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.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague well knows, it is him and his party members who are keeping Parliament paralyzed because they are obstructing their own motion of instruction. The Speaker very clearly ruled that this matter should be sent to the procedure and House affairs committee for further study. We agree with that. We are just waiting for the Conservative Party of Canada members of Parliament to do the same. In the interim, they continue to filibuster their own filibuster, and we have seen that, because they continue to amend their amendments on this matter, but when they are ready to get back to work, we are here to work for Canadians, and we look forward to that.

As I mentioned last week, we look forward to the Conservatives putting an end to their political games so that the House can move on to studying Bill C-71 on citizenship, Bill C‑66 on military justice, Bill C‑63 on online harms, the ways and means motion on capital gains and the ways and means motion on charities.

I also want to inform the House of our government's announcement regarding upcoming legislation to put more money in the pockets of Canadians through a tax break and a working Canadians rebate. We would be giving a tax break to all Canadians and putting more money directly into the pockets of the middle class. These are important measures to help Canadians pay their bills. We encourage Parliament and all parties to get this legislation passed quickly and unanimously, so workers and working families can get more money in their pockets. We are committed to getting things done for Canadians in Parliament. Important legislation is before the House, and we believe the Conservatives should stop playing obstructionist, partisan games so that MPs can debate those bills.

I would also like to inform the House that the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth will deliver a ministerial statement on Monday, November 25, which is the first day of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence.

Request for Witness to Attend at the Bar of the House

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one member across the way said “yay”, but there are other issues, and not just government issues.

The Conservatives have opposition day motions, and when they bring them forward, they like to say the motions are confidence motions. However, I think Canadians would love to see an opposition day motion that deals with the housing accelerator fund. We have 17 Conservative members across the way who are scared because the leader of the Conservative Party is saying the party opposes it. The party is going to kill that particular fund. Therefore, we have Conservative MPs who are having a difficult time trying to justify their very existence on such an important issue. We should have a vote on that particular issue, but we cannot do so. The Conservatives know full well that all they have to do is continue to put up speaker after speaker on matters of privilege, and then nothing else can take place on the floor for debate.

The housing accelerator fund is providing thousands of housing units, or homes, in every region of our country, but we have the official opposition opposing it. Actually, that is not fair to say. We have the leader of the official opposition saying that the program is bad and needs to be cut. However, a dozen or more Conservative members are saying they like the program. They are writing to the Minister of Housing to say that they want this program to be applied in our communities. We have mayors in different areas of the country saying that this is a good program. However, there is this division within the Conservative Party. In order to avoid that sort of a division, why not continue to talk about privilege? It is a privilege motion for which everyone is saying yes to having the member come before the bar, but the Conservatives have no interest in voting on it. As I have indicated very clearly, it is a fairly straightforward motion that Mr. Anderson be called before the bar to answer questions. If everyone believes that, fine, we will accept that and allow it to come to a vote. However, what is the purpose of the Conservative Party not only continuing to debate the motion but now also actually moving an amendment to the motion, which means that we could see dozens speak to it?

What happened on the previous motion? We saw over 100 Conservatives speak to it. Weeks and weeks of potential debate on other issues were left to the wayside and never dealt with, such as Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act; Bill C-66, which would transfer issues related to sexual abuse from military courts to civil courts; Bill C-33, strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act, which deals with our supply lines; and Bill C-63, the proposed online harms act to protect children on the Internet. This is not to mention the fall economic statement or the many opposition days that are being lost because the Conservatives are filling the time on issues of privilege, even though the very motions they are bringing forward are ones that we are okay with actually seeing pass. The reason, as I started off by saying, is that it is a multi-million dollar game, and it is all about character assassination. This is why I posed the question to the member opposite: What is the issue?

The issue is that we have a minister representing an Edmonton riding, and there have been concerns in regard to some text messaging and how that could have had an impact on the issue at hand. As I have pointed out, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has looked at this issue not once, not twice, but three times and cleared the minister responsible each time.

When I posed that particular question to the member, his response was that it is not true. It is true. Members of the Conservative Party know it is true, but they continue to push. Why is that? It is because, as I pointed out in my question, even when the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberal Party in third party, the Conservative Party continued to attack the individual. Nothing has changed. The wonderful thing about Hansard is that everything said inside the chamber is actually recorded and there for people to read. People do not have to believe me; they can just read the Hansards. We can go back to the time when the leader of the Liberal Party was in third party. We will find personal attacks on the leader, especially in member statements.

We have witnessed it of other ministers inside the chamber. It is the type of thing where I could enter into that same field, talk about personalities and start to look at the leader of the Conservative Party. I referred to an interesting document. By the way, the relevance of this is in regard to the issue of attacking the character of an individual. It is some sort of a report that was published. The title is “Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power: The Evidence Compiled”. Actually, not all the evidence is compiled, because there are a number of things I am aware of that are not actually included in this document. However, it is about abuse of power, scandals and corruption.

There are 70 of them listed, for anyone who is interested, but one of them that is really interesting is that Stephen Harper was actually found in contempt of Parliament. We can think about that. He is the only prime minister in the British Commonwealth, which includes Canada, to ever be found in contempt of Parliament. Can we guess who his parliamentary secretary was? It was the leader of the Conservative Party.

That is one, but I am a little off topic there. I go through this article, and the leader of the Conservative Party's name comes up on more than one occasion. Let us go to page 9, to something called the vanity video; the article reads, “The Globe and Mail revealed that Harper’s chosen Minister for Democratic Reform [the now leader of the Conservative Party] commissioned a team of public servants for overtime work on a Sunday to film him glad-handing constituents.”

It goes on, but he was promoting using civil servants and wearing his Conservative Party uniform, and of course, we cannot do that. If the Ethics Commissioner was to look into that, I suspect maybe they would have found some sort of fine or a penalty, or he would have been found offside.

However, one of the ones Harper is really well known for is the “Elections bill [that] strips power from Elections Canada”. The story says, “The Fair Elections Act also makes it harder for Canadians to vote as more ID is required. Nationwide protests in which more than 400 academics took part forced [the leader of the Conservative Party] to withdraw some measures in the bill because of their alleged anti-democratic bent.”

Anti-democratic: I think there could be some relevancy here. It goes on to say, the “Democratic Reform Minister [the leader of the Conservative Party] accused the Elections Canada CEO Marc Mayrand of being a power monger and wearing a team jersey.”

Here we have the Conservative Party now calling into question the Ethics Commissioner, but when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for democratic reform, he labelled the chief of our electoral system, Elections Canada. That is why I do not say it lightly. We have a leader of the Conservative Party who is in borderline contempt, in terms of what we are witnessing in Parliament today. He has no qualms doing that. It is demonstrated.

Not only that, but if we take a look at the issue of security clearance, I do not know how many times I have asked the question of Conservative MP after Conservative MP: Why does the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada not get the security clearance so that he can better understand foreign interference? That is a very real issue. We have all sorts of things that are taking place in our community. An individual has been murdered; individuals are being held in many different ways for financial purposes. We have all sorts of interference in political parties, in the leader of the Conservative Party's own leadership.

When he was elected as leader, there were issues related to foreign interference and how that influenced the leadership that he ultimately won. The Bloc, the Green, the NDP and the Prime Minister all have the security clearance. He is the only leader who does not. Why will the leader of the Conservative Party not do likewise? The arguments he uses are bogus. He knows that. We have experts clearly indicating that the leader of the Conservative Party has nothing to worry about in terms of being able to get the security clearance, from a perspective of being able to listen and talk about the issue of the day. That is not the concern. However, it does raise an issue. What is in the background of the leader of the Conservative Party regarding which, ultimately, he is scared to get that security clearance? I believe there is something there.

There is something that the leader of the Conservative Party does not want Canadians to know. I think we should find that out. That is why, whether it is me or other members of the government, we will continue to call upon the leader of the Conservative Party to get that security clearance.

Instead of playing this multi-million dollar game, let us start dealing with the issues that are important to Canadians. Let us talk about the fall economic statement and the legislation before the House that the Conservatives do not want to have discussions on. Let us have opposition days and private members' bills. We should allow the chamber to do the work that Canadians want us to do.

As the Conservative Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party in particular, is so focused on them, I can assure people following the debate that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister will always continue to be focused on Canadians first and foremost. Unfortunately, we have to participate in this game; however, at the end of the day, we will continue to push a Canadian agenda, an agenda that reflects what we believe Canadians want.

That is something we will continue to advocate for. I would ask that, if Conservatives across the way understand the cost of the game they are playing, they stop with the character assassination they began back in 2011. Let us get down to business and do some good things for Canadians. We can do so much more if we start working together. Not only were all the other parties given a responsibility to do some good things inside the chamber, but the Conservative Party was too.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the motion that the Speaker presented actually said to refer this matter to the procedure and House affairs committee. That is exactly what we support.

We look forward to the Conservatives ending their silly games, starting to respect the charter rights of Canadians and the independence of the police, and moving this to committee to make sure that we respect the independence of powers in this country. I will also note that thousands of pages have indeed been tabled. They have just been done so in a way that respects the charter rights of Canadians.

We are looking forward to debating, once the Conservatives stop freezing the work of this place, important legislation, such as Bill C-71, concerning citizenship; Bill C-66 on military justice; Bill C-63, the online harms legislation; and two ways and means motions, one related to capital gains and one that would require more transparency from charities that use deceptive tactics to push women away from making their own reproductive decisions.

On this side of the House, we will continue to work for Canadians and represent their interests. I wish all members would do the same.

