston when I met him. That military base had closed in Germany. When my friend went to try to prove his identity and that he was actually a Canadian citizen, it was almost impossible for him to do so because the base that had been located in Germany no longer existed and that land was no longer considered to be Canadian soil.

There are people out there who have been impacted by the fact that they have not been able to obtain their citizenship. Legislation like this is aimed at ensuring that people who rightfully should have that citizenship do have it. The member might have other concerns. I encourage her to bring those up at committee. There will be a time and place to discuss it at that point.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible. Something that was shared with me, and I want to ask the member his thoughts on it.

We know that at least 1.48 million Canadians here and abroad are being violated by the current law. Justice Akbarali, in her June decision, talked about the estimated 170,000 women born abroad who are within the age range when people often start families being affected by this law. She talked about the impacts of this, with children becoming “stateless”. It leads “to women having to make choices between their financial health and independence...and their physical health”. It separates families and forces “children to stay in places [where they] are unsafe”. Justice Akbarali goes on from there.

What are the member's thoughts on these comments?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, my thoughts are that the Conservatives should not have opposed the unanimous consent motion presented moments ago to push this along instead of addressing the concerns of the individuals that this member mentioned and the injustices that have been done. We should get this through as quickly as possible.

We used to have this supply and confidence agreement that allowed us to do that kind of stuff with the NDP. We do not have that anymore. Perhaps there would have been an opportunity had we had that. Nonetheless, I really hope that we can get this through quickly so that it can become law and that individuals can benefit from it.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

I am honoured to be here to discuss some highly necessary amendments to the Citizenship Act.

Bill C-71 continues to clean up the messes created during the Harper administration, particularly with respect to immigration and lost Canadians. We need to do the right thing. We need to move this piece of legislation forward. It is the right thing to do. It is great to see it receiving support from the other parties, but unfortunately it is not receiving support from the party that wishes to not work constructively for Canadians.

This proposal would not be possible without the groundwork laid by the immigration committee during its study on Senate public bill, Bill S-245. I would like to offer my sincere gratitude and appreciation to the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois members for their efforts to help lost Canadians. Citizenship in Canada is precious. It can be attained by birth, by naturalization or by descent. Citizenship by descent in Canada is what we are here to focus on today.

However, no matter how they obtained Canadian citizenship, all Canadians should be treated equally in a country as proud of its diversity as ours is. We need to amend the Citizenship Act to address the fact that specific groups have been excluded from citizenship.

We also need to settle the constitutional matters raised by the courts regarding citizenship by descent, in particular for people born abroad to a Canadian parent. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the first-generation limit imposed by Mr. Harper was unconstitutional on equality and mobility rights.

It was a Conservative piece of legislation that was deemed by the courts to be unconstitutional.

As the hon. minister said, to understand the scope of the problem, we need to know the history and evolution of the Citizenship Act and the facts surrounding the group known as the “lost Canadians”.

We know that cohort is a limited one. The majority of lost Canadian cases were remedied by the legislative amendments that were implemented in 2009 and 2015, with approximately 20,000 people acquiring citizenship or having their citizenship restored through these amendments. There is a specific cohort that met specific criteria. This cohort of lost Canadians was born abroad between 1977 and 1981, in the second or further generations, and had already turned 28. They lost their citizenship prior to the passing of the 2009 legislation and the repeal of this age requirement.

When I was first elected, I had a couple from southern Italy, who now reside here in Canada, come visit my office. This situation applied specifically to them. The mother was a Canadian citizen born in Italy who obtained Canadian citizenship through her father. The wife was born in Italy. The mother could not pass down Canadian citizenship to her daughter because of the legislative changes brought in by the prior Conservative government. Again, we are still cleaning up Conservative messes nine years later.

The goal of the Senate public bill, Bill S-245, brought forward by Senator Martin from British Columbia, as well as the amendments adopted by the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, was to restore the citizenship of these lost Canadians affected by the age 28 rule. When Bill S-245 was studied by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration as amended, it aimed not only to restore citizenship to this group, but also to allow some people born in the second or further generations to be deemed Canadian citizens by descent. Their citizenship status hinged on the condition that their Canadian parent could demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. In other words, if that Canadian parent had been in Canada for three years before the child was born, consecutively or otherwise, their citizenship could be passed on to that child, even beyond the first generation abroad.

Bill S-245, as amended by committee members, also proposed to ensure that children born abroad and adopted by a Canadian beyond the first generation can also access citizenship. In those cases, there is a different process for adopted children, but the end result remains the same. They are Canadian.

The Ontario Superior Court decision that deemed the Harper Conservative first-generation limit on citizenship by descent unconstitutional came down after the committee began its review of Bill S-245. Given that the first-generation limit is a key element of our citizenship by descent framework, Parliament must establish a new framework to manage the issues raised by the court and ensure fairness in the Canadian Citizenship Act, something the opposition party does not really understand.

Bill S-245 has now gone through a number of changes and improvements based on feedback from experts and those directly impacted. Therefore, we have adopted some of the committee's suggested changes in Bill C-71 to ensure the needs of Canadians are accurately reflected. Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act in 2024, would restore citizenship to the remaining lost Canadians and their descendants, doing the right thing for all Canadians. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

Similar to the proposals in Bill S-245, Bill C-71 would expand access to citizenship by descent with a more broad approach and a focus on inclusivity. These revisions would address the issues raised by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding the previous Harper Conservatives' legislative amendments, including the first-generation limit.

As with previous changes to the Citizenship Act that helped other lost Canadians, this bill will automatically confer citizenship on some individuals born abroad who may not wish to be citizens for a variety of reasons, such as employment opportunities abroad that do not permit dual citizenship. There are also countries where being a citizen of another country can present legal and professional barriers and restrict access to benefits.

To remedy this situation, the proposed legislation will provide access to the same simplified renunciation process as the one established in 2009. Specifically, this simplified process will require that individuals not reside in Canada, that their renunciation of Canadian citizenship not render them stateless, and that they apply for renunciation of their citizenship through our departmental process.

These changes to the Citizenship Act will ensure that any child born abroad to a Canadian parent before the passage of the bill will be a Canadian citizen from birth. The amendments will also ensure that, in the future, children born abroad to a Canadian parent who was also born abroad will also be granted citizenship at birth if their Canadian parent has a substantial connection to Canada.

I invite members to share their thoughts on the proposal before us today. I too hope that, with the support of all parties, this bill will move forward quickly and effectively.

We are talking about Bill C-71, but more importantly we are talking about Canadian citizenship, what it means and how to obtain Canadian citizenship. I know, in speaking to the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge this summer every week and at events, we have our issues and challenges in Canada. We do, but one thing I know is that I live in one of the best cities in Canada, if not the best. I know I live in a beautiful province, Ontario, and I know Canada is the best country in the world. I know it will be. We have a bright future ahead of us with this fact of being able to attain Canadian citizenship.

Much like the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said, my parents were selected to come to Canada as immigrants in the late 1950s and 1960s. They won the lottery. I often joke around that it would be nice to win the lottery, but I won the lottery, because my parents were chosen to come to this beautiful country where I now reside with my brothers and my family all over Canada. It is where my wife and I are raising our three children, two of them who play competitive soccer and whom I spend a lot of time driving around, and a little one in day care. They won the jackpot that their grandparents on both sides got chosen to come to Canada and are now Canadian citizens.

That is a place we are here for. That is our country. It is the best country in the world. Anybody who says otherwise is just being condescending and trying to do it for political gain, and it is really such a shame.

I look forward to questions and comments. I am really happy to be back here to do the good work that we were elected to do as members of Parliament, all 338 of us. We are here for one thing, to make the best country in the world even better.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, besides ballooning the size of the immigration department with negative results and making a mess out of the department itself, what would the hon. member propose? How much stress would Bill C-71 put on the department in addition to the stress that it has right now?

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

Madam Speaker, it is good to see the member for Edmonton Manning. I know he and his family were newcomers to Canada. He has two wonderful sons who have bright futures in this country. I know they have had a great education, are working and are doing very well. That is what Canada is about, so let us give it a thumbs-up.

In terms of the immigration department, we know the hard-working people at IRCC are processing millions of visas, millions of applications, because people want to move to this country. People love this country. They know that this country, despite the challenges that we face globally, is the best country in the world to come to and to establish a family. We have gone through some hard times. We have gone through global inflation. We went through COVID. There are wars that we have not seen for 80 years happening in the world.

However, I never bet against Canada. The official opposition may, but I will never do that. Canada is the best country in the world.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to my Conservative colleague's questions for a while now. I get the impression that he wants to use all of our time or impose time for debate to discuss all the problems that exist with the management of immigration, when this is really about one case of injustice that is simple to resolve.

However, he opposes a motion that would speed things up. He is putting on his dog-and-pony show because, according to him, we absolutely must talk about everything that has been done on immigration. We in the Bloc Québécois have also criticized how the immigration file has been handled. We have asked many questions in question period.

Why confuse the debates? Why not focus on the substance of the current bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for what he said.

We are here to do the good work of Canadians, wherever they live in this country. This injustice with lost Canadians was caused by a Conservative government under Mr. Harper. He put in measures that were deemed unconstitutional, whether it was for immigration, for justice measures and so forth.

That is what happened. They go to the courts. The Conservatives do not like the courts. They do not like the court system and the judges. I hear some heckling on the other side. Again—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

If hon. members have questions and comments, they should wait until the appropriate time.

If the hon. member could wrap it up, we could get to another question.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois, who represents one of the ridings in Quebec, that we need to fix this injustice for Canadians across this country. What has happened is wrong. We know it.

Canadians born abroad to Canadian citizens are Canadians. They should have always been treated as such. There are measures here for substantial tests to make it fair and right.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention in the House this afternoon.

I think we could all agree that this very late in coming. I know that my colleague from Vancouver East has done incredible work on this file to push the government to do this and to call out the government for why this has taken so long.

I do have a specific question for the member. The commencement provision of Bill C-71 confers discretion on the Governor in Council, so the cabinet, to determine when the act will come into force. It does not specify the timeline or a deadline for when this needs to happen.

I wonder if the member could talk a little about the intention of the government, and whether we can be certain that the government will bring this forward and will bring this into effect upon royal assent.

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

Madam Speaker, we need to bring this piece of legislation forward. We need to get it passed with all-party support. The Conservatives should know this is the right thing to do to correct an injustice. I agree with the hon. member that we need to get royal assent and move this into force as soon as possible to ensure there are no injustices to Canadians, specifically with regards to their citizenship.

We are very proud to be Canadian. These folks are Canadian, and they would be just as proud to get that citizenship that we are fortunate and blessed to have today.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

Like many members of this House and millions of other Canadians, I was born in another country. Canada is very much a nation of immigrants, and I am proud to be one of them. I came to this country as a young man, leaving behind a civil war that had been raging for much of my life. I came here seeking peace, stability and opportunity.

I will admit I did not know that much about Canada before moving here. It did not seem necessary to learn more about what I already knew, that Canada is a cold country with warm people, a place where newcomers are readily accepted regardless of nation of origin, race, colour or creed. What more did I need to know?

I was welcomed here with open arms. It did not take long for me to realize that Canada was a place I would be proud to call home. I found a job, got married, started a family and realized just how much this country means to me. I knew I wanted to be part of it and that my future and my family's future was here. I became a Canadian citizen in 1994. I started a business, got involved in community organizations and, eventually, was asked by the people of Edmonton Manning if I would represent them in this House. It has been an honour and a privilege to serve my country in this way.

One of the delights of being a member of Parliament is that I have been able to hear so many stories from my fellow Canadians, especially those, like myself, who came to this country to make it home. I have heard hundreds of times how people came to this country and why they chose Canada. Pledging allegiance to this nation is a serious business. In becoming a Canadian, you are saying that you want to be part of the greatest family in the world. Like marriage, becoming a citizen is a serious commitment. It is not something that should be entered into lightly for convenience sake.

As Canadians, we are all very aware of our rights. We even have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What we do not talk often about is our responsibilities as citizens. It is not only about what Canada can do for us, it is also about what we will do for Canada. Being a Canadian should mean something more than having a passport accepted everywhere in the world. Being a Canadian is a state of mind, of a joining together of different people for a common cause.

Because I know what it means to be a Canadian, I cannot support Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, 2024. To me, this legislation devalues the idea of citizenship. It is as if the Liberals want to grant citizenship to tourists. I can see the advertising slogan now, “Come spend your summers in Canada, and after 10 years we will throw in citizenship as an added bonus.” Why are those who wish to become Canadian citizens no longer expected to live here and become part of our country and society? Where is the commitment on their part to become part of the community? Does being Canadian not matter anymore?

In 2006, the Canadian government spent $94 million evacuating 15,000 Canadians from a conflict in Lebanon, my home country. Many of those were people who had the benefit of Canadian citizenship with minimal connection to Canada. Once things died down, they went right back to the country that they thought of as their first home. They were “Canadians of convenience”. That is why the Harper government amended the Citizenship Act to restrict the transmission of Canadian citizenship to only one generation born outside of Canada. It does not seem right to me or to most Canadians that citizenship should be granted to generations of people with no ties to Canada.

Perhaps it is time to tighten our citizenship rules, not weaken them. We do not need more Canadians of convenience, people who hold Canadian citizenship but live abroad and do not participate in Canadian society.