As it is Remembrance Week, and we are coming up to Remembrance Day, I would like to take a moment to thank every service member and every veteran who has served our country, both in times of conflict and in times of peace. I know that every member in the House will be taking a moment on Remembrance Day to remember the sacrifices of our veterans and of those who continue to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Lest we forget.

Industry and Technology

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to talk about what is going on in the House. I would like to provide some context as to why I think we are debating this particular motion today.

I will share my time with the member for Milton, who will provide his insight, perhaps a better insight, into the actual substance of the report.

I will start by saying that I appreciated the last comment from the member for Simcoe North about Bitcoin. I really hope he does not need to go anywhere and can stay in the House to get up when I finish my speech to ask me a question about Bitcoin. I would love to know more about his feelings on Bitcoin. The price has gone up, according to him. I did not realize that this morning, but the price of Bitcoin, according to the member for Simcoe North, has gone up, so I would love to hear more about that. I would also love to hear more about the policies the Conservatives have to offer Canadians on Bitcoin and investing in Bitcoin.

Perhaps this means we will soon see the Leader of the Opposition buy another shawarma with Bitcoin. That would be a great video, and what better time then when the price of Bitcoin is going up? I would encourage the member for Simcoe North to stay in his seat, bear with having to listen to me for nine more minutes and then get up so we can talk about Bitcoin. He can ask me a question about Bitcoin and provide me with some of the great insight I need to know about that. I would love to engage in that discussion.

We have to take the opportunity to understand why we are here right now talking about this particular issue. I am not saying it is not an important issue. I think that is an extremely important thing to ask the anti-competitive agencies to engage in looking at certain practices.

However, let us back up to about four weeks ago, when Conservatives started debating a privilege motion. I know the member who moved that motion likes to talk about procedure and how things happen. He makes sure those who are watching are properly informed, so I will do the same. The Conservatives moved a motion based on a ruling from the Speaker, and as a result, we have seen the Conservatives filibustering for the last four and a half weeks. They are filibustering their own motion, I should add. The motion is to send this particular question of privilege to PROC, yet they do not even want to vote on that.

Conservatives moved a motion to send this somewhere, but they absolutely refuse to do that. What have they done in the process? They filibustered by putting up almost all, and I believe at last count it was about 106 Conservatives, to speak for 20 minutes. They then moved an amendment, which allowed some of them to speak twice or even three times. When that started to run out, they then started to move concurrence motions like the one we are debating today. After that, they allowed the debate on the subamendment to the privilege motion to collapse so they could reset their speaking roster and start from scratch to give everybody another 20-minute round.

That is the game being played in the House of Commons right now. That is the game, which was referred to earlier as a multi-million dollar game, the Conservatives are playing. To the people watching, it is their tax dollars that are going toward that. It is their tax dollars being spent, in the millions of dollars right now, to keep the House operating in order to appease the Conservatives' desire for a filibuster. This is a filibuster on an issue that, by the way, the Speaker has ruled on. The Conservatives are the only ones who are speaking to it. At times, they are the only ones who are asking each other questions on the issue.

Conservatives are doing it for only one reason. They are doing it to support the concept and promote the idea that the House is dysfunctional and nothing can get done. This is because they benefit off of and see opportunity come from making things seem totally chaotic. Where have we witnessed that lately? It seems to happen a lot south of the border, so Conservatives have jumped on board and have said that this is how they are going to deal with things too. They are going to make things seem completely out of order. It is the only way to advance any of their personal political objectives, and this is where we have ended up.

The reason it is important for folks at home to know this is that we have an Order Paper and a projected order of business each day for the House of Commons. This is public. We can find it on the website and there is a printed copy provided every day.

Just so folks at home know what we would have been debating and discussing, had the Conservatives not chosen to continue this filibuster and bring forward concurrence motions like the one we have today, I will list some of the things that are on the Order Paper. The next item to be debated is from the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and it is Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act 2024, which would make amendments to our Citizenship Act. After that, there is a ways and means motion to bring in adjustments to the capital gains tax, which we had been talking about for a number of months. That is what we were going to debate after Bill C-71. Following that, there is the Minister of National Defence making changes to the military justice system. That is also listed on the Order Paper as one of the items the House would be debating. The Order Paper also lists an act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

These are the issues that the Canadian public should know we are trying to debate in the House of Commons while the Conservatives are talking to each other all the time. As the Conservatives are setting up these concurrence motions and their motions of privilege, they are filibustering. We cannot talk in the House of Commons right now about protecting children from online harm because the Conservatives have chosen to bring this place to an absolute halt and not let anything proceed for five weeks now. I will put 90% of the blame on Conservatives, and then I will assign 5% of the blame to both the Bloc and the NDP because the Bloc and the NDP know that there is a way through this.

[Alison Irons]

I'm already concerned when you mention data because, as you know, we have implemented Bill C-71, which required adult lifetime background checks for gun licensing. I was in a meeting earlier in June with the RCMP and the national firearms program. I have made the point repeatedly that if in fact the police are now conducting those adult lifetime background checks and denying or revoking licences, their data should show an increase in the number of licence refusals and revocations. They can't even tell us that, three years after Bill C-71 was implemented.

As you know, the collection of the data is a serious problem. Police and media are still not reporting on when a legal gun is used in a femicide or a homicide, so data is a key concern of mine, for sure.

Business of the House

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I have shared many times in this chamber, the government supports the motion that the Conservatives moved, and that they continue to filibuster, to refer the matter to committee.

Let us be clear that the Conservatives have decided that they want to grind the House to a halt rather than work for Canadians, which is preventing the House from debating and voting on important business that we would like to get back to, including Bill C-71 relating to citizenship, Bill C-66 on military justice, Bill C-63 concerning online harms, the ways and means motion related to capital gains, and the ways and means motion tabled this week, which contains our plan to require more transparency from charities that use deceptive tactics to push women away from making their own reproductive decisions.

In conclusion, while the Conservatives shake their fists saying that they are holding the government to account, what they are showing Canadians is just how reckless they can be in their relentless pursuit of power.

We, on this side, will continue to work for Canadians.

Medical Assistance in Dying

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

Madam Speaker, before I get under way, I would like to comment on the member's last statement. He pointed out the Conservative Party's resistance to the issue. I believe it is Bill C-390 that the Bloc is advocating for and advancing, which attempts to deal with the issue. This is the first time I am hearing it on the floor of the House. I would have thought Bloc members would have raised the issue with the leadership teams in the hope that we might be able to work together on Bill C-390 and, at the very least, how it might be incorporated into some of the consultations.

There is absolutely no doubt this is a very important issue. Since 2015, when the Supreme Court decided on the issue, it has been a hot topic for parliamentarians on all sides of the House. We have seen a great deal of compassion and emotion, and understandably so.

Before I get into the substance of the report, I want to refer to why we find ourselves again talking about this concurrence report. For issues of the day that are really important to caucus strategies, or the desire to have a public discussion, we have what we call opposition days. We need to contrast concurrence reports, including the one today that the Bloc has brought forward, with opposition day motions that are brought forward. We will find there is a stark difference. The Bloc is not alone. It will bring forward a motion or a concurrence report and say how important it is that we debate it, yet it is never given any attention on opposition days, when not only could the concurrence report be debated, but the opposition day motion could instruct an action of some form or another.

Why are we debating it today? I would suggest it is because of an action taken a number of weeks ago. We need to ask ourselves why there has been no discussion on Bill C-71, the Citizenship Act, which we started the session with. Everyone but the Conservatives supports that act. There is Bill C-66, where sexual abuses taking place within the military could be shifted over to the civil courts. My understanding is that every political party supports that legislation.

There is Bill C-33 regarding rail and marine safety and supply lines, which is very important to Canada's economy. There is Bill C-63, the online harms bill. Last night, members talked about the importance of protecting children from the Internet, and yet the government introduced Bill C-63, the online harms act. We are trying to have debates in the House of Commons on the legislation I just listed. It does not take away from the importance of many other issues, such as the one today regarding MAID. MAID is an important issue, and I know that. We all know that.

Yesterday, a concurrence report on housing was debated. Housing is also a very important issue, I do not question that, but we have well over 100 reports in committees at report stage. If we were to deal with every one of those reports, not only would we not have time for government legislation, but we would not have time for opposition days either, not to mention confidence votes. I am okay with that, as long as we get the budget passed through. We have to ask why we are preventing the House of Commons from being able to do the things that are important to Canadians. That can be easily amplified by looking at the behaviour of the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives will stand up today and talk about MAID, as well they should; I will too. However, there is no doubt that they are happy to talk about that issue today only because it feeds into their desire to prevent the government from having any sort of debate on legislation, let alone attempting to see legislation pass to committee. The Conservative Party is more concerned about its leader and the Conservative Party agenda than the agenda of Canadians and the types of things we could be doing if the official opposition party would, for example, allow its motion to actually come to a vote.

We are debating this concurrence motion because the Conservatives have frustrated the other opposition parties to the degree that we are sick and tired of hearing Conservatives stand up repeatedly, over 100 of them now, on the privilege issue, preventing any and all types of debate. So, as opposed to listening to Conservatives speak on something that is absolutely useless, we are ensuring that at least there is some debate taking place on important issues, such as MAID and housing.

Members of all political stripes need to realize the games the Conservatives are playing come at great expense to Canadians. The motion of privilege is to send the issue to PROC. Every member in the House supports that except for the Conservatives, yet it is a Conservative motion. They are filibustering and bringing the House to standstill, unless we are prepared to think outside the box and bring in a motion for concurrence. The concurrence motion, no doubt, is better than listening to the Conservatives continue to repeat speeches.

I attempted to address their speeches in great detail weeks ago. It is time we change the channel. It is time the Leader of the Opposition started putting Canadians and the nation's best interests ahead of his own personal interests and the Conservative Party of Canada's interests. We need to start talking about issues that Canadians want to hear about.

I was pleased when the member from the Bloc made reference to indications that the Province of Quebec wants to move forward on this issue. My understanding is that the province is even taking substantial actions towards it. Advance requests for MAID have been on the table and been discussed. We need to recognize it is not only Ottawa that plays a role in regard to MAID and its implementation. Our primary role is with the Criminal Code and how we might be able to make changes to it.

Members, no matter what region they come from, have to appreciate that Canada is a vast country in which there is an obligation to consult with the different provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, community advocates, health care professionals and Canadians. There is an obligation to do that, especially around the type of legislation the member of the Bloc is trying to change.

I was hoping to get a second question from the member, because he made reference to Bill C-390. I am not familiar with its background. It is probably completely related to the advance requests for MAID. The member, in his question to me, could maybe expand on what exactly the bill is proposing. I would ask, in regard to it, to what degree the member has done his homework. Doing the homework means going outside the province of Quebec. All provinces have something to say about the issue. Many people who were born in Quebec live in other jurisdictions, just as many people who were born in other parts of the country now call Quebec home.

We have an obligation to not take legislation dealing with issues like MAID lightly. Just because one jurisdiction is advancing it more quickly than another jurisdiction, or because one jurisdiction is demanding it, it does not necessarily mean Ottawa can buy into it at the snap of its fingers. That is not to take anything away from Quebec. On a number of fronts, Quebec has led the nation. I could talk about issues like $10-a-day child care, a national program that the Prime Minister and government, with solid support from the Liberal caucus, have advanced and put into place, and every province has now agreed to it. The MAID file is a good example where Quebec is probably leading, in pushing the envelope, more than any other province, as it did with child care. Other jurisdictions take a look at other aspects.

Health care, today, is a national program that was implemented by a national Liberal government, but the idea that predated it came from Tommy Douglas. Its practical implementation was demonstrated in the province of Saskatchewan. As a government, we continue to support health care in a very real and tangible way. By contrast, we can take a look at the Conservatives on health care and the concerns we have in terms of a threat to health care. We have invested $198 billion in health care. That ensures future generations can feel comfortable in knowing the federal government will continue to play a strong role in health care. Why is that relevant to the debate today? For many of the individuals who are, ultimately, recipients of MAID, it is an issue of long-term care, hospice care.

When my grandmother passed away in the 1990s, in St. Boniface Hospital, it was a very difficult situation. We would have loved to have had hospice care provided for her, but it did not happen. That does not take anything away from the fantastic work that health care workers provide in our system, but there she sat in a hospital setting, which was was questionable in terms of dying with dignity.

Health care and long-term care matter. With respect to my father's passing, it was Riverview and it was a totally different atmosphere because it provided hospice care. Health care matters when we talk about MAID. What the Government of Canada is bringing forward is recognition that we cannot change things overnight, but at least we are moving forward.

Back in 2015, when the Supreme Court made a decision, former prime minister Stephen Harper did absolutely nothing in terms of dealing with the issue of MAID, and the current leader of the Conservative Party was a major player during that whole Stephen Harper era. It put us into a position where, virtually immediately after the federal election, we had to take action, and we did. I remember vividly when members of Parliament shared stories in Centre Block. I remember the emotions. I remember many of my colleagues sitting on the committee that listened to Canadians from across the country with respect to the issue. We all talked to constituents and conveyed their thoughts in Ottawa. We were able to bring in and pass legislation, the first ever for Canada, that dealt with the issue.

In 2021, we actually updated the legislation that dealt with persons whose death was not reasonably foreseeable. We are making changes, but it has to be done in a fashion that is fair, reasonable and responsible.

We want to hear from Canadians. We want to hear what the different provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, stakeholders, doctors, nurses, those who are providing that direct care and the families have to say. This is a very personal decision that people have to make at very difficult times in their lives. We should not be taking it for granted in any fashion whatsoever.

That is the reason, once again, we have another special joint standing committee that hopefully will be starting its work in November, with the idea of doing something tangible over six or eight weeks, whatever it takes, so it can bring something back to the House to deal with advance requests for MAID. That seems to be the focal point of what the Bloc is talking about today.

I want to come back to some of my other comments in regard to the government's recognition of the importance of the issue of MAID. We have done that since 2015. We continue to recognize it and work with Canadians and the many different stakeholders, and we are committed to continuing to do that. It is unfortunate that because of the games being played by the leader of the Conservative Party and by members of the Conservative Party of Canada, the government is not able to continue to have important legislation debated, legislation like the Citizenship Act, the issue of military court to civil court with respect to sexual abuse, online harms act and the rail and marine safety act. All of these are so important.

I am asking the Conservative Party of Canada to stop focusing on its leader's best interests and to start thinking of Canadians' best interests. I am asking it to stop the filibuster and allow legislation, at the very least, to get to committee so Canadians can have their say.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to do a quick recap for anyone who missed the first part of my speech before QP. I started by saying why we have been here for three weeks debating a parliamentary privilege motion. I explained that it is because the Liberals will not produce the documents the Speaker ordered and that it is related to the green slush fund and the $400-million scandal, so no government business or private members' business can come forward until they produce the documents. That is what we are waiting for.

I started to debunk the myths of the weak reasons the Liberals have given for why they cannot produce the documents, beginning with their claim that giving the documents to the RCMP would be a violation of people's charter rights. This is absolutely not true. The police and the RCMP get tips all the time, for example through Crime Stoppers, phone calls and documents about criminal activity, and they have to exercise due diligence by looking into the evidence that is presented. If they do find evidence of criminality, then they need to go to the courts and request the documents formally so they can be used in a court case.

That is the law, so the argument is just a total red herring from the Liberals.

I talked about the Liberals' hypocrisy in even talking about charter rights, since they have violated every one of them, and I went down the whole list. I did not get to indigenous rights because if we started talking about the way they have violated those, we would be here all day. Therefore I will move along to my second point.

The Liberals have claimed that there needs to be more separation between Parliament and the RCMP. Certainly I agree that there should be separation. The job of the RCMP is to enforce the rule of law for everybody equally. I think that we are what our record says we are, so let us look at the record of the relationship and the separation between the RCMP and the Liberal government.

Let us start with the billionaire's island fiasco. Members may remember that the Prime Minister wasted 215,000 dollars' worth of taxpayer money. It was alleged that if he did not give himself written permission, it was actually fraud. The internal RCMP documents showed that the force considered opening a fraud investigation after details of the trip came to light, but it cited numerous reasons why it did not, including the fact that neither Parliament nor the Ethics Commissioner chose to refer the case to the police.

We can see from that, first of all, that the RCMP does accept documents from Parliament. We can also see that there was no evidence of whether or not the Prime Minister granted himself permission to go on the billionaire's island trip. If he did not, he definitely had committed fraud. The RCMP did not even bother to investigate.

Next is the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We know that Jody Wilson-Raybould was clear with the Prime Minister and Elder Marques that they absolutely could not talk to the prosecutor about getting SNC-Lavalin the deal to get it off the hook. The Prime Minister kicked Jody Wilson-Raybould to the curb and put his buddy David Lametti in place, and voila, SNC-Lavalin had the agreement it needed in order to get off the hook.

Did the RCMP investigate this? No, it did not, until four years after the fact, after Brenda Lucki retired, when the RCMP decided it was going to start investigating. Interestingly, as soon as it announced that, David Lametti was kicked out of cabinet and ended up stepping down as an MP.

Let us talk about the Brenda Lucki situation. In the Nova Scotia massacre, it was clear that the RCMP was working on behalf of Parliament, with the Liberal government. An article from the National Post says:

In June, the Mass Casualty Commission revealed disputes between RCMP investigators in Nova Scotia and the commissioner, with allegations Lucki let the politics interfere with the probe.

Notes from the Mountie in charge of the massacre investigation said that on a conference call, Lucki expressed disappointment the types of guns used by the killer had not been released to the public because she had promised the Prime Minister's Office and the public safety minister the guns would be detailed, tied to pending gun control legislation.

There is not a lot of separation there.

Now let us talk about the WE Charity scandal. Subsection 119(1) of the Criminal Code outlines that it is illegal for a holder of public office to take an action that benefits themself or their family. It is clear to everyone that the Prime Minister took an action by approving nearly a billion dollars for the WE Charity scandal.

We all know that his mother, his brother and his wife were paid by the WE Charity to do speaking engagements. According to a BBC News article, the Prime Minister said, “I made a mistake for not recusing myself from the discussions immediately, given my family's history”. He did not make a mistake; he broke the law. Again, the RCMP did nothing. If we look at the history, we see that there is not enough separation; there needs to be more.

If we go on to the next thing, they are claiming there is really nothing to see. However, a whistle-blower said there was criminal activity. We should at least get the documents the Speaker correctly ordered, and we should get to work on that.

However, it is a pattern of corruption. We have seen that with the government from the beginning. Since I was elected in 2015, there has been a history of corruption, not just at the Prime Minister's level but throughout the Liberal Party.

If we recall, there was Raj Grewal, a former MP, who was charged with fraud; Joe Peschisolido, a former Liberal MP, whose company was involved in and charged with a money laundering scam; Hunter Tootoo and Darshan Singh Kang, who were charged with sexual misconduct; the current Minister of Public Safety, in the clam scam, who gave a $25-million clam quota to his relative and a company that did not even own a boat, which was terrible; and the Minister of Transport, who gave money to her husband's company. It is a total conflict of interest.