The legislation is intended to address concerns raised by the Ontario Superior Court, which ruled that the first-generation cut-off rule in the Citizenship Act was unconstitutional. However, Bill C-71 is a hastily written, ill-conceived proposal that needs a lot of work to make it acceptable to Canadians. Instead of fixing the problem, the bill would weaken the rules. Under this act, the bill introduces a substantial connection test; for parents to pass on citizenship to children born abroad, the parents must demonstrate that they were physically present in Canada for 1,095 cumulative days at any point in their lives. This rule applies to those who are Canadian-born, those who are naturalized Canadians and those who were born abroad.

I do not know what members think of as “substantial”, but being present in Canada for a thousand or so cumulative days does not seem to me to be much of a connection. If people live elsewhere but spend summer vacations in Canada, it would not take that long to reach the required number of days. I can see that this could be a part of a new tourist industry. Maybe I am biased, but I think that experiencing a couple of Edmonton winters should be a requirement for anyone wishing to become a Canadian citizen. After all, one of the things that bind us together as Canadians is the shared experience of cold weather. Certainly, without amendment, the bill would increase the stress on the civil service. Somehow, someone will be tasked with checking that the citizenship applicant has really spent 1,095 cumulative days in Canada. What burden of proof would be required?

When I became a Canadian, I did so knowing that I would give my all to this country. I understood that Canadian citizenship was a privilege, not a right, and that it was something offered to those who understood what it meant to be Canadian, who accepted Canadian values and who wanted to work together with other Canadians to make our society even greater. Canada is not my backup plan; it is my only plan. I know how important Canadian citizenship is. However, I do not see that importance reflected in Bill C-71.

Both the Liberal Party and the NDP want to play a game. All of a sudden, after they made such a mess of the immigration rules and laws in Canada, they are starting another chapter to make a bigger mess, adding more stress to a failing department and a failing immigration system. Bill C-71 would not respond to that; it would add to the disaster. I will not vote for it.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that Bill C-71 is the right thing to do. The bill would correct an injustice that was caused by the prior Harper government, when the courts ruled that the law in place at the time was unconstitutional. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled it unconstitutional. This is the right thing to do to correct an injustice. It is about fairness.

I have much respect for the hon. member for Edmonton Manning. Why would he not support a piece of legislation that would correct an injustice?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I already listed many points as to why I do not support Bill C-71. I am not interested in a political game with the Liberals and the NDP.

There are many other Canadians the government needs to speak to. The government should hit the road, talk to people and knock on doors. The first thing that will come out is how disastrous the immigration system has become in Canada and why Canadians need it fixed, rather than having an additional disaster added to it.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to the last comment that my Conservative colleague made about how Canada's immigration system is a mess and how it is failing in so many ways. I completely agree with him on that. However, Bill C-71 does not deal with the entire immigration system. That is not what we have here. The bill seeks to correct an injustice, which affects women and people who work abroad for the government in particular. That is what Bill C-71 seeks to correct.

The Conservatives are filibustering. They did the same thing with the Senate bill on this topic. They are filibustering to prevent Bill C-71 from being passed immediately.

Is the fact that the bill targets legislation that was passed under Stephen Harper's Conservative government the real reason the Conservatives are against it?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am also surprised by the Bloc Québécois. I am not sure what there is for them in Bill C-71. As I said, the bill is ill-conceived and badly written. There is no evidence to support their argument. Therefore, I am surprised.

I will throw the question back to them: Why will they be supporting the bill?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that my colleague's speech was deeply disappointing. I was in his riding quite a lot this summer. I spoke to a number of his constituents, a number of people who put him in his position. They are absolutely appalled by his failure to speak up for Lebanese Canadians and Palestinian Canadians about the genocide that is happening in Gaza.

More importantly, when he stands in this place and talks about Canadians of convenience, does he feel that he is the one who gets to choose who is a Canadian and who is not?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, for one thing, I deal with my community and I have the backing of my community. I do not need the NDP to go and knock on my doors to tell me what to do. Their time would be better spent elsewhere.

The other thing is that I am not the one who is trying to impose anything on Canadians. If anybody is doing that, it is the Liberal and NDP members; throughout the last two years, they have made a disaster of immigration law in Canada. They should be ashamed. They should know what to ask people before they even make such suggestions.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning says he wants Canadians who believe in Canadian values. Certainly one of those is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; this is why the courts ruled that the cut-off rule for second-generation Canadians was unconstitutional.

How does the hon. member imagine that Canadians of convenience so cleverly plan ahead to choose their parents so that they can claim Canadian citizenship?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a much bigger question. That is a much bigger problem that she has raised right now. Again, there was nothing that I suggested in my speech that reflected on anything other than that allegiance to Canada is the right thing to have.

To be Canadian is to live as Canadians live, to feel what Canadians feel and to be back in this country in every way, not just to have the convenience of having a passport to travel anywhere in the world. That is the argument. It is a valid argument, and many Canadians will respond to that in a positive way, as we suggested and as I am suggesting today.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, Bill C-71, seeks to amend the Citizenship Act to do three things. First, for children not born in Canada but adopted by Canadian parents, it would ensure that they are treated as Canadian-born citizens for the purposes of passing on citizenship if they have children abroad in the future. This is something I support. Second, it would restore citizenship for individuals who lost it due to non-application for retention or rejection under section 8 of the former Citizenship Act. Again, this is something I support. Third, and most important, the bill would abolish the first-generation limit for Canadian citizenship by descent, established in 2009, and replace it with a substantial connection requirement that would allow a foreign-born Canadian citizen to pass down their citizenship to their children and grandchildren born abroad as long as they have spent at least 1,095 days in Canada cumulatively. I have concerns with this portion of the bill that I will outline here today.

The first issue relates to birth tourism, a hot-button issue in British Columbia for many years. Birth tourism has long been an issue in Canada, and the bill would leave the door open to the practice's continuing long into the future. In fact, it would encourage it. For those who do not know, birth tourism is the practice of travelling to another country for the purpose of giving birth there. This is generally done to obtain citizenship for the child, taking advantage of birthright citizenship laws.

In Canada, there are three pathways to citizenship. The first is jus sanguinis, or “right of blood”; in other words, it is being born to a Canadian parent. The second is naturalization, which is the process of immigrating and obtaining permanent residency and eventually citizenship, as my colleague alluded to previously. The third is jus soli, or “right of soil”; in other words, it is being born on Canadian soil.

A 2023 article in the National Post discussed jus soli, highlighting how a single hospital in Richmond, B.C., had 502 non-resident births in 2019. Across Canada, 4,400 non-resident births took place in 2019, which is more than triple the number from 2010. In 2023, the first baby born in Vancouver was born to a birth tourist. The mother even told local reporters that she had made her first-ever trip to Canada specifically to secure a Canadian passport for her daughter. A 2020 CBC article titled “‘All about the money’: How women travelling to Canada to give birth could strain the health-care system” highlighted that Canada is in a small minority of fewer than three dozen countries that grant citizenship based on a baby's birthplace, regardless of the parents' nationality or status. The article noted that a high concentration of non-resident patients giving birth in Canada “has led to compromised care for local mothers-to-be and struggles for nursing staff”.

Another article from 2023 noted that, while air travel restrictions during the pandemic slowed down the trend, numbers have now started to increase again. It highlighted that, of 102 non-resident women who were surveyed after giving birth in Canada between July 2019 and November 2020, 77% cited birthright citizenship as their primary reason for giving birth in Canada. It is very clear that this pathway to citizenship is being abused; this program will only see the numbers increase as the Liberals reduce security checks for visitor visas as well. Thousands of children each year are born in Canada and leave with the full rights and privileges granted to any other Canadian; should they choose to come back to Canada at any time in the future, they will have access to Canada's health care and generous social security benefits without being required to pay any taxes before they arrive.

Right now, Canadians are paying more taxes while getting less. How is it fair to Canadian taxpayers? Even Liberals have recognized that this is a big issue and called for change. In 2018, the former Liberal MP for Steveston—Richmond East, Joe Peschisolido, presented petition e-1527, which called on the government to address birth tourism, citing its exploitation of Canada's generous public health care and social security system and violation of Canada's sense of fairness.

I would be remiss if I did not note that, in 2019, when the first-generation limit was brought in, Liberals even voted in favour of it at third reading in the House of Commons.

How is it just that a birth tourism baby would be able to pass citizenship on to their grandchildren under the proposed law? That is the big question today. Citizenship would be passed on to the grandchildren of Canadians born here solely for the purposes of obtaining citizenship. For my constituents, that is not just.

The second issue I have to raise respecting the bill is the obvious ramifications of eliminating the first-generation limit, namely the capacity of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to meet its current obligations on top of the additional files the law would inevitably create if it is passed.

Earlier today in the minister's remarks and in response to questions from the member for Calgary Shepard, the minister was not able to say the number of people who would be impacted by the law. That is irresponsible. The proposed legislation could lead to tens of thousands of additional files to process, leading to even more backlogs in our strained immigration department.

In the Ontario superior court ruling that led to the legislation proposed here today, the court cited a 50% error rate even among the samples that were cited during the court proceedings. We already have seen the effects of an overcrowded immigration system. In fact, we are living them today. Checks are being missed, and dangerous people have been allowed into our country due to a lack of due diligence and effectiveness by officials.

Just over a year ago, Hardeep Singh Nijjar was murdered outside a gurdwara in Surrey. It was revealed that his alleged murderers were in Canada on student visas. In just the last months, the RCMP has foiled multiple terror plots by people who had recently come to Canada. In the spring, RCMP officers foiled a plot by a 62-year-old Canadian citizen who had been filmed taking part in a beheading on behalf of ISIS in 2015, which was not found before he was granted citizenship. Then, over the summer, we learned of the arrest of a 20-year-old Pakistani citizen who obtained residency in Canada and who was planning to commit a massive attack in New York around the anniversary of Hamas's barbaric attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. His plan was to kill as many Jews as possible.

With IRCC already failing to ensure that dangerous people are not granted visas, PR or citizenship, how can we trust it will be able to effectively track the three-year significant connection clause for potentially tens of thousands of new applicants on top of our already overburdened system?

Additionally, the bill would not require individuals granted citizenship to undergo criminal background checks, which would pose even more security risks and undermines Canada's standards for who can become a Canadian citizen.

The third issue I would like to raise today relates to the Supreme Court and the lower court in Ontario. When it comes to something as important as the granting of Canadian citizenship, I believe this decision should have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada and not a provincial court judge in Ontario.

If I had more time today, I would also raise points on the financial implications of the bill and the effects it could have on our democracy and voters abroad in future elections. Finally, on the financial implications as well, the government has not been able to provide any estimates in respect to the costs the bill would have on Canadians.

As was referenced in the House already multiple times today, the former Conservative government brought forward a first-generation limit in response to the crisis in Lebanon in 2006. It cost Canadian taxpayers over $94 million. As my colleague from Edmonton outlined, many of those people left Canada after they used our consular services and generous supports that Canada used to protect them.

The question before us today is whether we really want to create a new wave of Canadians of convenience.

In closing, I do not believe it is a good idea to extend citizenship to the second generation, born abroad, for the reasons I have been able to briefly outline.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether the member can expand upon his thoughts in regard to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision. The Conservatives have taken the approach that they would have appealed that decision. Would the Conservatives have agreed if the higher court had reinforced that particular ruling, or would they have potentially given their opposition to it and used a notwithstanding clause?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that I believe that our citizenship is sacred. It is something all of us, especially in this room, have a responsibility to uphold and to dignify, and I believe that a question of such importance, namely who is able to be granted Canadian citizenship, should not be determined by an Ontario Superior Court of Justice judge. I believe it would have been in the interest of Canada and the Government of Canada to appeal that decision to higher courts, so ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada could have made a decision on jus soli and its implications moving forward.

That said, I will not answer a hypothetical question about what the Supreme Court could or could not have done.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, what my colleague said in his speech is exactly what I was talking about. It does a lot, but it does not address the main issue.

Let me give an example. A Quebec couple goes to work abroad for the Quebec government. They have a child. They come back. That child spends his whole life in Quebec and is therefore a Canadian citizen. When that child becomes an adult, he himself goes to work abroad. He has a child, but that child will not automatically have Canadian citizenship.

Does my colleague think that is acceptable?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, right now the Bloc Québécois members have a serious determination to make: Do they stand with the Liberals in centralizing more power in Ottawa and removing the powers of citizenship under Quebec's rules? I do not believe that the 1,095 cumulative days is a good test for determining citizenship.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Something that has come up frequently is talking about this court case. What I understand is that it is a lower court decision. What really interests me is that the Liberals talk about the decision and ask why it should have been appealed. I will remind the Liberals here that there was a decision of a year or two ago from a court of appeal that they did not like because it was about oil and gas. That very day, the Prime Minister marched in here and said they would be appealing, because it fit his narrative.

I wonder what the member has to say, when the Liberals seem to talk out of both sides of their mouth about whether things should be appealed or not appealed, like this.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will admit I am not an expert on constitutional law like my colleague from Kamloops is, but I do know, like every other Canadian, that intuitively our citizenship is something that is sacred. It is something that needs to be upheld, and a lower court decision should not be the determining factor on a matter of such importance as determining our citizenship. I will note again that the Liberals, on February 15, 2008, voted to eliminate the second-generation provision that is being debated here today, and I think the Liberals back then made a right decision. I call upon the Liberals to listen to their constituents and uphold the citizenship law as it is today with respect to the first-generation limit.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity on a couple of occasions to ask Conservatives what their actual position is with respect to the notwithstanding clause. At the end of the day, Canadians need to be very much aware that the Conservative Party has demonstrated that it really does not have a problem resourcing the notwithstanding clause if the need is there.