The government is showing that it has this pattern of behaviour, and whenever the Liberals are caught, they do the obvious: They delay and refuse to release documents, or they release them all redacted. That needs to stop. Canadians have a right to know what happened to the $400 million and to get to the bottom of it.

The good news is that, while we continue to debate the parliamentary privilege part of this situation, no government bills can come forward. Therefore, the awful legislation the Liberals are trying to bring forward is not going to happen. For example, Bill C-63, which would put someone in jail for life if the government thought they might commit a hate crime in the future, is not going to come forward, nor is Bill C-71, which would take the children of Canadian citizens who live abroad, children who have never lived in Canada, and grant them Canadian citizenship. When they turned 18, they would be able to vote and decide, on their honour, where they wanted their vote to count. That is a new level of foreign interference, so I am happy that one is not coming forward.

Of course, we will also not see the bill that changes the date of the election so that MPs who lose their seat still get their pension. That will not be coming forward either. Nevertheless, it is an absolute disgrace to Canadians that money, $400 million, has basically been given out with 186 conflicts of interest. They act as though there is nothing to see here. It is totally unacceptable, and if the government wants to get back to work, the Liberals should do the right thing. They should produce the unredacted documents as the Speaker has requested.

Mr. Speaker, is there quorum?

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague is well aware, we are complying with the ruling of the Speaker of the House, which indicated that this matter must be referred to committee. As the Speaker said, the Conservatives are obstructing their own obstruction. I cannot help but think that that is because they do not want to know the truth. Doing what they are asking would be an abuse of the House's power. We will always stand up for Canadians' rights and freedoms.

I also want to illustrate the fact that his question is totally fake, much like the tacky slogans Conservatives hide behind because they have no actual ideas or policies for the country. That is probably why they continue to filibuster their own motion: to distract Canadians from the fact that they are nothing more than an empty shell. It must be pretty embarrassing for Conservative MPs, having to filibuster their own motion day after day to protect their leader from any real accountability. It must also be kind of embarrassing for Conservative MPs to sit in a caucus with a leader who refuses to get a security clearance, because he clearly has something to hide. It is expected of a leader of a political party to do this, but beyond his little performances in the House, their leader does very little that comes close to leadership.

Despite the games being played by the Conservatives, on this side of the House, we are going to continue to work hard for Canadians. When the House does get back to debating legislation, the priorities will be Bill C-71 on citizenship, Bill C-66 on military justice, Bill C-63 on online harms and the ways and means motion related to capital gains.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again. We will remember, at this time last week, I stood in this place and listed the following business for the upcoming week: Bill C-71, on citizenship; Bill C-66, on military justice; Bill C-63, on online harms; and the ways and means motion related to capital gains. I am sorry to say that all we saw this week was more Conservative procedural games. I can only imagine that this is because they do not want to debate this important legislation as they are opposed to it for Canadians. Again, for a second week in a row, they have offered nothing constructive and have instead focused on bringing dysfunction to the chamber.

As I have said many time, the government is supportive of the Speaker's ruling and of the Conservative motion, actually, to refer the privilege matter to the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs. Why can they not take yes for an answer?

The Conservatives are effectively spinning their own obstruction because they do not want this matter to be referred to committee. The funniest part about it is that they not only amended their own motion, but also, today, amended their own amendment. They are trying really hard to avoid this going to committee for further study. Perhaps that is because they will hear expert after expert talking about the egregious abuse of power being displayed by the official opposition, their interference in police work, their obstruction of police investigation and the fact that this shows complete disregard for democracy and the rights of Canadian citizens.

They clearly do not want to debate government legislation. All they want to do is serve themselves and their own partisan interests. We will continue to be here to work for Canadians.

Let me take this opportunity, as I know this weekend Canadian families will be together giving thanks for what they have, to wish all members in the House, as well as all Canadians, a very happy Thanksgiving.

Canadian Citizenship

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-71, a vital piece of legislation that would address the long-standing injustice faced by lost Canadians, individuals who, due to the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit, have been unfairly excluded from Canadian citizenship. These individuals have lived in, worked in and contributed to Canada. Bill C-71 would grant citizenship to those people who were unfairly impacted by the previous Conservative government, while establishing a substantial connection-to-Canada test moving forward.

I look forward to working with parliamentarians from all parties to get the work done. It is time to right this historical wrong and ensure that all who should rightfully be Canadians are recognized as such.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that was cute, and I saw that the Conservative House leader was having a hard time not laughing at how ridiculous his statement was.

As the fourth week of fall in the House of Commons approaches, we have made good progress. For one thing, we passed Bill C‑76 to give Jasper the tools it needs to rebuild.

We also debated bills that are important to Canadians, such as Bill C‑71, which extends citizenship by descent beyond the first generation in an inclusive way, protects the value of Canadian citizenship and restores citizenship to Canadians who lost or never acquired it because of outdated provisions under a previous citizenship act.

We debated Bill C‑66, which recognizes that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are always there to protect Canada's security and that we have a duty to protect them from harassment and inappropriate behaviour. This landmark legislation would transform military justice in Canada and respond to outside recommendations by former justices Arbour and Fish of the Supreme Court of Canada.

We also debated Bill C‑63 on online harms, which seeks to provide stronger protection to children online and better protect Canadians from online hate and other types of harmful content.

I would like to thank members of Parliament who have been working constructively to advance these bills. The Conservatives, on the other hand, continue to do everything they can to block the important work of the House and prevent debate on legislation that will help Canadians. They have offered nothing constructive and instead have focused on cheap political stunts and obstruction for the sake of obstruction. They have lost two confidence votes already and continue to paralyze the business of the House.

The government supports debates on the privilege motions concluding quickly so that we can get back to the important work of the House. I extend my hand to any party that wants to work constructively to advance legislation that will help Canadians. Once debate has concluded on both privilege motions, our priority will be resuming debate on the bills I have listed.

Finance

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on that point, I can recall, shortly after my daughter was elected back in 2015 or 2016, being out on Keewatin Street, taking signs out and having a wonderful story about pharmacare. I was a health critic for a couple of years when I was in the Manitoba legislature. Pharmacare is something that I believe should be there, and I am glad that we were able to work together to ensure that we have programs like pharmacare moving forward.

In regard to Bill C-71, I know that one of the member's colleagues has been a very strong advocate for it. The NDP has attempted to get Bill C-71 through the House, and last fall I think it was all the way through, recognizing the importance of the bill. We appreciate the support that we receive from opposition members, because we need that kind of support to get things passed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

One of them is saying, “Hear, hear!”

Madam Speaker, now the Conservatives are saying that they do not want to be accountable through media like the CTVs or the CBCs of Canada because they do not have confidence in those national news broadcasters. It is because they do not want to answer the questions that are being posed to them. Instead, they want to rely on social media.

There is a reference to the leader of the Conservative Party being very similar to Trump. That might be a bit of a disservice to Donald Trump. Quite frankly, I am very disappointed in the direction the far-right Conservative Party is going today. There is also no sign of its members changing their attitudes. Look at the attitude of hate that Conservatives are promoting and the information they are providing to people.

Today, Conservatives brought forward a motion, and that motion is in keeping with their slogans. I will give them that much. Darn, they are good at slogans. They have slogans; they have bumper stickers. They are ready and itching to get them out there. The problem is that everything is based on a foundation of sand. At the end of the day, there is nothing to it but slogans and bumper stickers, which are supported by misinformation.

One of the examples I could give is related to what Conservative members have been talking a lot about already today. If someone were to do a Hansard search, how many Conservative members of Parliament would we find who have actually said anything about cutting the carbon rebates? I suspect we would not find any. How many have said, “cut the carbon tax”? I suspect, on average, each one has said it 10 times. Some have said it a couple hundred times, and others have not said it because they have not spoken.

I can suggest to members that, when Conservatives go to Canadians and say that they are going to save Canadians money, as they have said inside the chamber, by cutting the carbon tax, that is not true. More than 80% of the constituents that I represent get a carbon rebate. That rebate amount is more than the carbon tax that they pay. That means that their net income, their disposable income, is increased. That is the reality. Members do not have to believe me. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is independent, will tell us that.

Conservatives will spread misinformation because it sounds good. Some provinces do not even have the carbon tax, yet they will go to those provinces and say that they are going to cut the carbon tax, giving a false impression. The other day in debate, there was one member in the Conservative Party who stood up and said that a 34% cost increase on food is a direct result of the carbon tax. What a bunch of garbage. That is absolutely ridiculous. I challenged the member on that statement, and then I challenged a couple of other members on the statement this particular member made. They do not change their opinions on it, even if they are confronted with facts.

They do not change their opinions because they are so focused on that thirst for power. At the end of the day, they are not concerned about what is happening for Canadians, the day-to-day living that Canadians have to put up with, let alone the important issues that the House of Commons deals with on a daily basis.

Today, we were supposed to debate Bill C-71. Bill C-71 is a bill to ensure that individuals who should have never have lost their citizenship will be given their Canadian citizenship. Every political party, except for the Conservatives, supports that legislation. Conservatives do not even want to debate it now. They will not allow it to be debated. They do not want it to go to committee.

Members will say that the Conservatives do not support that one, but they do support Bill C-66. They say that they support it. That bill takes sexual harassment and rape victims who are going through military courts and transfers them into civil courts. Every member of the House of Commons, the Conservatives, the Bloc, New Democrats, Greens and, of course, Liberals, supports that legislation. Members would think that the Conservatives would allow that bill to go to committee, but no. Instead, they want to filibuster. They brought forward another concurrence report.

They say that they are concerned about the economy. Members can take a look at Bill C-33, which we were supposed to be debating last week, to enhance our trading opportunities. What did the Conservative members do? They did not want to debate that either, so they brought in another concurrence report, which prevented the government from being able to debate that legislation.

The members opposite, in criticizing the government today, were talking about issues of crime. They say that this is what they want to talk about. I will remind them of Bill C-63, the online harms act. That is to protect children being extorted, being bullied. The whole issue of exploitation of our young children, we were supposed to debate that last week, but no, the Conservatives said no to that too, and they brought forward a concurrence report. The Conservative Party is going out of its way to prevent any legislation from going to committee.

Prior to getting up, I had a member of one of the opposition parties approach me, asking why we do not just move to orders of the day. I think there was a great deal of effort and thought to move towards orders of the day because then maybe we could get on with actually providing movement on some of this legislation. The problem is that we are a minority government. In a minority government, we cannot go to orders of the day unless we get an opposition party that says it will support the government moving to orders of the day so that we can get rid of the games that the Conservative party has been playing.

Let there be no doubt that, no matter how critical the Conservative Party is, how much of a roadblock the Conservatives want to present or how much of a character assassination that they are after for those in the government, the Prime Minister and the government will continue to be focused on the interests of Canadians in all regions of our country. That is something we will continue to focus on day in and day out. That means that, whether the Conservatives want it or not, we will continue to develop policy ideas that will transform into budgetary measures and legislative measures. There will come a time when Canadians will, in fact, evaluate and take a look at what the Conservative Party has been doing between now and whenever the next election is, and what other political entities have done.

I think there is a sense of responsibility for all of us to be able to accomplish good things for Canadians. That is what I liked about the agreement that was achieved between the Liberals and the New Democrats. I have always been a big fan of the pharmacare plan. I have always been a very strong advocate for a national health care system that supports our provinces, which administer health care. For over 30 years as a parliamentarian, those are the types of issues that have been important for me. As a government, those issues have been important for us.

We were able to get support from the New Democrats to advance a number of wonderful health care initiatives. That is what it means to put people first, putting the constituents of Canada ahead of partisan politics. By doing that, the government has invested $198 billion over 10 years in health care. That is for future generations. We have developed a dental care program. To date, over 700,000 people have had access to it. Members can think of diabetes, or of contraceptives, and how, as a government working with an opposition party, we are, in fact, making a difference. In fact, I have suggested that one of the other things we should possibly be looking at is shingles and how pharmacare might be able to deal with that particular issue.

These are the types of ideas that we are talking about within the Liberal Party to build a stronger, healthier health care system, while the Conservative Party wants to tear it down. That is a part of the Conservative far-right hidden agenda. People need to be aware of that. By the time we get to the election, I believe that throughout that election, we will see the Conservative sand fade away. There is no foundation to what they are saying. It is just bumper stickers and slogans. That is all they have. We can contrast that to the many progressive measures we have taken as a government, in good part because of the cooperation of opposition parties.

I ask the Conservatives to stop playing the games, stop bringing in Conservative motions of concurrence and allow debate on government legislation. A responsible Conservative opposition could still bring in the motions it wants, while at least allowing debates to occur on legislation. Allow these important pieces of legislation to go to committee where they can be studied, where they can come back and where they can provide hope for many. That is the very least that Conservatives can do: put Canadians ahead of their own political party.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, as we are listening, the Conservatives never miss the opportunity to actually work for Canadians. We were supposed to be discussing Bill C-71 tonight, which is about lost Canadians. When the Conservatives were in power, they actually stripped the ability of Canadians to retain or gain their citizenship. I wanted to debate the bill tonight because it would affect my daughter, who was born abroad but has lived here all of her life; it might actually ensure that her children have Canadian citizenship.

I would ask the member this: Why is it that we have to hear the same slogans over and over again rather than do the work we are doing on this side of the House for Canadians?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to be here today to speak on behalf of the people who sent me to represent them in the House of Commons, the people of London West.

This morning, the leader of the official opposition said that if the Conservatives formed government, they would run things the way they did before, specifically referring to when Harper's Conservatives were in power. That is a big shame. After all, this Conservative Party has promised to create barbaric cultural practices such as hotlines that encourage Canadians to spy on one another. It was this Conservative Party that kept families apart through limited family reunification targets, only because it did not want to let many seniors into this country.

Yesterday, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn spent time filibustering a bill that was first moved by the member for Brandon—Souris, who was the sponsor of the bill. He said the Conservatives would make sure they did not oppose the motion, yet they spent three hours filibustering it, misleading Canadians and not following the promises they made.

It was this Conservative Party that introduced significant cuts to the interim federal health program in 2012, which provided health care to refugees and asylum seekers. These cuts led to limited access to central health services for many refugees, including children and pregnant women. The Federal Court eventually ruled that these cuts were cruel and unusual.

It was this Conservative Party that voted against funding the interim housing assistance program ahead of the cold winter months, playing political games, as they have done since we came back to Parliament, with the lives of vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers, again misleading Canadians that they are here to serve. They are here to cut programs that are vital and essential to Canadians.

It was this Conservative Party that shut down the family reunification program for two years, separating families. In fact, a statement made by the former immigration minister under the Harper Conservatives said, “If you think your parents may need to go on welfare in Canada, please don't sponsor them.” This was from a minister in Harper's government. It was the same Conservative Party that accused vulnerable asylum seekers and refugees of abusing Canada's generosity.

The Conservatives are doing what they know best, and that is dividing and misleading Canadians. Shame on them. We will not stand for it, nor will we dignify their shameful tactics to divide Canadians.

Let us talk about what the Conservative Party is doing right now at the citizenship and immigration committee. I want to remind the House what the Conservatives said about Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, during second reading debate. There has been a six-hour filibuster on a motion at the immigration committee regarding Bill C-71.

I will take this opportunity to share that I will be splitting my time with the member for Davenport. I got carried away.

I would like to share some of the context on Bill C-71. Given the recent legal changes to the first-generation limit that Harper's Conservatives introduced, it was clear that changes were needed to the Citizenship Act to address cohorts of excluded citizens. This is especially relevant for those born outside of Canada to a Canadian parent.

In 2009, several amendments to the Citizenship Act remedied the majority of the older lost Canadian cases by providing and restoring citizenship and removing the need for anyone to file to retain their citizenship by their 28th birthday. However, the Harper Conservatives introduced the first-generation limit, which the Supreme Court of Ontario has now deemed unconstitutional based on equality and mobility rights.

The leader of the official opposition has suggested that he would use the notwithstanding clause if given the chance, and that the Conservatives are considering taking away people's rights when it suits them. What the Conservatives did here is a concrete example of taking away the rights of Canadians, and I think they will do it again if given the opportunity. When Conservatives say that Canadians have nothing to fear, Canadians need to take note of what they have done in the past, as they have repeatedly said they would run the system exactly how they did before.

Bill S-245, a Senate public bill on the lost Canadians issue, was sponsored by a Conservative senator. However, during the study on this bill, the Conservative Party filibustered for over 30 hours. During that time, the member of Parliament for Calgary Forest Lawn, who is the sponsor for Bill S-245 and the former Conservative immigration critic, recommended the introduction of a private member's bill or government bill to address the remaining cohort of lost Canadians. I want to point out that the Conservative Party continues to trade down this bill, even though it corresponds with its leader, who has assured us that the Conservatives will continue to support and advocate for this legislation.

As I said earlier, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn was quoted as saying that they will make sure there is no opposition to it, yet yesterday, the Conservatives spent hours filibustering, with different colleagues in rotation coming to filibuster. It was very misleading that they told Canadians there would be no opposition and it would be passed quickly. These Canadians came to our committee. The Conservatives listened to witnesses and heard them, yet they still misled them and moved into a filibuster.

We have a government bill in front of us that we want to pass. It is wrong that the Harper Conservatives created this division in the first place. However, once again, the Conservative Party is playing political games with the lives of Canadians. Nothing about that is new. They have done it before and are doing it again. I hope Canadians are watching.

The Conservatives are delaying Bill C-71 from going to committee so it can be debated. They are also filibustering at the immigration committee regarding the motion on Bill C-71. I am so disappointed that the Conservatives have been sharing misinformation and attempting to stoke division and drive fear into the hearts of Canadians, but I cannot say that I am surprised.

The Conservatives constantly talk about people's pensions. They talk about the NDP leader's pension, yet they do not talk about the fact that their own leader has a pension of $230,000. The Conservatives also do not want to address why their leader does not have a security clearance right now. These are all questions that Canadians need answers to, and Conservatives should be asking them themselves.

On this side of the House, we remain committed to righting the wrongs of the unconstitutional first-generation limit on families. We continue to support newcomers. We will continue to provide a safe haven for vulnerable asylum seekers, all the while ensuring that our growth is sustainable and that we continue to build more homes and grow our economy. We have prioritized family reunification by expanding the spousal, parents and grandparents sponsorship program, increasing our annual levels and lowering financial requirements.

We are taking action to restore the integrity of the international student program, protecting students from instances of abuse and exploitation. We have made it easier for foreign national physicians with job opportunities to remain here in Canada and seek permanent residency. We have also launched a health-specific category under express entry to help address labour shortages in the health care sector so that Canadians can receive the quality health care they deserve.

We introduced the home child care provider pilot and home support worker pilot to provide pathways to PR for caregivers. We are also the first country to introduce a special humanitarian stream for women leaders, human rights defenders, LGBTQI+ individuals, persecuted minorities and journalists.