If we listen to what the Conservatives are saying about this particular piece of legislation and look at what they have done with regard to a so-called Conservative-friendly Senate bill that was brought in, we begin to believe that they are diametrically opposed to what the legislation would do. We all need to be concerned about that because, at the end of the day, through legislation and the manner in which they vote, they start to show their cards whether they like it or not. People will start to get a sense of what the Conservative Party stands for.

We know that the Conservative Party does not have reservations about using the notwithstanding clause. I asked the question directly to the member. He said it was hypothetical and he was not going to answer the question. That kind of pushed it to the side, maybe a little too quickly, because I do think it is a very important point. When we talk about citizenship and the first generation, the second generation and what was done back then, we have to put it in the perspective of Canadians and what it is that Canadians do abroad.

I had the honour of serving in the Canadian Forces for a few years, and through that process I got to know a lot of people, whether it was veterans or current members at the time. A lot of members of the force spend a great deal of time outside of Canada, and while outside Canada, they often have a child. That child might ultimately come back to Canada for a relatively short period of time, maybe for a posting or education, and then have to leave Canada again, and they find themselves in the situation where the Conservative Party has made the decision that the serving member does not necessarily deserve the right to have his or her children recognized for Canadian citizenship, depending on the situation. The same principles—

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is not debate. The citizenship law, as the member is referring to, does not apply to Canadian Forces members.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member is trying to elaborate on the hon. member's speech and on policy, and he can do that during debate.

There is another point of order by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate you, but I am very concerned that the member is trying to undermine legitimate questions that are being asked of his rather ridiculous speech.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I again want to remind members that if they want to contribute to the discussion, they should wait until questions and comments. These are not points of order; they are more points of debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my comments are part of the actual debate. I can tell the member who stood up on a point of order, calling into question my statement on the legitimate concerns people have with respect to that second generation limit and beyond, that there are many Canadians who have all sorts of reasons and rationales they can use that might put them into a position where the law that was passed back in 2009 by Stephen Harper ultimately has compromised them. What is being lost in a lot of the discussion, especially coming from the Conservative Party, is that this legislation would have a very profound, positive impact for many people who believe, as they should, that they are Canadian.

The Conservatives are saying no to that. They will come up with a rationale or an excuse to attempt to justify their attitudes toward it, but I would suggest that there is a fundamental flaw in their thinking, which is that the law passed by Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party back in 2009 has a fundamental flaw. It is called the Constitution. The Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights clearly demonstrated, through the Superior Court in the province of Ontario, that the law, as it was passed by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, was in violation of the Constitution. That decision was made toward the end of 2023.

If we were to rewind a bit, we would find that there was a wonderful opportunity to address the issue in the form of a piece of legislation from the Senate that was brought forward dealing with the issue of citizenship. The Conservative Party at the time saw the merit of the legislation to the degree that it was prepared to bring the legislation through the House of Commons on behalf of the Senate. Things were going relatively well until it got to the committee stage.

I was not at the committee, but I am told there were 29 or 30-plus hours, and I am not 100% sure, where the Conservatives filibustered the debate. The Conservative Party felt that the changes the opposition and government members were making to the legislation made it unacceptable, even though the Superior Court in the province of Ontario said that it was in violation of the Constitution.

The bill passed at committee stage, and because it was a Conservative initiative, it means the Conservative Party has to allow it to come up for debate at report stage and at third reading here in the House of Commons. We all know there is a calendar that is set and that allows for private members' business. I am talking about Bill S-245 in particular. It would ultimately be guaranteed, virtually, because it was high enough in precedence to get that debate. Now, the Conservative Party has made the decision that it does not want that debate because when that debate starts, it is only for two hours, which includes at report stage. The brain thrust from the Conservative Party, the House leadership team that believes in things like using the notwithstanding clause to take away rights, is that it does not want to bring it forward, so it will defer it to another piece of legislation.

I do not know how many times the Conservatives have done that. That now leaves the government in a very difficult position because that superior court decision actually allows us to make the changes. I believe it is until the end of the year, but do not quote me on it. We need to see the legislation get through. If it does not get through, that would cause some other issues.

I am actually encouraged that an NDP member stood in her place and tried, through unanimous support, to get it through the House. That was not the first time. When we had the agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, there was an attempt to get it through virtually all steps, and I thought that was a good idea.

Now we are saying, at the very least, let us get it to the committee. In fact, some Conservatives will say that it just needs some amendments, and maybe they could support it if there were some amendments.

The problem is that the Conservative Party knows, and I know, the only way this legislation is going to get past second reading and get to committee stage, based on the discussions I have witnessed and the history of the Conservative Party playing a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons, is if the Bloc or the New Democrats decide to support a government initiative to time allocate the legislation.

If that does not happen, I do not believe for a moment that the Conservatives are going to allow it to go to committee. They have already made the determination that this is bad legislation. The reason I used that example is so that people following the debate would have a better appreciation of why it is so important that the legislation actually pass.

We are talking about real people not being recognized and given their Canadian citizenship. That is a very real issue. When this legislation passes and receives royal assent, people are going to be given their Canadian citizenship. We all know how important that is to Canadians.

It has been pointed out that there are three ways in which one becomes a citizen of Canada. The easiest and most obvious way is via birth. Some families have been here for generations. My roots go back to the province of Quebec and then over to Manitoba. Some went into other prairie provinces. We have been here for generations. I am a citizen because I was born here.

I often meet families, relatively young couples who might have two or three children. One of the children was actually born here in Canada, and some of them are still in the process of being recognized as permanent residents. That is something the Conservatives seem to have issues with. Some are going through the Manitoba nominee program, and will ultimately become citizens of Canada after going through a rigorous procedure. They have a sense of pride when they are able to say, “My child, this one here, was actually born here in Canada.”

Whether it is that child who was born here or someone like myself, having been born here, we are all equal. That is the way I perceive it. People might want to try to distort that in different ways for different political purposes, but that is one way to become a citizen.

Another way to become a citizen is through naturalization. Naturalization is through one of the many different streams of immigration. Some provinces, including mine, would have been challenged for many years, in terms of a growing population, if it was not for immigration and those individuals who ultimately become citizens of Canada, and most of them do.

Every one of us is afforded the opportunity to go witness, first-hand, swearing-in ceremonies. If one has not taken that opportunity, I would highly encourage all members to participate in a citizenship court. There is a sense of pride when 50, 60 or 70 people are sitting in a room and have all met the requirements to become a Canadian citizen and then are sworn in as Canadian citizens. I have had the opportunity to speak at many of these over the years. I have had opportunities, as I would trust that most have, to extend personal congratulations and to witness tears in eyes because of that step.

This is where I tend to differ. There was a Conservative member who talked about being Canadian. For immigrants coming to Canada, becoming permanent residents and then becoming citizens, the expectation is not that one forgets about one's homeland. Canada is the greatest country in the world to live in and to call home, but it does not mean that we have to forget about the home in which we were born. Ultimately, I would suggest that some of Canada's greatest assets are our diversity and our ability to build upon our world community and how we use that as a way to expand our economy and to showcase our diversity to the world, in terms of how people can get along.

I like to think that we are not a giant melting pot, as some Conservatives might like to try to portray, but rather, take a look in terms of the values and the norms and mores of our society. That is the second way.

The third way is by dealing with the whole idea of descendants and, specifically, the legislation recognizing what I made reference to at the beginning, and that was dealing with the first-generation issue established back in 2009.

Some Conservatives will say that Liberals voted for it at that time. I have heard that on a number of occasions. I can assure the member that I personally did not vote for it at that time, but that does not really matter because I understand the context in which that vote took place. It has been explained here before. It was a holistic piece of legislation coming forward, and that was where the mistake was ultimately made. We had the prime minister of the day threatening to take away the legislation unless it ultimately was able to go through in a more timely fashion without, necessarily, amendments. We know that Stephen Harper was not fond of amendments. I know that first-hand, in many different ways.

This legislation deals with that issue along with something the previous speaker recognizes, something he supports, and that is the issue of adoption. In the House, we often have discussions where we talk about adoptions. We try to give the impression, I would like to think, in a very honest and genuine way, that an adoption is just as important as a natural delivery or a biological child. The way we can enhance that through the Citizenship Act is a very strong positive. I would think that all members would support that.

Taking a look at the legislation itself, and even taking a look at the background of the legislation, I would have thought, as some members have already pointed out, that there would not be an issue with it passing the House of Commons. Unfortunately, based on the debates that we are hearing from members of the official opposition today, they are more preoccupied with the Conservative Party of Canada and their leader than with Canadians as a whole. As a direct result, we find ourselves in a position where there are going to be many people in different regions who are not going to be able to get their citizenship.

There is going to be another speaker after I sit down, and I believe it is going to be a Conservative member. I would like to think, at the very least, that the Conservative member could give a very clear indication that the Conservative Party is not going to require other opposition members and the government to bring in time allocation to see this legislation pass and at least allow it to go to committee.

The Conservatives say that they have amendments or changes. When Senate Bill S-245 was at committee, there were changes that were made to it. The minister has been clear in being open-minded to possible changes. If the Conservative Party has changes, then let us get the bill to committee to allow us to see what the Conservative Party has in mind or what its plan actually is.

We know that members of the Bloc and the New Democratic Party are supporting the legislation, and I appreciate that fact. However, we have a couple of days. Let us see what happens with the legislation. Maybe the Conservatives will have a conversion of sorts and see the value in passing this legislation on to committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us recall, when we talk about citizenship, that we have a Prime Minister who referred to Canada as a “postnational state”. That is, he does not believe in this concept of there being a particular Canadian identity, describing this as a postnational state. Then we have this member, who is saying that these people believe they are Canadians. First, the Liberals have no definition of what it means to be a Canadian, and then they would like to ensure that citizenship can be afforded to anyone on the basis of, it seems, their seeing themselves as being Canadian.

I would say to the member that there is more to being Canadian than simply wishing to self-identify as a Canadian. Would the member acknowledge that there is a fundamental problem with his invocation of this argument that these are people who believe they are Canadians, therefore they are entitled to citizenship? Does he not acknowledge how flawed and dangerous that way of thinking is?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that there are individuals out there who can better explain to the member opposite than I could. There are individuals such as Don Chapman, who has been cited, and even glorified, by some. However, there are people out there who would be able to explain to the member opposite that, in fact, there are many people who should be considered citizens of Canada. I would like to think that, if that member met with and talked to some of those people, he might have a different opinion than he currently has.

I can appreciate that the member has likely been instructed to come into the House and make an argument as to why Bill C-71 should not pass. I find that unfortunate. What is next? Is the Conservative Party going to say, “Well, we are going to put limits”? Will it say, “We are going to increase the number of days required to become a Canadian citizen from a permanent residency”? Can we anticipate that this would happen?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back here this fall to take part in the dynamics of the House of Commons. It is going to be a very exciting season.

Earlier, my colleague from Montcalm asked an excellent question to which he did not get an answer. I would like our colleague from Winnipeg North to tell us more about it. The member for Montcalm gave the example of a Canadian couple whose child moves abroad for work. That child lives in a foreign country and has children of their own. The question my colleague from Montcalm asked was very simple, but the Conservative member did not deign to answer it, perhaps out of ignorance or a lack of interest in the issue. I would like to hear what our colleague from Winnipeg North has to say about it.

Should the child of this Canadian living abroad have to fight to have their Canadian citizenship recognized, or should they be granted citizenship from the start?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure, but from what I heard through translation, the type of child being referred to would be a citizen of Canada. It is as simple as that.

We are talking about that second-generation individual, which is where it becomes somewhat problematic according to the Conservative formula. Someone can be a Canadian or a diplomat or whatever, and people move out of Canada for a wide spectrum of reasons, and when they are outside of Canada, they do have children. It is those children who could potentially be at risk. This is where, in good part, a lot of the concern arises. I would really encourage members of the Conservative Party in particular to become more familiar with the types of individuals we are talking about because hopefully it would change the members' attitudes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my concern is that, for people listening to this debate, the image that the Conservatives are giving out is that, well, if someone just decides they are Canadian, then they can become a Canadian citizen. That is absolutely ridiculous. There is also the image that people are flying here, giving birth and then getting their grandchildren Canadian citizenship, which is also completely false. It is a dangerous game because we are seeing rising racist hate. We see what Trump is doing in Springfield, and no, people do not come here and eat dogs.

However, it reminds me of when the Conservatives ran an election on a barbaric hotline, where people were supposed to be invited to call in on their neighbours and target them because they were Muslim or they were from other communities. Therefore, when the Conservatives say that it is not that easy and we can decide who is a Canadian, we know what that dog whistle is. It is a dog whistle to the racist base, just like Trump's racist dog whistle. It is just like in 2015 when they were saying to rat out our neighbours because those people do barbaric practices.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that there has to be some form of a significant connection to Canada, and that is something the minister himself highlighted in bringing forward the legislation.

However, when I listen to Conservative after Conservative talking about the issue, I think there is a legitimate issue to raise and that is what the Conservative policy is regarding permanent residents. Will the Conservatives give a guarantee that they would not increase the number of days required for a permanent resident to ultimately apply for citizenship? Based on some of the Conservatives' comments on immigration we have heard today while talking now about citizenship, I am very suspicious of Conservative far right MAGA attitudes toward immigrants. We need to push the Conservatives to come out and tell us specifically what their plans are, whether they concern citizenship, permanent residents or any other public policies, such as the environment.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member for Timmins—James Bay that Conservatives are playing games here. I would even go so far as to say they are using dog whistles. The reality is that we are seeing examples of real-life scenarios, and I gave one during my speech.