On this side of the House, we will always support newcomers, asylum seekers, refugees and citizens, and we will always stand shoulder to shoulder with them every step of the way.

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

He's talking about finance and Brookfield, and those things should be in the finance committee, not in a committee where we're discussing the motion on Bill C-71 here.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am just wondering whether Mr. Kmiec is discussing the motion on Bill C-71. The point he's bringing should be in a different committee, not in this committee.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

—quite shameful that....

Since Ms. Kwan wants to speak up, I guess we'll start with the original motion on Bill C-71. I'll just say it's quite shameful that we had a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill S-245—

National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a great privilege to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Shepard. Over the past two years, constituents have written to me on multiple occasions, both for and against a universal basic income, and specifically on the legislation before us as well as what I will call its partner legislation, which is in the Senate.

It is very confusing when the bills have almost the same number, and sometimes people get them confused. It is very difficult to understand when we are sent a bill number in the subject line but it is not explained whether it is S or C and I am left trying to figure out which legislation it is. I am always looking to respond, but sometimes I get it wrong, and then there is a conversation back and forth.

I have taken the time to read the legislation over, and I want to give the member who sponsored it the benefit of going through each section on the merits of the content. I will be voting against the bill, so I want to explain section by section why that is.

Clause 3 is on the national framework. This is the part that a lot of constituents have told me they have concerns about. There are those people who support it as well, but on the balance, my constituents want me to vote against it. It would create a national framework for the implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income program throughout Canada for any person over the age of 17, and then it goes on to include temporary workers, permanent residents and refugee claimants.

It does not say “successful claimants”. It does not have the classification of protected persons. It does not refer to international students. It uses the wording “temporary workers”, which, when one reads it over, could mean a series of different things.

The bill also does not have a royal recommendation. It does not seek to spend any money. Therefore when I was responding to constituents, I noted for them that the bill does not have a budget, an amount, assigned to it, which is one of the reasons I would vote against it right away, because it would create a framework legislation. I generally do not support framework legislation. I have on a few occasions when I thought it would not be an imposition of huge new costs.

Subclause 3(2) has a consultation provision. Generally I like these types of consultation requirements with provincial, territorial and indigenous governments. I think they are more than reasonable. I come from the province of Alberta, where there is a requirement for the provincial government to consult, especially, for example, with Métis Settlements General Councils, or MSGCs. So far, I think Alberta is the only provincial government where it is a requirement; legislation affecting MSGCs cannot be changed without their consent. I think it is one of the first, if I am not wrong, among provincial governments, and I think it is a good idea generally.

Now I will move on to the content, which is subclause 3(3). It says that the framework must include four different types of provisions in it. For example, “guaranteed livable basic income program does not result in a decrease in services or benefits meant to meet an individual’s exceptional needs related to health or disability.” Of course this would not be universal, which in my view would be equal treatment for all, exactly the same.

I have read economics magazines and journals on the subject, which I will refer to in a moment, and they specifically state that a UBI or a negative income tax, which famously is kind of where the idea comes from, has to be completely equal to every single person regardless of their starting point.

There is also information in paragraph 3(3)(c) that would ensure that “participation in education, training or the labour market is not required in order to qualify for a guaranteed livable basic income”, and I have questions about temporary workers being made eligible for something like this. As I said, international students are not mentioned, but international students, as of September 1 of this year, can continue to work 24 hours per week in our labour market. However, as non-participation would allow them to participate in this benefit, they are specifically excluded in subclause 3(1). I do not know whether that was intentional or not.

Paragraph 3(3)(b) would “create national standards for health and social supports that complement a guaranteed basic income program and guide the implementation of such a program in every province”. I have two major concerns with this. One is that it would be an encroachment into provincial jurisdiction. My province gets to set what programs it wants. It does not have to in any way submit to the federal government when it is purely within its own provincial jurisdiction.

Second, setting national standards would encroach on provincial health care and social supports. My province has an age for PDD programs, as do many others, and it would be an encroachment to set a national standard, even if we consult with them. Consultation does not always lead to agreements, and our Constitution is very clear that there are areas of exclusive jurisdiction.

I know that is a comment often made by Quebec members of Parliament from different political parties, but it is one I think a lot of us Albertans make as well, that we have exclusive jurisdiction in many areas and we want the federal government to stay out of them.

Paragraph 3(a) talks about what would constitute a livable basic income in “each region of Canada” without spelling out what “region” would mean. In the Constitution, Canada is separated into four regions, if we use the Senate rules: western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Hopefully that is not what “region” means in this sense, because I think our state has evolved quite significantly and the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia combined now have a bigger population than the province of Quebec.

If I go on, there is a framework that is required to be tabled. There is more information on when it must be tabled and when the report must be provided to the House.

I have a Yiddish proverb, as I always do. I did forget to give one when I started speaking on Bill C-71, and I will always admonish myself for doing so. It says: He who is aware of his folly is wise.

In this instance, let us look at what is going on so we do not do something rash with our finances. We are facing a $40-billion deficit, and I wonder how we will pay for this. Jim Seeley, in my riding, wrote this great email asking a lot of questions about cost, percentages, who would be eligible, how would CPP and old age security work, just questions he was wondering about. I had to tell him I was not quite sure.

I did go and look, though, at the government's projections for future years. When does it expect to have a surplus? From a surplus, presumably, we would then look at whether we could do a universal basic income or a negative income tax. There is a $20-billion deficit in the last financial year that is forecast. The Government of Canada expects to accumulate a deficit of $157 billion by fiscal year 2028-29, and that is without any new spending announcements. That means no new public infrastructure dollars added, on top of what has already been announced, and no new procurement. There would be nothing new, nothing extra above and beyond that, and the government would still run a $20-billion deficit, so I wonder how all this would be paid for.

Finally, as I mentioned, a negative income tax has been talked about for at least the last 50 to 60 years. It was first proposed in a journal by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. He is often tagged as an economist of the right, which I do not think is entirely fair to him. Now, UBI and NIT, whichever acronym we want to use, work in slightly different ways but their goal is sort of the same. He recognized that a lot of public advocates on the left were generally very enthusiastic about the ideas he explained, especially the mechanisms his concept would work on and its end goal.

Public advocates on the right were much less enthusiastic and heavily criticized him when he wrote the journal. He recollected this quite often. There is a great YouTube video I often send to constituents, for them to hear from him, the expert, on the logic of how it would work. One of the things he said about UBI, or NIT, is that there would be no other welfare programs competing at the same time. There would be fewer civil servants, who he called nannies, who would look over the spending of citizens, of how they were living their lives and what they were doing.

To go back to my Yiddish proverb, I really hope we would be careful with the public's finances. We see it reflected in the polls, but I heard it while I was door-knocking in my riding of Calgary Shepard. My constituents are worried about the public finances. They are worried about a $40-billion deficit and about $150 billion more in debt being accumulated on the credit card of the nation. That is why I will be voting against this piece of legislation.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Yes, Madam Speaker, by popular demand, I am back. I really missed these exchanges. Some of our great moments are on Thursdays, not just for CPAC viewers, but also for you and me personally, I know. Therefore it is wonderful to exchange and wonderful to be back. I want to wish members a good return. I hope everybody had a productive and happy time with their families and their constituents in their ridings.

This afternoon, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-66, the military justice system modernization act.

Tomorrow, we will begin the report stage debate of Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act.

On Monday, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-63, the online harms act.

Madam Speaker, you will be very happy to know that next Wednesday we will also be resuming second reading debate of Bill C-71, which would amend the Citizenship Act.

I would also like to take the opportunity to inform the House that both next Tuesday and next Thursday shall be allotted days.

Furthermore, on Monday, the Minister of Finance will table a ways and means motion on capital gains taxation that incorporates the feedback received during consultations over the summer. The vote will take place on Wednesday of next week during Government Orders.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

If you want to work on this collaboratively, then I invite you to move on from the political games. If you have more of these types of aggressive, partisan motions, then we're going to have more of these types of days where we're debating what I hear at the doors in my riding. When I go to the door, the people are fed up with the government and would like to see an election. They want to have their say, and their say is a carbon tax election. That's what they're saying to me. I'd say that it's the primary issue. Probably now for over 50% of the people I connect with at the door, this is a driving issue connected to the cost of living. They want to see this.

We'll have a non-confidence vote next week on Wednesday, hopefully one of many to come and be repeated. Ours will be simple. It's 12 words. I think we all agree on 12 words as we go forward on it. The carbon tax election will come. If this committee were to accept my subamendment, that might actually expedite it even faster.

It would be great to see it happen even more quickly if we need to use the committee process to move non-confidence in the government in order to submit ourselves as public servants to the people's judgment. They have a right to judge the quality of our work. You don't get votes; you earn votes and you earn them repeatedly. It is difficult, because it's your work. It's your political party's work. It's your political movements. There are provincial parties as well. You have political leadership as well that you have to defend when you want to. You don't have to defend them. I mean that, especially on the other side. You don't have to defend your political leadership. At a certain point, self-preservation should kick in, and you should be listening to the people in your ridings.

With Bjorkquist specifically, this court ruling that is the linchpin of why now we have Bill C-71, and this claim that we need to rush, the government can always return to the court and ask for another delay, if it comes to that. I don't think it will come to that. The government side has a working majority, effectively.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak to MP Chiang's Bill C-71 amendment, but more specifically to the subamendment by Conservative member of Parliament Tom Kmiec, which adds, after "temporary foreign workers", the following words: "and after a carbon tax election is held so that Canadians and Québécois can vote out this tired and out-of-touch NDP coalition government".

That is the subamendment. It has been ruled in order several times by the chair, and he did need to admonish different members for being disruptive. I'm glad to see there was no disruption to MP Kmiec's comments and I'm looking forward to being able to get through my comments here.

My remarks focus on the carbon tax and how out of touch the Liberals—and I would add the NDP and the Bloc—are with Canadians from coast to coast, and why we need a carbon tax election.

I represent Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. That is a suburb of greater Vancouver, on the north side of MP Dhaliwal's riding, near to the south, in Surrey. It's a beautiful area. My perspective will be as a British Columbian MP, though comments I share are in line with how Canadians feel across this country.

I've never seen residents in my riding as stressed out as they are now. I've been an MP since 2019, and prior to that I was an MLA for eight years, representing the same region. I'm talking about seniors living on fixed incomes, single parents, couples with and without children, new immigrants and students, who are feeling very stretched with costs of living. I talked to one worker recently, and he told me that he's working from 10:00 in the morning until 10:00 at night, seven days a week. He says he can't give his body a break: He's exhausted, but if he does that, he's going to lose his home.

These are comments that I'm hearing throughout British Columbia and in my riding. People are maxing out on their line of credit, credit card debt, feeling anxious and frustrated. I'm sure that this is in sync with what members here at this committee may be hearing also. Consumer debt continues to rise, and it's especially impacting those who are new to the country and Generation Z, but it's being felt across the board. According to an August 27, 2024, market pulse consumer credit trends and insights report from Equifax, we have $2.5 trillion in consumer debt. It's increased from the past year by 4.5%, which is very significant.

Millions of Canadians are tapped out and struggling to make ends meet. They're going deeper into debt, which means higher interest payments. That only puts on more pressure, because the same expenses that they had to pay for—whether it's food, gas or shelter—are not just staying the same but increasing. It's what we call a “debt trap”. It is terrible. It's a very difficult place for people to be.

In the Lower Mainland and the greater Vancouver area, housing costs are more than a million dollars to own a home and have a mortgage. People are having mortgages of $600,000. Then there's the increase in payments.

I just want to step back here for a second. I know that I'm mentioning different costs of living, but it all relates to the real challenge and burden that Canadians are feeling. The carbon tax, which I'll get into more, really highlights it and is an unnecessary cost that is being added to Canadians.

The increase in mortgage rates is making it tough for residents to pay for kids—to clothe them with new clothes, to pay for their sports or just to put food on the table. It is not just people who own houses; it's also people who are renting. Someone very dear to me has just rented an older one-bedroom apartment. It costs her $2,800 before utilities. You pretty much need $80,000 to $100,000 just to be able to make ends meet nowadays. It is so hard. That is one of the reasons that so many people—new residents, students and others—are cramming into apartments and other places. It's just to try to share the cost of living. They're sleeping on couches and sharing bedrooms. It's really hard.

As a government, as legislators, that's not the direction that we want to see our nation go in. We want to see things getting better. I know that's the feeling of all the members here at this committee and all the representatives. We don't want to see things getting worse for people. We don't want to be adding to the misery index. We want to see things getting better. I know we share that wish, but the thing is that there are policies that are doing the exact opposite. It's time to wake up. The government seems to be like a train going off a bridge that has been blown up and going right off the edge. It's like they're not changing.

As a matter of fact, though, they are changing. They're making things more expensive: Oh, we'll just spend hundreds of millions more dollars here and billions of dollars there. We'll throw money around willy-nilly, with no real consideration of the finances and what the policies are doing to impact everyday Canadians.

In British Columbia, we pay the highest gas prices in Canada and in North America. Right now it's $1.75 a litre. Last summer it was up to $2.50 a litre. It's expensive. The carbon tax is a significant portion of this price. Before summer, Conservatives put forward a motion that the government—the Liberals, backed by the NDP and the Bloc—remove the GST from the carbon tax. We have the carbon tax. Then there's the GST, which only augments or elevates the price on gas. That was defeated.

People can say, “Well, just take public transportation.” I suppose that's possible in the downtown city core in Vancouver and maybe Toronto and Montreal, but for those living in the suburbs and those living in rural communities all over, it's not as simple as that. Quite often the bus systems don't operate throughout the night. A lot of times it's not direct.

Using the bus lines means it takes a lot longer to get to work, which only puts more stress on a person's life and means less time at home.

It's important to have a good public transportation system, and in Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, we have a bus system. West Coast Express goes one direction, with five trains in the morning going one way and five trains coming back from the downtown core. That just doesn't do it. People need to get their kids to sports or need to go shopping, so they need to use their vehicles. It seems as if the government is just trying to get people out of their cars, to make them walk, to take us back to the Middle Ages, the dark ages.

B.C. used to be a net exporter of electricity. The direction of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc seems to be to just use more electricity. The fact of the matter is that British Columbia used to be an exporter, and now it's importing electricity. Saying that we need to have more and more EV vehicles.... EVs are a good option for many people, but it doesn't work when you consider all the demands on our electricity grids. It's very challenging. How can I say it politely? It is kind of foolish to say, “Well, no more—”

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

The relevance, to my colleague across the way, is that my subamendment to the main motion is exactly on the carbon tax election. I'm quoting back to him a seasoned politician on the NDP side who is saying that he's facing a carbon tax election in British Columbia, and that's what the public wants. I'm trying to remind my colleague across the way through you, Chair, that we need a carbon tax election, and that's why I have a subamendment on this exact subject before this committee: It's so that we can have a carbon tax election and submit ourselves to accountability from Canadian citizens, who will get to pick who will represent them in the 45th Parliament, in our next Parliament, and I'm more than happy to do that right away.

My residents back home are enthusiastic about having a carbon tax election, and I'll go back to quoting now Premier Eby, who is less enthusiastic about facing the electorate in his home province. That's because they're upset at the carbon tax, and they're specifically, I'd say, more angry at the federal government for forcing British Columbia to keep a carbon tax because of the federal backstop legislation that forces every single province that doesn't have a carbon tax to have a price imposed directly upon them.

Premier Eby has clearly said that should there not be a federal backstop, British Columbia would abandon the punishing carbon tax. It's really convenient for him to say this so late in his term and so close to the provincial election day. I think it's of interest to the committee, and especially, I think, to our chair, who happens to be from the beautiful province of British Columbia through which I backpacked for two weeks over the summer with my kids. That's why this is important.

This is the last quote I have from Premier Eby before I move to other provinces. Premier Eby argued that large increases to the federal tax, now $80 a tonne as of April 1, are, to use another quotation, unsustainable. “Unsustainable” is what I heard at doors when I was door knocking in communities in North Vancouver, in Burnaby, in Delta, Vancouver Granville and Vancouver proper—but not Surrey.

Don't worry, Chair, I didn't make it out to Surrey to door knock, but I did door knock in New Westminster and I visited a lot of different groups as well. I door knocked also in a few spots in Seymour and North Burnaby, just to make sure that I heard directly from British Columbians, and what they were saying at the doors was that many of them wanted just what this subamendment has: a carbon tax election.

Moving on to my home province of Alberta, it's an unusual day, I think my colleagues from Alberta will agree, when we're quoting NDP MLAs, but I'm going to quote some NDP MLAs now.

Alberta NDP MLA and former leadership candidate Rakhi Pancholi spoke against the carbon tax, and this was reported earlier this year, before my subamendment even came to grace this committee to have a carbon tax election. On February 9, 2024, as reported in the Calgary Herald, she said the following: “It may be time to move beyond a consumer carbon price and focus more on the things that do work”, which again is an implication a carbon tax does not work and that we should abandon it.

This is another quote: “I’ve been having many conversations with leading climate activists in our province, experts in this area, and we need to continue those conversations to say, what would that climate plan look like without a consumer carbon price.”

It sounds to me like she was shying away from a retail carbon tax being imposed, which is exactly the point of my subamendment, which is to have a carbon tax election. I think it's perfectly reasonable that we time it for this report going back and its impact on Bill C-71 legislation before it comes to this committee.

I'll note that the government obviously finds no urgency in passing Bill C-71, because it's not up for debate today, as far as I can tell. It wasn't up for debate yesterday. I don't see it on notice for tomorrow's business. In fact, I don't think it's on the business for several more days, and the government saw no great urgency from the moment it tabled it in May to have it debated at any time in May or June before it came here.

I'll also remind members here that this committee was in public in a multi-meeting filibuster from the Liberal side, and I heard many people comment yesterday that the bad Conservatives were delaying Bill C-71. There's no delay happening. Members are debating the merits of the bill and the contents of the bill in the House. Then I also heard the other side of the argument, which is that Conservatives take too much time at committee to do their work. I will continue to do the work the residents of Calgary Shepard expect me to do, which is to represent them.

The content of my subamendment is exactly what residents in my riding want to see. That's every single word in my email inbox. They want to have a non-confidence vote and they want a carbon tax election, which is what my subamendment would deliver for them.

I am going to go back this weekend. I'm going to go to my veterans walk in Glenmore Park. I'm going to go to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the Calgary food drive that they do for the whole city. When I meet my residents, my constituents and my voters, they're going to ask me, "What did you do for us this week?" I'm going to tell them I moved at committee that we report back to the House that we have a carbon tax election. They'll be like, "Tom, that's great. That's exactly what we sent you to Ottawa for. That's what we sent you to Parliament for. That's what we want. We're tired of the government. We want to see it replaced. We want to have a say."

That's what reporting this back would give them. It places conditions on the main motion. That's exactly what my residents want to see.

I have another quote I want to read you. It's from a different Alberta NDP MLA, one whom I actually met briefly at the Alberta legislature when we were waiting in a line to greet the President of the Republic of Poland. I got a chance to meet, I think, one of her kids. She got a chance to meet my kids, and we were just talking family issues.