A good friend of mine was born on a military base in Germany. That military base closed. Both of his parents were Canadian citizens born in Canada. His dad was posted to Germany at this base and later on, when he went to try to prove that he was a Canadian or prove his place of birth when he was getting a passport, he had a very difficult time doing that because this base no longer existed and he was unable to get that.

What we are trying to do in this legislation is to close some of these loopholes that make it very difficult for people who rightfully should have that citizenship while the Conservatives want to suggest that there is something else going on, as though there is some kind of nefarious activity. That is what they do best. They do this all the time. I am curious as to whether the member can expand in his comments on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to highlight in my comments where the Conservative Party really is with respect to the legislation. It has become abundantly clear that Conservatives do not support the legislation. The moment I sit down and the Conservatives stand up to speak on the legislation, it will be reaffirmed. This means that, in order for the government to ultimately pass it, we are going to have to look to the New Democrats and the Bloc and possibly at bringing in time allocation. I hope I am wrong.

Maybe the next person speaking will reassure me not to worry, that two days of debate is plenty, and that we will see it go to committee, where the Conservatives can look at it, have experts in, maybe get some of those questions answered and listen to real people who are experiencing what my friend just talked about. That is why I say we should get the legislation to committee. It is the very least we can do. Often the Conservatives, including this morning, say that we should get legislation to committee so we can get public input on it. The same principle might apply here.

[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.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member, and to be completely honest, it was one of the few times today that I heard a reason for not supporting the legislation. The member did not actually say he is not completely supporting it. He said he had concerns with some parts of it.

My question to him is this: Why not let this go to committee where he can raise those concerns and Conservative members can raise those concerns? We can have a discussion about it and then if it comes back to the House and he still does not like it, he can vote against it.

Instead, what is going to happen, and it is pretty clear and obvious to everybody else in the room, is that Conservatives will just drag this on and on, preventing even that opportunity for him to raise his concerns, which he legitimately laid out on the floor here, in committee. Why not have those discussions in committee where he can try to get his concerns addressed?

Is it the case that perhaps there is more to it than what he is telling us and there are other reasons he would be against this?

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

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely wish I could repay some of the kind words the member said, but I do not really understand the argument he is making. We are debating this bill on the first day. My understanding is that this is the first day the bill is being debated. I am using my rights as a member, the rights that flow from my status as a member of Parliament, to make arguments about the bill, to highlight that the central change proposed by the bill is not one I agree with and to state the reasons why.

He asks why I do not just vote for it then. No. If I have made arguments that he has acknowledged are substantive and serious arguments about why the bill has significant problems, it would be fairly natural that I would vote against it. In terms of the timing of the debate, I do not know how many members want to speak. I wanted to speak. There may be others.

As he may be hinting at, yes, there are some provisions of this bill that I agree with. I agree with the adoption provisions, for example, which I would be happy to speak about more if there is an opportunity. However, the issue of the unlimited passing of citizenship on from generation to generation for people living outside of Canada is, I think, problematic.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to clarify or even qualify his thoughts.

Earlier, in a question he asked the member for Winnipeg North, he said that, in his opinion, just because someone thinks they are Canadian does not mean they are truly Canadian. Defining oneself as a Canadian does not make one a Canadian.

People often mistakenly think that sovereignists like me have a restrictive view of citizenship. I do not define myself as a Canadian or identify as such. My leader has often said that all people who live in Quebec and who define themselves as Quebeckers are de facto Quebeckers. I found it strange to hear my colleague say earlier that just because someone lives on the land and identifies as a Canadian, they are not necessarily a Canadian.

I would like him to clarify his thoughts and tell us whether he has an inclusive interpretation of Canadian citizenship.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was responding to the member for Winnipeg North, who was speaking specifically about the individuals this bill pertains to, individuals who may be the grandchildren of Canadian citizens whose family has lived outside of the country for generations. The member for Winnipeg North said these are people who think of themselves as Canadians.

My point in response to this would be that for a person thinking of themselves as Canadian, if they are not Canadian according to citizenship law, their own self-identification should not be the decisive matter. It should be the laws around citizenship that necessarily prescribe parameters.

I might wish to identify as Swiss, but I am not Swiss. I do not live in Switzerland. I do not, as it happens, even have any Swiss ancestry. It would be unreasonable to try to advance the idea that my self-identification with the nationality was the decisive point, which was what the member for Winnipeg North implied. He said that these are people who think of themselves as Canadians, and I am simply saying that is not the point.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this morning when the minister rose to speak to this legislation, he did not give a number for how many potential new Canadians would be created through the legislation. When I asked him the question, he did not have a response; he dodged it. This was a question asked to government officials back when Bill S-245 was being debated at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The question was asked repeatedly and the government could not provide an answer.

Is the member not concerned that there would be an administrative burden imposed upon the government? There could be thousands, tens of thousands or 100,000 new applicants requesting proof of citizenship documents and then passport documents, travel documents to Canada and other such services from the Government of Canada. We already have a backlog of over two million applications in different regular streams of immigration to Canada, but also for temporary visa streams to Canada. The minister was incapable of explaining. His words were that there were “logistical planning” issues.

Does the member believe this would pose a greater burden on government services? There would be a greater cost associated with it. There is no definite number for how many Canadians would be impacted. Therefore, it would be irresponsible and reckless to vote for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize our shadow minister for immigration, who does excellent work in this place, in committee and everywhere else he goes. To his point about this imposing a huge burden, of course it would. Given the huge administrative burden that would be associated with this proposal, given that it is not something we have to do, the question then is why we would do this. Why would a government put forward legislation to allow citizenship to be infinitely passed from generation to generation among those who do not live in Canada?

When we think about all of the other priorities and challenges that Canadian government resources could be invested in, the idea that we would go through this proposed process, that the government would put that forward, does not make a lot of sense to me and I think would not make a lot of sense to many other Canadians.

[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, my colleague is absolutely right that we have seen, just in general, such incompetence from the government when it comes to immigration, or such abuse of process.

I did some advocacy on a case. It was a particularly sad situation of international students who were basically victims of fraud. They were able to come into Canada because both they and the government were deceived by that fraud, and then the government proposed to deport them four or five years after the fact.

I hope I get another question from the government, in particular from the former parliamentary secretary for immigration, who seemed to be reacting in various ways to my speech but has missed the opportunity to pose a question on this matter.

[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.

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.

[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.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[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.

[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 will just say to anybody who is actually paying attention to the debate and reading the legislation, that there is a substantial connection test to ensure that people do have strong ties to Canada.

I would like to take this opportunity to do a public service announcement. We just had a Conservative member of Parliament stand up concerned that Canadians might exercise their right to vote. The Conservative history has always been to suppress the vote. If they can give Canadians a reason to stay home and not vote, they know they will do well in the polls. Former prime minister Harper had two minority governments, and then Canadians trusted him with a majority. Canadians quickly learned what Conservatives do with power. They will abuse it time and time again.

Canadians, these people, have the right. As the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled, they are Canadians, they should be Canadians, and we should encourage them to advance Canadian values and participate in the democratic process. Nobody, especially the Conservatives, should be scared of a Canadian exercising their rights and freedoms.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, we agree that the current bill comes in response to an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling that struck down provisions in the act and put pressure on the federal government.

However, the discussion here concerns a citizenship issue debated in the House over 15 years ago. It affects the lives of Canadians who arrived here after the war, and who could well be over 80 by now. Why was it necessary to wait for the court's ruling? Why did the Liberal government not show some leadership during its nine years in power while this issue was being addressed?

Instead of the current Prime Minister's mandate, we could just as easily say the Harper mandate, or the mandates of previous governments. We have been talking about this issue for decades. Why wait for a court ruling?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. We want governments that can work and get things done. I heard several speeches yesterday. I was very proud to see that the Bloc Québécois understood that this was a citizenship issue, that we all had to work together and that it was very easy.

If the Conservatives or members of the other parties want to propose amendments, we can work in committee and have discussions, but now we have to vote. Yes, it took a long time, but it has always been that way. I worked with the former member of Parliament for Kitchener—Waterloo, the Hon. Andrew Telegdi. He tried to do that work when he was in government and when he was in opposition. Now we have a court decision, and we have to get this done. It is the right thing to do. I think we can all work together to make that happen.

[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?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for the work that she has done on this file. It has been a long time coming. It is important, when we can advance important legislation, that we do it.

I do not want to consume much time trying to think about what the Conservatives think about. Every single time I think about the Conservatives, regardless of their leader, I do feel like my rights and freedoms are being threatened. They talk about freedoms, but they only want them for the people who agree with them. That is part of why I ran in 2015. I really hope Canadians are watching. I get that it has been a challenging time in the country, a challenging time in the world. I get that people might feel disengaged, but that is a strategic tactic by the Conservatives.

What is important is that Canadians remember that we have the right to participate. We have a responsibility to participate. We want to engage them. As the member of Parliament for the riding of Waterloo, I am so proud when I hear from a diversity of constituents. I want them to let me know when they agree, but I also want them to challenge me, and this government, to do more and to do better. I know, by working together, we can get it right. I respect the courts. Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to congratulate my colleague and friend's father for making a wonderful decision. Canada has benefited greatly by that decision to come to Canada and make it their family home.

As the leader of the government in the House at one point, the member is very familiar with procedures. Yesterday my concern was that the only way we are going to get this bill to committee, it appeared, was if we use time allocation. I am wondering if my friend can provide her thoughts about looking for an opposition party to assist in advancing this legislation.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy and have a lot of respect for this place. I hope it does not come down to having to use these kinds of tools.

We are hearing that the Conservatives want to propose amendments. They have even tried to suggest them on the floor of the Commons to see if others might want to entertain them. All parties said, yes, they wanted to go to committee and debate those amendments, so it seems there is a willingness. The Bloc seems to support this going to committee and seeing what needs to happen to improve it. The Bloc has been clear.

This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of Canadian citizenship and values, something we should all hold near and dear to our hearts. The NDP has been very clear. It tried to advance a motion to pass it at all stages or even get it to committee. It has been doing that work in this House, as well as at committee.

I would say to the member that I think the majority of members want to see this advance. Canadians should observe who is abusing the public purse. They are being paid by the public purse, but they do not want to do the work, all more—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have time for a brief question.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the member that when the original first-generation limit was introduced in Canada in Bill C-37, all parties, including the Liberal Party of Canada, the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives, unanimously voted twice on it, on February 7, 2008, and February 15, 2008. Australia, the United Kingdom and America all have similar types of legislation that offer a first-generation limit.

I will remind the member that in the Superior Court decision in Bjorkquist, it was found charter non-compliant because the government was found to have committed, in administrative cases involving section 5 grants of citizenship, a 50% error rate. It is the Liberals' fault it was found charter non-compliant.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been quite forthright in saying this is about Canadian citizenship. We can all work together to ensure that we are protecting Canadian citizenship.

Let us look at the Conservative approach. Right away, the fingers come out. It is a pointing game. It is somebody's problem. The member might have been here or might not have been here, but what he does not realize is my grandfather came to this country. I was born and raised in this country and I have a lot of regard for this place and our rights and freedoms.

The member is yelling at me like Conservatives do at women all the time. Perhaps if a man had put forward the motion, they would have accepted it, but God forbid a woman does.

At that time, former prime minister Harper was very clear. He basically told all members in this place that if they did not support this, nothing would happen. That was the Conservative way then; it remains the Conservative way now. Canadians should be watching.

[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.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Yes. I hear other members trying to speak over the hon. member who is speaking. I would ask them to hold off.

As the hon. member knows, there is some latitude when individuals are making speeches. The matter that is before the House does talk about immigration, but it is specific to a certain degree. I am sure the hon. member will bring it back to that.

The hon. member for Calgary Heritage.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the commercial break.

Almost daily here at home, mobs are on the march, threatening individuals' dignity and freedom. How are Canadians supposed to trust the NDP-Liberals with our safety and national security? How are newcomers, who want to work hard and raise a family here, supposed to have faith in the incompetent government's immigration policy? The Canadian dream is broken.

Skilled immigrants who came here in search of a better life are stuck in low-wage jobs, unable to work in their trained professions because of bureaucratic red tape. If one wants a doctor they must call an Uber. Medical professionals are being denied from serving backed-up patients. There are 10 million Canadians who will soon be without access to primary care and the caregivers they need are ironically a two-minute wait away. StatsCan recently found that 15% of immigrants leave Canada within 20 years of arrival, many because they cannot find jobs in their trained professions. International students are exploited by diploma-mill colleges and sold fake degrees and false promises of employment, residency and citizenship.

Desperate people turn to fraudulent claims of refuge, knowing the NDP-Liberals have loosened the very restrictions that protect Canadians. For what? How many destroyed lives need to be sacrificed at the altar of this horrific incompetence or actual malice? In some ways, they know exactly what they are doing. They have used the chaos of their own broken immigration system to their partisan advantage, turning a blind eye to the international students who were bussed in to vote in Liberal nominations, like they did in Don Valley North. When criticized, they clutch their pearls and decry racism. Shame on them. What is racist is pitting refugee against refugee, pitting one group against another, shilling up desperate people for cheap jobs to kowtow to corporate interests, pandering to mobs that do not share universal values and obsessively trafficking in racial identity rather than individual dignity.

Canadians at home are not surprised by the broken state of our immigration system under the NDP-Liberals. They are devastated by the division they now bear witness to after nine years of this abuse. After nine long years of this nonsense, every Canadian knows the reality. Housing is broken. The rule of law is broken. Citizenship is broken. The Canadian dream is broken. Canadians who have worked hard their entire lives are watching their country be torn apart while new Canadians who came here with hope are discovering the dream they were promised has gone up in smoke. Families are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. Newcomers are denied their potential, while terrorists are given the welcome mat. It was not like this before the nine years of the current Prime Minister, and it will not be like this after he is gone.