Alberta NDP MLA and leadership candidate Sarah Hoffman spoke out against the carbon tax. According to CTV Edmonton, on February 11, 2024, Hoffman said, “I think the consumer carbon tax is dead”, and later, “So we need to find new tools that are successful.”

She went on to say, “Nobody is on board with what [the Prime Minister] did with the federal carbon tax. He absolutely broke trust and broke confidence when he looked at the polls in eastern Canada and decided to exempt them.”

Finally, she said, “There's no way people can be on board with the federal plan when even the prime minister isn't on board, when he's playing games with it.”

Even the Alberta NDP agrees, I think, with my subamendment. The purpose is to have a carbon tax election federally. Let's get this resolved. Let the voting public pick. They can make a decision.

I believe in the wisdom of crowds. I believe that voters always have the best say. They get to choose who represents them. I hope that I can continue to earn their trust, just as we all hope we can continue to earn their trust and continue to represent them in our national Parliament. It is a great privilege to do so.

I think that's exactly what Sarah Hoffman was speaking to here. She was speaking to the fact that even the Prime Minister had abandoned the federal carbon tax. Premier Eby had talked about the fact that if there hadn't been a backstop in law, he would have abandoned it as well. That's what the subamendment proposes to do: move it up to the House and have the House confirm the committee's report to say, “not before a carbon tax election happens,” because that's what the public wants to see. I think it's critically important.

With that, Chair, I'm going to stop my comments. I have more comments. I also want to note that I have a letter from the Public School Boards' Association of Alberta, which represents all the public school boards who wrote to me and other Conservative members of Parliament specifically about the impact of the carbon tax on schools in my home province, but I'll leave it at that, Chair, and I'll cede the floor.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't understand the relevance of Mr. Kmiec's comment about the carbon tax. It has no relevance to Bill C-71. That's the matter before us that we're debating. What he's talking about is completely not connected to the matter before us.

Citizenship Act

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship introduced Bill C-71. As Canadians, we can never take our rights for granted. We must remain vigilant, especially when the Leader of the Opposition suggests he would use the notwithstanding clause if given the chance. Like the first generation limit introduced by the Conservatives, it is a concrete example of them taking away the rights of Canadians.

Could the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship explain to the House the importance of Bill C-71?

Citizenship Act

[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?

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

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

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

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

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

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

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

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

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed from September 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Recent Deaths of First Nations People During Police Interventions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indigenous communities and indigenous people deserve better all the time.

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

Citizenship Act

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I go back to the point that this subamendment is out of order because it seeks to direct a future committee to report on something that the House, and you, cannot bind in a future Parliament. This makes no sense.

We're sitting here discussing Bill C-71 and you're entertaining a motion to direct a future Parliament. That is something that you, yourself, cannot do as chair, Mr. Chair, respectfully.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, again, I go back to the point that Mr. Kmiec made that Bill C-71 is not important to them. We get that. They don't want it to come to committee, but we want to talk about—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Okay. I understand it's sometimes difficult. I'll read the motion again so that it's very clear.

There's a part in the motion about what we do about Bill C-71, and then there's this part, which would say, “and after a carbon tax election is held so that Canadians and Québécois can vote out this tired, out-of-time NDP-Liberal coalition government”. That is the subamendment.

The point of the subamendment is to place a timing issue on this motion. It is to recognize the fact that as I speak to people, as I was saying, I hear that they are concerned about the carbon tax and the effect it is having on their costs.

What I find very interesting is that people are connecting the carbon tax to all of their expenses. They're not just connecting it to the price of gasoline or the price of diesel fuel. They're not even connecting it to just the price of natural gas to heat their houses or heating oil to heat their homes. People understand how it affects truckers, for example, and truckers pay a lot of money for their carbon tax—

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that my colleague started on the right path by talking about Bill C-71 and the lost Canadians, which are what we're talking about right now, but then he went back to the carbon tax. Again, I fail to see the relevancy here to the main motion and the main matter we're talking about right now.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to speak to this subamendment.

So that we're clear, we have this motion regarding Bill C-71, and we have already subamended it once. We are looking to subamend it again, and as my colleague pointed out, it essentially puts a condition on what the motion says.

It is also very important, based on what I heard this summer as I spoke with constituents not only in Saskatoon but in other parts of the country, and I can tell you that the carbon tax is very much disliked in Saskatoon. I hear this constantly from people. The interesting part is that people have figured out that the carbon tax is actually the main driver of inflation in the costs of items in the city of Saskatoon.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'm happy to read back the motion. There was the main motion, there was an amendment, and there's my subamendment. My subamendment follows after the addition of the closed work permit study being completed. I added the words, “and after a carbon tax election is held so that Canadians and Québécois can vote out this tired, out-of-time NDP-Liberal coalition government”. It's very simple. It's germane. I'm speaking to my subamendment about what I heard at the doors and what people want us to do as parliamentarians, which is to submit ourselves to the greatest bit of accountability our democracy has, which is to let Canadians have a say and let them vote us out if they don't think we're doing, individually, a good enough job in our local ridings. Then it's based on both your political leadership, it's based on your political party, but it's also based on the quality of the representation that you do.

What I heard at the doors in my riding of Calgary Shepard repeatedly was that costs are too high, the carbon tax is imposing too much of a burden on everyday Canadians. I think by offering this subamendment to the amendment to the main motion, we're just time-limiting when this would go back to the House and the impact it would have on Bill C-71 and the other bits of legislation.

I think it's time, and I hope that the Liberals will see the wisdom in this and submit themselves to accountability and let the Canadian public decide.

[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.

[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?

[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 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.

[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 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.

[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.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Chair, after hearing the partisan attacks on the Conservative position on Bill C-71, I'm going to move the following motion. It's the first day, so let's start with what we all expect this session is going to become.

This is my amendment after the title—

[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?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

No kidding.

I know the Conservatives, of course, are trying to say that, no, they're not standing in the way, but their record speaks for itself. As we saw with Bill S-245, the Conservatives filibustered that bill for 30 hours, and then even after it got through committee here and was reported to the House with amendments, the Conservatives and the member for Calgary Forest Lawn refused to bring the bill up for third reading eight times and moved it back in the order of precedence eight times.

I'm not surprised by where we're at with respect to that. With respect to this particular motion, this is something that I've been trying to motivate for a very long time. The motivation behind all of that is to say the law needs to be corrected. The unconstitutional elements of, in particular, the “second generation born abroad” provisions and allowing them to have access to citizenship conferred on them from their parents needs to be rectified, as has been indicated by the Ontario Superior Court. It is not only the morally right thing to do. It is the legally right thing to do and is required by law.

The subamendment and the closed work permit study, a study my good colleague MP Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe brought before this committee and to which I made an amendment, is to really address the findings of the UN special rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery and for Canada to properly address that issue. I would be happy to work expeditiously to see that work finished so we can get on to other business, including, of course, Bill C-71 at committee stage, and other items as well, including the Afghan letter, regarding which a grave injustice has taken place with respect to the Afghan situation. I was surprised that the Conservatives would actually agree to adjourn the debate on having that letter and the motion contained in that letter voted on at this committee.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I apologize. I came a little late to the committee. I was upstairs in the main chamber debating Bill C-71, precisely related to this very motion. I guess there's the element of the subamendment we're talking about.

Very interestingly, Mr. Chair, at the end of my speech, I actually moved this 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.”

That is a unanimous consent motion. It would require all members of the House to be in support of it. Interestingly, it was the Conservatives who said no to my motion. Here we are, at this moment—

[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.

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.

[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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You know just how much Bill C‑71, formerly Bill S‑245, means to me. Indeed, if we grant citizenship to a greater number of Canadians, when Quebec becomes a country someday, it will be easier for them to obtain Quebecois citizenship. That was one thing I wanted to tell you today.

That said, I want to raise two points, and someone may be able to answer my question. I think this motion was tabled some time ago. Today, we have hours of House debate on Bill C‑71.

First, if there is a vote in the House, what happens to this motion?

Second, I’d like to know if it’s possible to table a friendly amendment to Mr. Chiang’s motion. I propose the following:

That the motion be amended by adding after the words “to this committee” the following: “after the committee has completed its report on closed permits”.

Cast your mind back to the conversations we had at the end of the last session, when we agreed on the analysts’ new draft on work permits before resuming this session. We received the draft last week. I congratulate the analysts, by the way. We had the opportunity to get the draft from the analysts. We worked on it. I think we have a duty to wrap up this study at committee, because it is a very important study for a lot of people. We spent a lot of time working on it. I care about it, and I think that’s also the case for several other people.

Therefore, we must complete the study on closed permits. I have no objection to granting priority to certain matters at committee, but I think we absolutely have to finish the work on closed permits. We don’t know when an election might be called. No one knows for sure. I would like us to grant priority to the report as part of the study on closed permits. That’s what I wanted to say.

Can someone answer my first question? If the House votes on Bill C‑71, what do we do with this motion?

[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.

[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 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]

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.

[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?

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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, 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—

Self-determination of the Tibetan People

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, consultation has taken place, and I believe that if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

That notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, be deemed to have been read a second time—

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

The bill sets out the date that the legislation but not the regulations would come into force. In a bill such as this, is it possible to stipulate that the regulations on age verification must come into force before a specific year?

We worked on Bill C‑21, but the regulations that followed the passage of the old Bill C‑71 weren't even in force yet. It took several years for that to happen.

How can we make sure that the government works quickly on an age-verification system if this bill ultimately passes?

Citizenship Act

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)