Canada is one of the oldest democracies on planet Earth. We are not some postnational project; we are a promise, and ours is a promise to keep amid the gathering darkness of broken immigration, broken dreams of common citizenship, crime, chaos, drugs and disorder that roam across our streets. We will restore the promise. We will be the light. Ours is a country where it does not matter what one's name is or where one comes from, but what one can do. It is a land where if one works hard and plays by the rules, one could earn a good living, raise a family and own a home. With freedom comes a responsibility to uphold those freedoms for all. Our freedom finds expression through the rule of law and a democracy that is to shape those very laws. Ours is a promise to keep for Canadians and newcomers alike that we will never give in, never back down and never surrender to the forces that would break us.

[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.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, in her previous interventions, the member had described a situation where her family, her grandparents had come from abroad. My family also came from abroad in the late 1960s.

The glorious thing about Canada is the diversity of our ideas. For many people across the way, for the NDP-Liberals, they think of diversity as multicoloured perspectives of the same ideological disposition.

In a Canada that is prosperous and free, we value freedom of debate. We value the freedom that every Canadian of every background can stand in the chamber and speak with strength to the issue of our citizenship and our immigration. Our citizenship is what unites us. Our democracy and the rule of law is at the core of who are, and it is this tradition that my constituents have advised me to uphold in the chamber today on this debate.

[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.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that this was a debate that was unanimously agreed to in this chamber.

Our issue is with the performative announcements that the NDP-Liberals make when it comes to our immigration plans. Without ever having a plan to deal with an overburdened immigration system, they once again present performative ideas as to how they are going to meet their targets.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I understand that these are passionate discussions, but I want to remind members that there are rules within the House, and when someone else has the floor we should not be interrupting them.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, contrary to the false impression that the member tried to get on the record, Canada is not broken. Canada is, in fact, the best country in the world to live in and call home. That is the reality. Only the Conservative mentality and that far-right MEGA element goes around the country to give the false impression that Canada is broken.

The Conservative Party of Canada continues to play a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. The Conservatives do not want anything to pass. My question specifically is: Why will they not allow this legislation to at least go to committee, given that the Superior Court of Ontario has said that the law is unconstitutional and that it has to change?

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, the inheritance that these NDP-Liberals had when they arrived in office was an envy of the world. Across the left and the right, our immigration policy was the envy of the world. Around the world, people looked at how Canada had managed its immigration levels, its housing, its health and its economy. This is an issue in which the NDP-Liberals, over nine years, have sown wanton division across our country and irresponsible government, which is a mixture of absolute ignorance or willful malice. I think it is somewhere between both.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, this will be the second consecutive Conservative that has spoken in regard to the immigration system as a whole and has tried to give glorification to Stephen Harper, who was a disaster on immigration. What those members are glorifying is the fact that Stephen Harper, for example, cancelled the sponsoring of parents and grandparents. They literally deleted hundreds of thousands of people who were under the process of becoming permanent residents.

If we want to talk about cold immigration policies, we should go back to the Conservative years. What is important is the mixture of immigrants who are coming for permanent residence. We have annual targets that are set. That annual target is going to be coming out again. We will find that there is a great benefit through immigration to Canada. The Conservatives of late are trying to give the impression that it is us versus them. We should be proud of the diversity. Look at the immigration programs—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do have to allow for other questions.

The hon. member for Durham.

[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.

[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.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, members can make all the arguments they want in favour of Bill C-71, but why are none of our questions being answered? How many people? Where are the criminal background checks? Why can we not do an economic impact assessment? They should put it forward as part of their legislation, and at least have the respect, have the decency, to tell the Canadian people what impact these policies are going to have on our country and our communities. At least respect the Canadian people enough to give them that information.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is an outrageous response. The member is talking about the very Canadians who have been denied their rights as though they are not Canadians. They do not have their Canadian citizenship because of an unconstitutional law created by the Conservatives.

Will the member recognize that second-generation family members born abroad are in fact Canadians, as recognized by the courts?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to recognize that the NDP-Liberals are advancing a watered-down and weak substantial connection test in Bill C-71. That is how they are rationalizing the continued population growth in our country, despite the fact that Canadians of all backgrounds believe that immigration levels are too high, that the influx of people coming into Canada is too high and that it is putting a constraint on our economy and our social services. Why will they not do what is best for Canada and stop being obsessed with making life harder for everyone in our country?

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.

[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.

[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, today we are talking about Canada being in compliance with international law and we are talking about the rights of people who deserve to be Canadian. Whether people are born abroad first generation or second generation, if they have a substantial connection to Canada they should be Canadian citizens.

The legislation that would have been debated back in 2009 far precedes my time in the House, but I mention it was legislation brought forward by the Conservatives that was done as an all-or-nothing measure.

Today we are correcting the major damage the Conservatives did to our citizenship legislation, and that is what is important.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather fascinating that the Liberal government is so slow to deal with this bill. Let us be clear, there are some very historic issues in this debate. People who lived through the war ended up in a situation where they had no citizenship. Some situations had to be straightened out even after death.

Why did it take a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court for the Liberals to finally take action?

The debate was held in the House in 2007. There have been successive governments since then, both Conservative and Liberal. Why did we have to wait so long to see some leadership to address normal situations for different Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a good answer as to why it took an Ontario Superior Court decision. However, I do know that it is high time these things were done.

The act is discriminatory, and the bill we are debating today will help improve the situation. We need to do more.

I hope that next time something needs to change, we will not wait to go to court and for judges to tell us to take action. We have to do the right thing, and we can do it here, as parliamentarians.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing Canadians are very proud of is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is something that we hold up. Any law that we pass that is unconstitutional I think is a strike right at the core of what it means to be Canadian. Part of that as well is being inclusive: respecting people, being a welcoming society. I think that is what this legislation helps move us closer toward. The reason we are here is because so many people have fought for decades and hundreds of years to bring us here, so I want to salute all the hard work by folks who have done that.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to rise and speak to Bill C-71. This bill proposes to amend Canada's Citizenship Act and restore citizenship to those individuals who lost it due to previous unconstitutional legislative amendments.

I was compelled to participate in this debate after hearing from some of my constituents on this matter. However, I was struck by recent comments made by the Conservative member for Edmonton Manning. The member mentioned knocking on doors and talking to Canadians, saying that the changes put forward by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship today, changes that the courts have clearly indicated are needed, are just making more Canadians of convenience and that this would grant citizenship to tourists. I can tell members that I have heard the contrary from constituents.

It was just a few months ago while I was door-knocking in one of our growing neighbourhoods in Whitehorse, Whistle Bend, that I had a great conversation with a woman who had lived in Canada for years. Whitehorse is her home, and Canada is her home. However, she is one of our lost Canadians, and not having citizenship for her country matters greatly to her. She was glad to hear that this bill we are considering today is in the House and that it would bring her a step closer to being a citizen in a country that she had lived in for so long, that she loves and where she will spend the remainder of her days. I want to thank this constituent for sharing her story with me. She pressed us to help neighbours, colleagues and families who are lost Canadians. I thank her. I will do my part to support this bill, which will help lost Canadians. I also thank her for introducing me to her very cute dog, Pete.

Another constituent of mine has shared with me about a family member of theirs. This family member was born outside of Canada while their parents lived abroad working for a non-profit organization. Their dedication to service obviously ran in the family. This individual who was born abroad chose, as an adult decades later, to go into much similar work and now lives abroad working for a Canadian registered not-for-profit organization. This individual now has children while working abroad. A few years after that first child was born, they applied for their child's citizenship and passport, but they were denied based on the young child being from the second generation born outside of Canada.

My constituent's cousin asked why his children being punished with refusal of citizenship due to the service of their parents and grandparents in a not-for-profit organization. There are special considerations for members of the Canadian military but not for citizens in other areas of service.

Here is what I heard: “Not only does it hurt to know that my kids are not citizens, but it also calls into question how I end up feeling about my own Canadian citizenship. I feel very much like a second-class citizen as a result. Although I do not live in Canada, I do feel very much Canadian. I would love to be able to give that gift to my children.”

Families like those of my constituent, and the constituent I spoke with directly a while ago who is personally one of those lost Canadians, have been put into very difficult situations following the 2009 law passed by the last Conservative government. While the Conservative opposition filibustered a bill for 30 hours, a bill put forward by one of their Conservative senators, it is my hope that this new bill can bring some relief and justice to these families placed in such awkward and hurtful situations.

Many people around the world seek to come to Canada and become Canadian citizens. In my opinion, Canada is the best country in the world, and it is clear that it is the top choice for newcomers to begin the next chapter of their lives. Canada is a country that is welcoming, diverse and inclusive. I think I can speak for all of us when I say that we are proud to be Canadians, whether we were born here and raised here or came to this country, like me, going through the process of making it our home.

In 2009, Canada's Citizenship Act was amended to resolve this issue and simplify the rules around citizenship. The 2009 amendments repealed the requirement to act in order to retain citizenship, but at the same time, the Harper Conservatives fundamentally changed citizenship by descent by introducing a harmful and unconstitutional first-generation limit. Individuals born outside of Canada in the second generation or a subsequent generation were no longer able to inherit citizenship and could only become Canadians through the naturalization process, which is by applying and coming to Canada, becoming a permanent resident and passing our citizenship test. It is deeply offensive to be asking someone who is rightfully Canadian to immigrate to their own country.

The 2009 changes also ensured that anyone who was born after the 1977 legislation but who had not yet turned 28 when these changes took place was allowed to maintain their status and remain Canadian. At the same time, in 2009 and then again in 2015, the government introduced amendments to the Citizenship Act to restore citizenship to groups of people who lost citizenship or who never became citizens in the first place because of rules in the first Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, which we now recognize as outdated.

The vast majority of lost Canadians were remedied by legislative amendments in 2009 and 2015. Since 2009, nearly 20,000 individuals have come forward and been issued proof of Canadian citizenship related to these amendments to the Act. In December 2023, a court decision required that the Citizenship Act be revisited once more. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined that the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit on citizenship by descent was unconstitutional on both equality and mobility rights.

It was clear during the study at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill S-245 that there is still a cohort of people remaining who refer to themselves as lost Canadians. These are people, of course, who were born outside Canada in the second or subsequent generations and who lost their citizenship before 2009 because of the now repealed rules that required them to take steps to retain their Canadian citizenship before their 28th birthday. This cohort of lost Canadians is limited to a group of people who were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent between February 1977 and April 1981, did not take steps to retain their citizenship before turning 28, and were the second or later generation born outside the country.

Since Bill S-245 went through a number of changes and improvements using feedback from experts and those affected, it made sense to incorporate some of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's suggested changes into the new legislation. Today's legislation builds and improves on the work done in Bill S-245. It would restore and provide citizenship for groups impacted up to the date of the legislation coming into the force of law. It would also create new rules for citizenship by descent from the legislation's start date, ensuring a fair and inclusive Citizenship Act going forward.

This legislation offers the best solution for a welcoming and inclusive future. It would restore citizenship to those who might otherwise have lost it, and it would address the concerns from Parliament and the Ontario Superior Court with the Harper Conservatives' exclusionary legislative amendments from 2009.

I hope we can all continue to work together to quickly pass the legislation and provide a better regime for future generations of Canadians.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague about the actual unconstitutionality of the bill. The bill came from a ruling of unconstitutionality from the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, which is a lower court in Ontario. Six months ago, it did not advance to the Court of Appeal in Ontario.

Some judges may actually have some other, perhaps more experienced views on what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional that could come out before the bill lands on the floor of the House of Commons. Does the member think it is the government's job to take a lower court decision and bring it all the way to the House of Commons before it actually appeals that decision?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the judgment of a court can be considered at any level. In this case, a solid, thorough decision made by the Ontario court was accepted and agreed to by the government. That gives reasonable grounds to proceed with what is really correcting an injustice that dates back to the previous Conservative government.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was quite clear. He did a good job explaining that the government wanted to correct an injustice by ensuring that people who have wrongly lost their citizenship could get it back.

During the debates, at least yesterday's debate, the official opposition pointed out that this bill could have negative effects, specifically that it could create a birth tourism of sorts.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I heard the same speech. That is simply not true.

It is about helping those who lost their citizenship because of a decision made by the previous Conservative government. The bill simply seeks to correct an injustice that has been created. It does not open the door to other tourists. The government is really targeting certain people who have been forgotten and lost their citizenship because of that decision by the previous Conservative government.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for his speech.

Obviously, the NDP agrees that this historic mistake needs to be corrected. In a democracy, there is nothing more precious than citizenship, which allows us to take part in the work of government. It is extremely serious that people could lose their citizenship because of a legislative error.

However, we are a bit concerned that, in the current wording of the bill, there is no implementation deadline for the act to come into force. I would like my colleague to reassure us that, once this bill is passed, it will come into force as quickly as possible.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for his comments. I agree with him, and I, too, hope that this legislation will come into force as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a question from my colleague from Calgary Centre to ask the member for Yukon. We know the legislation is unconstitutional and not in compliance with Canada's international obligations. Does the member think it is reasonable to expect the Canadian government to take a position where it could deny access to citizenship for at least another five years, hoping to get a different ruling, and spend perhaps millions of dollars in the process of doing that?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the question.

I think it is really very precise in that, if we are to achieve correcting this injustice, then we can stand on firm ground to accept the Ontario court's decision and proceed accordingly.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Finance.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in the debate on Bill C‑71, which would correct injustices and the institutional nature of the Citizenship Act. I am happy because, ironically, the Bloc Québécois set out to do just that in 2007 and worked incredibly hard on it. I am choosing my words carefully.

I would therefore like to acknowledge the work of the former member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Meili Faille, who took stock and made a list. I know her a bit, so I can imagine how she weighed and re-weighed every detail. She compiled an exhaustive list of problems relating to citizenship. I feel that she must have assessed the individual situation of every Canadian and every Quebecker. Under her leadership, the top experts across Canada worked on two studies, which many of us have quoted in the House. What makes this speech a bit special, if not fantastic, is that it is a privilege for me to talk about the work of Ms. Faille, given that she is now my assistant here in Parliament, and that of her friend Don Chapman, from the Lost Canadians society. Right now, he is a lost Canadian who might be on the high seas or on another continent. I do not know where he is watching from, but I salute him.

I realize that this bill represents an important moment for the families caught up in this circus. It is high time that this citizenship bill made its way through the House. Citizenship is not a privilege; it is a fundamental right rooted in our collective identity.

In Quebec, this concept obviously has a particular resonance. Citizenship is also a reflection of our pride and our desire to build a fair, inclusive society that brings us together and reflects who we are. Obviously, I dream of Quebec citizenship. However, before that, there are steps to be taken. It is unfathomable to ignore the critical importance of this right to full participation in our society, regardless of political stripe.

There are different ways we can become citizens. Some of us were fortunate enough to be born in Canada. Others are newcomers who chose Canada, settled in our communities and obtained their citizenship. They are sometimes called naturalized citizens. There is also citizenship by descent. We are talking about people who were born outside the country to a parent who is a Canadian citizen.

Today, we must address a crucial aspect of the Citizenship Act that concerns the fairness and inclusiveness of the system. It is well established in Canada that, with very few exceptions, citizenship is automatically granted to anyone born on Canadian soil. However, there are significant challenges when it comes to citizenship by descent for those born outside Canada. These are challenges that we absolutely must resolve.

The Citizenship Act currently imposes a significant restriction. Citizenship by descent is limited to the first generation. In other words, children born abroad to Canadian citizens can only obtain Canadian citizenship if the parent was born in Canada or acquired Canadian citizenship by naturalization before their birth. This restriction excludes those who, due to personal or professional circumstances, have had children born abroad. These days, this is something that can happen to anyone. What's more, it also prevents Canadians born or naturalized in Canada from applying for citizenship for children adopted internationally. This creates inequality and frustration for many individuals who, despite their deep connection to Canada, find themselves unfairly deprived of the rights and privileges of citizenship.

Furthermore, the previous legislation, prior to the amendments made from 2009 to 2015, led to even more complex situations for some, including lost Canadians. These are individuals who lost their Canadian citizenship at the age of 28 if they were born abroad to Canadian parents during a specific period of time, between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, before the law limited the transmission of citizenship to the first generation in 2009. Why keep it simple when it can be complicated?

The amendments proposed in Bill C-71 represent a significant step forward in resolving these long-standing injustices. They seek to expand opportunities to hand down citizenship rights beyond the first generation, which would enable Canadians who are born abroad to hand down their citizenship to their own children, even if those children are born outside Canada. These changes also address situations that were left unresolved by previous reforms and they provide a solution for Canadians who were unfairly deprived of their citizenship under the old legal framework.

By supporting these reforms, we are affirming that our commitment to a citizenship policy that reflects the principles of fairness and justice is essential and that we want to ensure that every citizen, regardless of their place of birth or place of residence, can have their rights fully recognized and protected. By making these changes, we are taking an important step toward fairer, more inclusive legislation that guarantees that our citizenship system is fair for everyone. Since the Citizenship Act was passed in 1977, we have seen that many Canadians, including many Quebeckers, are being deprived of this essential right because of legal shortcomings. Not only does this situation create obstacles in their daily lives, but it also affects their dignity and sense of belonging.

In Quebec, we have always valued justice and equality. It is imperative for these values to be reflected in how we treat citizenship. The proposed changes have to go well beyond superficial adjustments. They have to ensure that this inalienable right is respected and protected for everyone, including those in Quebec who are fighting to have their status recognized.

Yesterday I was explaining to students from Noranda School in Rouyn‑Noranda, who were here visiting Parliament Hill, why our work in committee is fundamental and just as important as our contributions to the debates here in the House. We have here a fine example of how much time it takes and how much work is required in committee. I commend the work of exceptional organizations and people like Don Chapman, who I was talking about earlier. These people work tirelessly for the cause of lost Canadians. I can attest to the contribution of the Chapman family, Brenda and Don, and all they have done for everyone who has asked them for help. I thank the Chapmans on their behalf. Many interventions have been made in committee.

I listened carefully to yesterday's debate on this bill. It is true that the Conservatives put members in a very delicate position in 2008. In response to the parliamentary work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, they implemented the vast majority of the corrective actions recommended in the report entitled “Reclaiming Citizenship for Canadians: A Report on the Loss of Canadian Citizenship”. While that legislation did fix some aspects, it also contained a controversial provision that limited citizenship to the first generation only, excluding the second generation born abroad. This provision was an integral part of Bill C‑37.

Those who followed the debates at the time will recall that the Harper government clearly stipulated that Bill C‑37 would be repealed if it was not passed in its entirety. If that vote had not taken place, thousands of Second World War veterans, as well as tens of thousands of their wives and children, would have lost their rights in their own country. How appalling, considering the important contribution that veterans have made to the quality of life and freedom of people in this country.

A war bride who was 20 years old in 1946 would now be 98. Many of those veterans and their wives have passed away. If MPs back then had rejected the first‑generation limit imposed by Bill C‑37, those people would have died without citizenship, all because of the attitude of the Harper government at the time.

I have been closely following the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's study on Bill S-245 and the enormous amount of work that has been done to try to fix the problematic situations. However, this bill does not actually include the changes that the lost Canadians wanted to see. It is also important to remember that, while all this was happening, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto was hearing a case on the constitutionality of certain aspects of the Citizenship Act. The Liberal government waited until it received an ultimatum before taking action.

The bill responds to an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling which declared that the first generation limit on citizenship applicable to the children of Canadians born abroad is unconstitutional.

On December 19, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down section 3(3)(a) of the Citizenship Act on the ground that it violated mobility rights under section 6(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada”, and section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, entitled “Equality rights”, which states that every individual is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

The Government of Canada chose not to appeal this decision and has finally acknowledged the inequity of this restriction. The government has until December 19, 2024, to pass Bill C-71. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill because the Bloc Québécois believes that it rectifies historical injustices.

In his decision, the judge accepted the argument that women are particularly affected because the second-generation cut-off discriminates against them based on their sex, forcing women of child-bearing age to choose between travelling, studying or having a career abroad and returning to Canada in order to maintain their right to pass on citizenship to their children. There is something rather absurd about that. The Bloc Québécois supports any legislation that puts an end to discrimination against women.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for sport, I also want to commend Erin Brooks, a very talented surfer with roots in Quebec who grew up in Tofino, British Columbia. We heard from her at committee. Unfortunately, her dream of representing us in Paris at the 2024 Olympic Games did not come to pass. After spending more than three years in administrative limbo thanks to the Conservatives, she was unable to straighten out her citizenship issues in time to qualify. The Citizenship Act needs to be overhauled to end this kind of nonsense. We are proud of Erin and we wish her a successful career in sport representing us, Quebec and Canada.

Bill C‑71 corrects the situation for the remaining categories of people who have been left out despite successive reforms to the Citizenship Act. It is imperative that we tackle the challenges and injustices in our citizenship legislation with determination and compassion. The amendments proposed in Bill C‑71 provide a valuable opportunity to address persistent gaps and expand access to citizenship for everyone who is entitled to it.

By extending the opportunity to pass on citizenship beyond the first generation and by resolving the outstanding issues left unresolved by previous reforms, we are strengthening our commitment to fairness and inclusiveness. Every individual deserves to have their rights fully recognized, regardless of where they were born or where they live.

In supporting these reforms, we are not only advancing our legislative agenda, but also affirming our commitment to building a fairer citizenship system that respects the fundamental principles of equality. It is time to ensure that our citizenship policy truly reflects the values of justice and inclusiveness to which we aspire. Through these actions, we are demonstrating our commitment to a future where all citizens, regardless of their background, find their place and have their rights fully respected.

In closing, I want to highlight two things. It seems rather ironic to talk about Canadian citizenship and the laws of this Parliament. Back in 1995, I remember when Canada gave thousands of people the right to vote by granting citizenship to newcomers who did not have the background or family ties that come to mind when we think of the lost Canadians. I find it extremely offensive when political issues are used to promote or defend what people call “Canadian unity”. We saw a government illegally fast-track the citizenship process. Then there are the people who contributed and paid their taxes their entire lives who may not even have realized they never had citizenship and who were marginalized and denied certain rights.

Something is wrong there.

Take, for example, Roméo Dallaire, an outstanding citizen. He did not have Canadian citizenship when he did the work in Rwanda that made him so famous and that made us so proud of him and his integrity. These are very real situations that lost citizens encounter and that we must put an end to today in the interest of justice and fairness.

I have a little time left. I would like to use it to congratulate my friend, Louis‑Philippe Sauvé, who was elected in the riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. I met him about 15 or 20 years ago in the youth wings of the Bloc Québécois and the Parti Québécois. He is a hard-working activist, and he has proven that over the past few weeks by earning the trust of the people of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. I look forward to welcoming him to the Bloc Québécois benches.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives claim to defend freedom, but when they amended the Citizenship Act, they deprived many Canadians of their rights and their identity as Canadians.

I think that my colleague will agree with me that this is hardly surprising, coming from the Conservatives, and that Bill C-71 is a good way to correct such flaws, as he mentioned in his speech.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that partisanship will always have its place in debates on certain issues. However, on other issues, dignity must come first in the House. In that regard, the government is indeed going to support this motion. I invite members to show respect to these people who are in a delicate situation by fast-tracking this bill, which has an expiry date, I should point out, and respecting the court's ruling.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. This historical error caused people to lose their citizenship, their rights and access to services. They became second-class citizens. Children became stateless and were stuck in limbo, although limbo apparently no longer exists because the church officially abolished it.

I would like to talk about the Conservatives' position. They talk about citizenship tourism and birth tourism. That makes me think of the years of darkness under the Stephen Harper government, when Jason Kenney eliminated health care for asylum seekers and refugees, claiming that these people were leaving their countries and their families to get health care here in Quebec and Canada. It seems like more of the same with the current batch of Conservatives.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Richard Desjardins painted a picture that I always liked when he said that limbo must be somewhere in northern Ontario. In this instance, that is more or less the case for people who do not have their citizenship. In this context, it is definitely a matter of dignity. It is time to stop seeing problems where there are none. It is time to stop seeing conspiracy theories where there are none. It is time to show courage, dignity and respect toward those individuals.

Yes, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. I thank the NDP and my Liberal colleagues for doing the same.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment. I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I am a proud sovereignist and I am often asked whether my work in Ottawa is interesting. I say that it is, because when the Bloc Québécois takes a position, we do so as if we are defining the parameters of our future country.

We just heard an eloquent speech that set out the Bloc Québécois's position on citizenship. Anyone who claims that asserting the right to be recognized and respected for our differences is xenophobic or racist is mistaken. That speech was a concrete demonstration of how we in the Bloc Québécois would one day like to have Quebec citizenship, but in a country that is inclusive.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague from Montcalm.

The topic under discussion today is not a political issue. I especially want to make sure that the former member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Meilidreuil-Soulanges, Meili Failles, hears these words of gratitude. I am sure that she is listening to us with some emotion right now, because this battle has been a long one. It led her to forge great friendships, especially with Don Chapman and many others.

However, some issues are raising concerns. People have suffered because of this situation. With them in mind, the Bloc Québécois is supporting this bill to correct the situation. Sometimes, playing politics is okay, I do it, but other times, we have to put the greater good of people and citizenship first.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so excited and happy to be back in the House of Commons to represent the good people of London West, and to also see my colleagues, who are energized and ready to serve Canadians.

I will be sharing my time with my amazing colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C‑71, a bill that would amend the Citizenship Act to expand access to Canadian citizenship by affiliation beyond the first generation.

I also want to thank my colleagues in the House who spoke before me and advocated on behalf of lost Canadians because of the complexity and shortcomings of previous legislative changes to the Citizenship Act under the Harper government.

Bill C-71 proposes amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act in response to issues raised in both Parliament and the courts. These changes would restore citizenship to the remaining lost Canadians, the individuals who either could not become citizens or who lost their citizenship due to outdated legislative provisions.

While previous amendments helped many, a small cohort of lost Canadians remain. The legislative amendments outlined in Bill C-71 would help lost Canadians and their descendants regain or obtain citizenship. They also address the status of descendants impacted by the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit. The revised law would establish clear guidelines for acquiring Canadian citizenship by descent.

Once this legislation is enacted, the harmful first-generation limit would no longer apply. It would allow Canadian citizens born abroad to pass their citizenship to their children, provided they can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. Canadian parents born outside the country would be able to transfer citizenship to their child if they have lived in Canada for more than 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 previous Conservative government.

Additionally, this new legislation would continue to reduce the differences between children born abroad and adopted by Canadians and those born abroad to Canadian parents. Any children 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. Once the new law is in place, the same criteria would apply to children adopted by Canadian citizens abroad. If the adoptive parent born outside of Canada can show a substantial connection to Canada, the adopted child would be eligible for citizenship as well.

Basically, we are saying that Bill C-71 would restore citizenship to those who have been wrongfully excluded and would establish consistent rules of citizenship by descent moving forward.

I would like to pause here to thank the many families who have worked alongside our committees and our staff, and the many people who have helped get us to this place where the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship has introduced this legislation.

Not only do Conservatives not want this bill to pass, they spent the whole afternoon yesterday filibustering and trying to move motions that would delay its passing and delay the many Canadians who have been harmed in the process from receiving justice. It is important to note that this legislation would not only fix the mess the Harper government created, but would also respond to the reckless government the current Leader of the Opposition was a member of.

In 2009, Harper and the Leader of the Opposition moved legislative amendments to the Citizenship Act to restrict citizenship by descent to the first generation born abroad. For many young Canadians who were perhaps too young to remember, the Leader of the Opposition was also part of the government that introduced Bill C-24. Not only did it seek to create second-class citizens, it also gave itself the power to revoke citizenship for dual citizens by targeting nearly one million Canadians. Therefore, it is not a surprise that Conservatives not only want to prevent Bill C-71, a bill that is in collaboration with all parties in the House to restore the Charter rights of Canadians, but also want to delay it even at committee.

Being a Canadian citizen is a privilege we should never take for granted. In fact, we should all advocate as strongly for our rights to citizenship as the lost Canadians have done for themselves. Canadian citizenship represents more than just a legal status. It embodies the ongoing commitment and responsibility.

What does it mean to be Canadian? There is no right answer to this question, and that is one of the great things about our country. Let us start with how our commitment defines us. One of those commitments is to understand ourselves and our history, as flawed as it is, and to work toward a better future for all. That is the oath that some of us took to become citizens, and that is the oath we should all continue to honour.

Our country has a rich and complicated history, dating from before the founding of Canada. The indigenous people who have lived on these lands since time immemorial have stewarded the country we all love and call Canada today. Since Confederation, many diverse people have chosen Canada as their new home. Apart from indigenous people, every Canadian's history begins with the story of a migrant.

Canada is known for its commitment to multiculturalism and inclusion. This commitment was made official in the 1988 Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which promotes the recognition and celebration of diversity.

Canada's approach to multiculturalism emphasizes the active integration and celebration of its citizens' diverse cultural identities. This approach creates a society in which people from different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds can retain their identity, take pride in their roots and feel a sense of belonging in our country. Canada's communities, from coast to coast to coast, are a living example of multiculturalism.

At the heart of Canadian identity lies our commitment to human rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the fundamental rights and freedoms of all citizens and residents, including freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of peaceful assembly, as well as the rights to equality and non-discrimination.

Canada also demonstrates its commitment to human rights through its support for many international human rights initiatives. Over the years, Canada has defended the rights of women and marginalized groups, both nationally and internationally.

Our citizenship provides security, rights and opportunities. It helps people to feel more included in Canadian society and gives them the opportunity to participate in it. It offers many benefits that improve the lives of individuals and communities.

One of those advantages is the fundamental right to actively participate in the country's democratic process. This includes the right to vote in federal, provincial, territorial and municipal elections, which empowers citizens to have a direct impact on government policy. It is also important to note that only citizens can run for office, giving them the opportunity to represent their communities and contribute to the governance of Canada.

All Canadian citizens also enjoy all the legal protections and rights set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This ensures that their civil liberties and rights as individuals are protected at the highest level, in addition to providing a solid framework for justice and equality.

While we are on the subject of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I would like to remind members that the leader of the official opposition has hinted that he would use the notwithstanding clause if given the opportunity. Canadians should take note of this and of what the Conservatives have done in the past, in particular, as I mentioned earlier, what they did in 2009.

Many Canadians who are around the same age as me maybe do not remember what happened, but in 2009, the Harper government took the right to interfere with Canadians' rights. They amended the Citizenship Act to limit citizenship by descent by introducing the first-generation limit. I would also like to remind the House that the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the first-generation limit imposed by the Harper government following legislative amendments in 2009 was unconstitutional in terms of both mobility rights and equality rights, and it is a clear example of how the Conservative Party continues to disenfranchise Canadians.

Don Chapman is one of those people who were affected by this generational limit. He has dedicated his time, advocated for Bill C-71 and worked through different committees to amend it and get to the place where we are today. I just want to give him a shout-out because I know how hard he worked, how many phone calls he had to make and how many of my colleagues he called over a long period of time.

Another important advantage of Canadian citizenship is access to the Canadian passport. This passport is recognized worldwide as one of the most valuable and offers visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to many countries.

[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?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague opposite, who also sits on the same committee as me and has had the opportunity to meet with the families and to hear from them. We have done this study. Maybe he should not have filibustered yesterday when we were trying to pass the motion on lost Canadians.

I mentioned earlier that there are still a small number of Canadians who are still left behind among the lost Canadians, who are waiting to get their citizenship approved, whether their parents gave birth outside of Canada or adopted their children. Some of these families were at our committee, so perhaps the member opposite should pay attention to some of the visitors we have to our committee when we are doing really important work for Canadians.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that, like me, you noticed that the member for London West was going to talk about Don Chapman in her speech, but she did not have enough time to finish.

I am particularly interested in what she had to say about Mr. Chapman. I would like to give her a minute or two, at your discretion, so that we can hear her thoughts about him.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I deeply appreciate the opportunity that my Bloc Québécois colleague has given me to continue and to finish expressing my thoughts on this bill, which I consider very important for all Canadians everywhere in Canada.

Don Chapman is one of those Canadians who was adversely affected by what the Harper government did and what the Leader of the Opposition continues to support. Even now, during our committee meetings, when we try to advance the work, he keeps putting up roadblocks.

I am extremely grateful for the support of the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party and the NDP, who continue to support us so that we can serve Canadians. For the families we have met, the stories we have heard and the harms these families have suffered, it is our job as elected officials to fix the problem as soon as possible.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is clear at this point that, among the Bloc, the Liberals, and the NDP, we have a lot in common with respect to seeing this important work go forward. Unfortunately, we are not seeing the same coming out of the Conservatives, and the member has spoken about this quite a bit.

We know that the Conservatives voted against provisions that would have rectified the unconstitutional second-generation cut-off amendments. The Conservatives filibustered the bill for 30 hours, which I believe the member also spoke about, at committee. They stalled third reading debate for the bill eight times. Instead of seeing the actions required for us to come together to help the exact people whom we are elected to represent, we are seeing the Conservatives playing with people's lives. Could the member please speak to that?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side said very well how terrible it has been. It has been really hard to do the work that Canadians sent us to do on our immigration committee, and sometimes it has been in the front of those families that have been harmed by those actions of the Conservatives. Watching them filibuster the work that we want to do has been very difficult.

I appreciate the support that we have received to move this forward. It is important for Canadians, and it is important that we do right by the people who have been wronged by the former Conservative government.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the chamber today to give some more context for the proposed legislation to amend Canada's Citizenship Act.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe people. I would also like to recognize that indigenous people have been here since time immemorial. The contributions they have made to our country in the past, present and future have been and will continue to be significant. It is our responsibility to continue to work towards reconciliation in coordination and collaboration with indigenous people each and every day.

Being Canadian means taking steps to tackle inequality and injustice within our society. We do this not only through our words but, more importantly, through our actions. Bill C-71 proposes an amendment to the Citizenship Act in response to issues raised in both Parliament and the courts. These changes would restore citizenship to the remaining lost Canadians, individuals who either could not become citizens or who lost their citizenship due to outdated legislative provisions. While previous amendments helped many, a small cohort of lost Canadians remains.

The legislative amendments outlined in Bill C-71 would help lost Canadians and their descendants regain or obtain citizenship. They would also address the status of descendants impacted by the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit. The revised law would establish clear guidelines for acquiring Canadian citizenship by descent. Once the legislation is enacted, the harmful first-generation limit would no longer apply, allowing Canadian citizens born abroad to pass their citizenship on to their children, provided they can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. A Canadian parent born outside the country would be able to transfer citizenship to the child if they have 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 previous Conservative government.

Additionally, the new legislation would continue to reduce the differences between children born abroad and adopted by Canadians, and those born abroad to Canadian parents. 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. Once the law is in place, the same criteria would apply to children adopted by Canadian citizens abroad. If the adoptive parent born outside Canada can show a substantial connection to Canada, the adopted child would be eligible for citizenship.

Bill C-71 would restore citizenship to those who have been wrongfully excluded and would establish consistent rules for citizenship by descent going forward. These updates build on the work done by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill S-245, further refining the proposal and more comprehensively addressing the issues raised by the courts.

Canadian citizenship represents more than just a legal status; it embodies an ongoing commitment and responsibility. What does it mean to be Canadian? There is no one right answer to this question, and that is one of the great things about our country.

Let us start with how our commitments define us. One of those commitments is to understand ourselves and our history, flaws and all. Our country has a rich history, dating from before the founding of Canada to the indigenous people who have lived on these lands since time immemorial. Since Confederation, many diverse people have chosen Canada as their new home. With the exception of indigenous people, every Canadian's history begins with the story of a migrant. As Canadians, we have an ongoing commitment to reconciliation with indigenous people as we continue to strengthen our relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis people across the country.

Another commitment we make as Canadians is to come together to build a stronger country for everyone. That is evident in many ways. Canadians spring into action to help those in need, and it is not limited to family, friends and neighbours.

We are there to help, whether that is through emergency response efforts to fight devastating wildfires or floods that threaten our community, keeping food banks well stocked or supporting local charities to help the most vulnerable among us. While these efforts may vary in scope and scale, the sentiment remains the same: We look out for each other when it matters. We know that our country's future prosperity hinges on that sense of goodwill and our continued collective efforts.

Canadians are also committed to inclusion. We choose to welcome diverse cultures, languages and beliefs, and that makes us unique. We value the experiences that have made our fellow Canadians who they are, just as we value the experiences others have. We respect the values of others as they respect ours.

We celebrate this choice. Take Citizenship Week, for example. Every year, across the country and around the world, Canadians use this fantastic opportunity to show pride in their diversity, cultures and achievements. Celebrating our differences helps us learn from one another and better understand the challenges and opportunities that arise in our communities. In turn, we identify new solutions to the problems we must overcome together. Though we are diverse, there are certain ties that bind us. In addition to helping others in times of need, Canadians also work to build opportunities for success and seek to share the benefits of that success with our communities.

How someone becomes a Canadian can vary greatly. As the minister said, it is important to recognize that. Regardless of how one becomes a citizen, we can all agree that we value each and every Canadian equally. Some of us are lucky enough to be born in Canada and are Canadians by birth. Others are newcomers who chose Canada, joined our communities and earned their citizenship. They are referred to as naturalized Canadians. Last, we have Canadian citizens by descent: individuals who are born outside our country to a Canadian parent, who proudly passes down their citizenship.

We hold and value each of these citizens as equal and as part of our diverse country. While we each define how we are Canadians in our own way, Parliament defines who becomes and how someone becomes a Canadian through the Citizenship Act. Our citizenship process and rules should be fair, equal and transparent.

However, it has recently become clear that the act must be amended to address the 2009 legislative amendments that excluded individuals due to the first-generation limit. The Ontario Superior Court has been clear: The Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit is unconstitutional, on 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 would apply particularly to those born overseas to Canadian parents.

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 Canadians 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 are born in Canada or in another country, we are bound by our shared values, our mutual respect for our country and for each other and our enthusiasm to call ourselves Canadians. Canadian citizenship is a fundamental part of who we are. It unites us, opens up opportunities and challenges us to live up to our values: self-knowledge, service to others, democracy, equality and inclusion.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the previous member who spoke, the member for London West, made a point, so I want to make a point to the parliamentary secretary. I want to just congratulate him on the multi-meeting filibuster he conducted on the draft report on Afghanistan. He was able to make it last from May well into September, and it ended only yesterday. He did quite the job on it. It is unusual to have a draft report debated in public. I invite members of the public to go watch that particular filibuster.

The member mentioned the court ruling, so I want to draw his attention to paragraph 265 of the judge's ruling. In it, she said that of the errors in processing in the sample size she looked at, 50% were the fault of the department. The department was unable to provide accurate information. In one case, the department sent the proof of citizenship document with the wrong date on it. In another case, it sent the wrong document. It had the wrong person's name, and it was not even the name of another family member.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I hear the member for Waterloo heckling me, as she did yesterday.

I had asked the minister a question earlier in the debate, and I am going to ask the parliamentary secretary: How many persons who are abroad currently would be eligible for the provisions in Bill C-71?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be here to speak to Bill C-71. We have worked on this issue at many meetings of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I hope we can move the agenda forward and get the legislation passed so we can bring lost Canadians home.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for speaking to this very important issue and the real impacts on Canadians and those who are denied their citizenship as a result of the outdated rules that were put into place by the Harper government.

I have an interesting point. I was given a response by the leader of the Conservative Party to a family that was asking about his stance on this exact legislation. His response, which I find is interesting, was this: “Conservatives will help preserve what it means to be a citizen of this country and fundamentally what it means to be Canadian. Please be assured that they will continue to support and advocate for this legislation to reach its third reading in the House of Commons.”

We know this is blatantly false. We know that the bill has been stalled, basically, eight times since last October by the Conservatives to prevent it from reaching third reading. Can the member please speak to why he believes the leader of the Conservative Party is misleading families that deserve to have their basic human rights met?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to stand here to say that we, as the government, would love to work with the Bloc and the NDP to pass the legislation. I understand that the Conservatives are filibustering everything and trying to change everything around. I am very committed to getting Bill C-71 passed because it affects constituents in my riding. They are also lost Canadians, and they are waiting for the bill to pass so that we can make everyone a Canadian.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I remind the hon. member for Thornhill and the hon. member for Waterloo that someone was speaking and we should respect that right.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about children born abroad and adopted, whose parent passed away, and who were denied citizenship.

Why do the Conservatives think that these children, who have already gone through the pain of losing a parent and being born into difficult conditions, should be excluded from the citizenship process?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, we as a government want to pass the proposed legislation so we can bring all Canadians here, all the lost Canadians, so we can make them Canadian citizens. I am so happy to work with the members from the Bloc and from the NDP, and we are hoping to make Bill C-71 legislation.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in the House, the day after by-elections in two provinces in Canada. There are some commonalities in these two outcomes. In both ridings, the Conservative vote went up by 50% from the last general election. In addition, as in the election in June, when a Conservative was elected in Toronto—St. Paul's, another safe Liberal riding turned out to be not so safe at the end of the day. Something has to happen for people to start listening to what Canadians are thinking. For those across the aisle who are still pretending there is not a problem, that Canadians do not see a problem in the way the country is being run, I ask them to start paying attention and change their direction.

Canadians see clearly how badly government is being run and how they are being marginalized and divided; they are demanding change as soon as possible. One indication of the pure government incompetence is the way the Liberals have managed immigration. One year ago, I was directed to serve on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It is not a strength I had before, but my office in Calgary Centre has an immigration caseload that is quite large.

Let me take a moment here to thank my staff in Calgary, Shaney Pap and Laura Wlodarczyk, because they do a fantastic job for Canadians, new Canadians, visitors and families that are navigating the maze of Canada's immigration process. It is a complex enough program, and it has been grossly mismanaged over the past four years.

How do we deal with a backlog of 2.6 million files? We should expedite 1.2 million files per year for two years in a system that previously managed about 320,000 files per year. They increased the workforce by 50%, from 9,200 employees in 2020 to 13,685 in 2023. It was a big increase in government, but corners were cut; we see the consequences of that with the recent arrests that are happening in Canada.

Why is the legislation before us? In December 2023, Ontario's Superior Court declared the first-generation cut-off rule in the Citizenship Act unconstitutional. That ruling was a damning indictment of the Liberal-run citizenship department. The court found a staggering 50% error rate in the processing of citizenship applications. This means that half of all applicants were mishandled, leading to abnormally long processing times and widespread malpractice. Such a high error rate is unacceptable and speaks volumes about incompetence and mismanagement in the current administration. That is the rationale for finding the previous law unconstitutional.

I might suggest that fixing the problem would make the whole issue less unconstitutional, but Bill C-71 proposes to grant citizenship to individuals born abroad with at least one Canadian parent having spent 1,095 days in Canada, the equivalent of three years. At the same time, it fails to require these days to be consecutive and lacks provisions for criminal record checks. This approach is deeply flawed and undermines the very essence of what it means to be a Canadian citizen.

Citizenship is not just a legal status. It is a commitment to our values, our laws and our way of life. By lowering the standards for obtaining citizenship, the NDP-Liberals are devaluing this precious status and putting our national security at risk. The world looks at a Canadian passport as being a very important document.

I forgot to mention at the beginning of my speech that I am splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Thornhill.

Let us compare Canada's rules with rules around the world. The requirement is three years in Canada, according to the proposed bill, and five years in most other democracies. This would be five years of real connection, not just 1,095 days sporadically spread out over a quarter century of a person's life. Bill C-71 would remove the 2009 limit that only allows citizenship for the first generation born abroad.

Under the bill, children born abroad to a Canadian parent, even if the parent was also born abroad, can gain citizenship as long as the parent meets a weak substantial connection test. The parent only needs to show 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada at any point in their life. Since the days do not need to be consecutive, people from multiple generations living abroad, with limited and sporadic ties to Canada, can still claim citizenship for their children. This weakens the substantial connection requirement and risks creating a class of citizens with minimal ties to this country.

Moreover, the government has not provided any analysis of how many new Canadians will be created by Bill C-71. Despite the potential for tens of thousands of new applicants, especially with the removal of the first-generation limit, the Liberals have failed to disclose how many people will gain citizenship through the legislation. This lack of transparency, a common thread, is concerning and prevents us from fully understanding the impact of the proposed bill. Bill C-71 would add thousands of new applications to an already overburdened system.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is already struggling with delays and errors in processing citizenship applications. Adding a significant volume of new applications from abroad would overwhelm the department, exacerbating the existing backlogs. This would lead to an even longer processing time and further erode trust in our citizenship process. The bill does not require individuals granted citizenship to undergo criminal background checks. This poses a potential security risk and undermines Canada's standards of who can become a citizen. Ensuring that new citizens are of good character and pose no threat to our society is a common-sense measure that should not be overlooked.

We do support parts of the bill. While we have significant concerns, there are aspects that we support. Conservatives support the restoration of citizenship to individuals who lost it because of non-application or rejected applications under section 8 of the former Citizenship Act . This primarily includes people born between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, who were affected by the old rule that required them to apply to retain their citizenship before turning 28 years old. This was part of the original content of Senator Yonah Martin's Senate public bill, Bill S-245, which aimed to address these issues more directly.

We also support the extension of equal treatment to adopted children born abroad. Under the proposed changes, adopted children would be treated the same as biological children of Canadian citizens for the purposes of passing on citizenship. This was supported by Conservative members during the Bill S-245 clause-by-clause committee review, and it is consistent with our party's long-standing position on equal treatment for adopted children.

Conservatives are committed to fixing the broken citizenship system that the Liberals have neglected. We will enforce a more robust substantial connection requirement, streamline processes and address backlogs to ensure timely handling of citizenship applications.

Our approach will restore integrity and trust in the system, ensuring that Canadian citizenship remains a privilege earned through genuine connection and commitment to our great nation. After nine years under the government, Canadians have endured enough chaos and incompetence. It is time for a change. Only common-sense Conservatives will put an end to the Prime Minister's reckless mismanagement and fix our broken immigration and citizenship process. We will restore integrity, trust and efficiency to it, ensuring that Canadian citizenship remains a privilege earned through genuine connection and commitment to this great nation.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to say how happy I am to see my colleague come back; he sits on the immigration committee with me.

I find it really interesting that he is complaining about the Liberals taking too much time to fix something that the Conservatives broke.

This is something that his Harper government, the same government that the current Leader of the Opposition sat in, did to leave Canadians behind and to create second-class citizens. Can the member opposite talk about that and why he thinks it is a Liberal problem when it is a problem that they created themselves?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, nine years would be a long time for a problem to exist, but somebody should have fixed something in nine years if that problem actually occurred nine years ago. If it was created nine years ago, I would ask this of my colleague on that side: Why did her party support the party that brought it to the House and voted, every one of them, for the same motion.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously this is not about creating revolving doors in this context, but about righting historic wrongs. I would like to know what my colleague from Calgary Centre would say to Canadian women who married a non-Canadian before 1947, who are nearly 100 years old now and who, because of the Conservatives' filibustering, may never see their most basic rights upheld before they die.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is something I am not too familiar with, but does the member have an example we could discuss? I am on board with discussing this with him. Maybe there are many examples of situations to draw from. We could look at a certain situation, but here we are developing a policy for all immigrants in Canada. I would be happy to look at this with my friend.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it has been clear since day one, since June 2023, that the Conservatives do not want to rectify the unconstitutional second-generation cut-off rule for lost Canadians and their families. They voted against provisions that would have rectified the unconstitutional amendments. They filibustered the bill for 30 hours at committee, and they stalled reading debate for the bill eight times. One thing that I know is that actions speak louder than words, and their actions have been really clear.

Why are the Conservatives misleading family members with their fake commitments?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that actions speak louder than words, so let us talk about actions here. Let us talk about how we are actually dealing with Canadians. Let us talk about the substantive test that made this ruling unconstitutional. That was the action of the Liberal government, which has been unable to deliver any efficiency in getting people through the immigration process.

A 50% failure rate because of mistakes is what makes this unconstitutional. That should be fixed forthwith. That would address the ruling of unconstitutionality that came with this.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned the difference in the tests of someone's connection to Canada. Could he offer a few comments on the value of citizenship—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I apologize. The hon. member is not sitting in his seat.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, sometimes it is hard to notice. Standing Order 16 was a great standing order when it was suspended temporarily, so we could sit at any place and actually speak. That way, we could represent our constituents from anywhere in here. I think benches were a great solution.

The member for Calgary Centre heard, as I did during the debate on a previous private member's bill that dealt with the same question, when I was asked the following many times: How many Canadians would be affected by this? How many persons who are outside the country would be affected by it?

We, on the Conservative side, obviously agree with the adoption provisions. We want adopted children to be treated exactly the same way as Canadians born or naturalized in Canada. Could the member tell me if he knows how many Canadians would be affected by it? The minister could not answer the question.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly one of the concerns we have. How many people are we dealing with this actual opening up of the immigration system in Canada? We have asked the question of the minister. We have asked the question of the department. Nobody knows. So there is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Thornhill.

[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]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals seem to be implying that there is a rush to get this legislation passed. The ruling by the judge was at the end of December, and the government took until May 23 to table the bill. There were 19 sitting days before the June break and this bill never came up. In fact, we are only on the second day of debate.

I would like to hear from the member why there is a sudden need to rush this and why there is a sudden interest in it. It is as if because the government has suffered election loss after election loss, it is embarrassed by its own record.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I suspect there is a little of that. I suspect there is a bit of chaos on the other side after losing two stronghold seats. The Liberals' record is being repudiated not only on immigration but on housing and everything else. They have probably heard about it.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is some unease in the House about the court's ruling. That is because the current Citizenship Act is unconstitutional. I would therefore like to ask my colleague the following question.

How do the Conservatives intend to reform the act if they keep opposing it and dragging out the proceedings? Why not go ahead and pass the amendments instead?

We can all agree that this does not exactly affect hundreds of millions of people, but rather a handful of people whose rights have been violated over the years. These are historic mistakes that can be corrected.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have no idea how many people this would affect, and that is the question we still have. Is it 1,000? Is it 10,000? Is it 100,000? Surely the government, which still has not been able to answer this very basic question about how many people we are talking about, can come up with a model based on how many people it knows are outside of the country and how many kids it thinks they have. How many people would be affected by this? That is the question. Security checks are certainly a question too, and there, the government does not have two legs to stand on right now.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I found that the question from my Bloc Québécois colleague made a lot of sense, unlike the Conservatives' comments. However, I would like to ask my colleague the following question.

If the Citizenship Act is unconstitutional, if the act allows people to lose their citizenship by accident or administrative error, if children are born stateless, why do the Conservatives want to drag their feet and not ensure that this problem is resolved quickly?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, we tried to make very reasonable amendments at committee, even supporting the reasonable amendments from the Liberals, but at every turn, those proposals were voted down. At every single turn, the government has failed to answer questions about how many people this bill would affect and whether there would be security clearance. There is a provision the minister has in the law right now to make exceptions and grant citizenship in some cases, as he sees fit, and until those questions can be answered, the minister can use that provision rather than bring this bill to the House of Commons without answers.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it fascinating that this is only the second day the bill has been debated. It was introduced just before Parliament rose for the summer. As my colleague mentioned, it was in response to a court decision a number of months prior to that.

The Liberals talk about not wanting a debate on this issue and accuse Conservatives of delaying it. What are her thoughts on that, when they have shown that they truly did not prioritize this in their overall legislative agenda?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I cannot answer questions on behalf of their legislative agenda, because I have failed to understand it from the very beginning. The questions that we have asked, though, are real questions that would lead us to making better decisions about laws in this country.

As a baseline, I think Canadians at home watching this right now would want to know exactly how many people this bill would affect. The Liberals do not have a good record on our immigration system. They do not have a good record on security checks, certainly not with what has been found out in the last couple of weeks. I think Canadians ought to know those answers before they blindly support legislation.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start this short speech by taking a look at some important events that took place yesterday and by congratulating my new colleague, Leila Dance, who won in Winnipeg and held on to a seat for the NDP. She showed that we are capable of beating the Conservatives. I would congratulate Mr. Sauvé as well, who won in LaSalle-Émard-Verdun. I would also like to talk about another Mr. Sauvé, Craig Sauvé, who was the NDP candidate. Unfortunately, he came in third in an extremely close race. I still want to congratulate him on his campaign and to congratulate the whole team of volunteers and activists who worked so hard on the ground.

That being said, today we are debating a very important subject, a bill that seeks to right a wrong. I apologize for the expression, but there are people who are falling through the cracks. This has very serious consequences because it means that they can lose their citizenship. Some may even lose their citizenship without even realizing it. This has a whole range of repercussions, including impacts on their ability to work, to get public services, to enrol their children in school, and so on.

I admit, I was surprised that it is possible to lose citizenship. Then there is the whole issue of being able to pass on citizenship to second-generation children born abroad to parents who are Canadian citizens. I think it is a very serious problem if our laws allow children to come into the world stateless. Let me remind the House that even the United Nations, in 2007, identified Canada as one of the countries that was refusing to take steps to avoid making people stateless. According to Refugee Listed Canada, we were operating slightly outside the law.

I think that this bill makes some important corrections. Loss of citizenship has major repercussions on people who work abroad and have to travel, as well as on their children. If we can all steer clear of petty politics, finger pointing and scare tactics, we could solve a problem affecting hundreds of people and avoid problems that throw the lives of many of the people we represent into turmoil.

I encourage everyone to make an effort so that we can pass this bill quickly and solve a problem that should have been fixed a long time ago, a problem created by the Conservatives when they were in power.