Bill S-245

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to permit certain persons who lost their Canadian citizenship to regain it.

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.

Citizenship Act

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

[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.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

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

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, 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.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, 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.

[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—

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of being elected by the good people of Saskatoon West in 2019 and again in 2021. My focus has been on what policy changes I can make as an MP to improve the lives of people in Saskatoon.

Representing voters is a big responsibility that I take very seriously. There are issues like affordability and allowing people to keep more of their paycheques by reducing taxes, like the double carbon tax scheme that will add 61¢ to every litre of fuel. There are issues like crime, and making sure violent repeat offenders are put in jail and not repeatedly given bail. Also, there is providing more focus on addictions treatment instead of handing out free drugs. There are issues like lowering inflation, building more housing, allowing newcomers to work in the field in which they have been trained. These are the policy changes I have been focused on. I did not expect to spend time on a motion like this one, providing virtual options to make the lives of MPs easier. I want to make the lives of ordinary Canadians easier. I am not worried about making my life as an MP easier, and I would argue that virtual Parliament has the potential to make it worse for MPs.

Indeed, virtual Parliament was my introduction to becoming a member of Parliament, as COVID hit shortly after my first election. I did not have the prepandemic opportunity that many of my colleagues had to meet other MPs in caucus, attend committee meetings in person and make direct friendships within their party and across the aisle. Therefore, when an issue arose, the person I needed to talk to was often at home instead of in Ottawa, making it much more difficult to connect with them. For example, there was a man in Saskatoon being deported to Uganda. This was an urgent case, because the man is gay, and Uganda considers this a crime with very severe implications, including death. I had to intervene with the minister in order to keep this man in Canada. Fortunately for him, I was successful, but it involved several discussions with the minister. For issues like this, meeting face to face is always better. That is why I believe MPs are elected to serve and do the job they were elected to do to represent their voters in Ottawa. To me, it is not acceptable to “mail it in”.

I am sure most people watching have no clue what Standing Orders are. Basically, they define the rules on how Parliament functions, what is allowed and not allowed, and how proceedings must be done. However, the motion before us would change the Standing Orders to permanently allow virtual options. This would affect things like voting, speaking, remote participation, how to file paperwork, etc. For example, the Standing Orders allow individual members of Parliament 60-second statements each day before question period begins. Standing Order 31 would be one of the affected Standing Orders if this virtual Parliament motion is adopted. Perhaps I should demonstrate, for those watching at home, what a member’s statement is by actually delivering one on a topic such as our upcoming national holiday:

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are coming together on July 1 to celebrate Canada Day. In Saskatoon, this means sunshine, barbeques, and fireworks. Canada Day is a day we spend with our families, our friends, our neighbours and even people we may have met just that day, to celebrate our country, our province, our city and ourselves. In Saskatoon, we are proud to be Canadians. It does not matter what one's ethnicity, race, religion, or sexual identity is; in Saskatoon, everyone is Canadian.”

“Indigenous people, first nations and Métis celebrate Canada with us. Newcomers to Canada, refugees, economic immigrants, or those here for their families are all celebrating that they are in Canada. July 1 is truly a day that makes us all patriotic and all equal.”

“For myself; my wife, Cheryl; and our two adult children, we know we hit the jackpot because we were lucky enough to be born and to live in Canada.”

“I thank all my friends in Saskatoon West and wish them a happy Canada Day.”

As members can see, the Standing Orders are a wonderful set of rules that give us, as members of Parliament, the ability to speak to issues that are important to the people who sent us here. The Standing Orders govern how debate happens in the House, and they govern how we coordinate ourselves in committees.

Virtual Parliament, of course, has made it down into the committee structure. Conservative members of Parliament understood that while COVID-19 raged, it was important for MPs to keep their distance and undertake committee hearings remotely. However, now we have instance after instance of NDP and Liberal MPs using Zoom to avoid accountability, mute their microphones and look otherwise completely disengaged and bored while in the comfort of their homes during committee meetings. I am not criticizing them for taking advantage of the rules as written; I am criticizing the rules for allowing this behaviour in the first place. This is the failure of virtual Parliament.

We, as opposition members, hold the government to account on committees, and yes, these changes to the Standing Orders directly affect how committees function and how they report to the House. For instance, Standing Order 66(2)(c) would also be changed by what the NDP-Liberals are doing here today. This Standing Order affects concurrence debates on committee reports.

I will give a little background for those who are on the edge of their seat, wanting to know all about concurrence reports. However, first, I must admit that I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, and I have participated in several of these debates since the election.

In the past 18 months, I have been able to speak to concurrence debates on Bill S-245 regarding the Citizenship Act, the persecution of Uyghurs and Turkic minorities in China, and the special immigration measures for Ukrainians fleeing the war. In practical terms, what do these specific changes to how reports are concurred in mean to the people of Saskatoon West? Perhaps an illustration is in order.

Last week, on June 8, I had the honour and privilege of filling in for one of my colleagues on the status of women committee while it was dealing with two very serious reports in camera. As these reports were in camera, that is to say confidential until made public, I will not comment on what I heard during our deliberations. However, I can say what the topics were, as these are publicly available on the committee website.

The first was women and girls in sport and the second was human trafficking of women, girls and gender-diverse people. When these reports are adopted by the committee, they will come to this House, and any member of Parliament who is or is not a regular member of that committee, such as me, will then be able to move concurrence on the report and begin a debate on that issue in this House. This allows members who were not able to take part in these discussions at the committee level to get their thoughts on the record.

In these cases, they are both very serious issues that unfortunately only get attention when they make headlines, and bad headlines at that. I do not think any of us who has children, girls or boys, wants our children subjected to any form of abuse when they play organized activities or sports. We hear what happens to young girls and teenagers on sports teams. There are horrible stories that run the gamut, from bullying to psychological abuse to physical assault to, in some cases, sexual abuse and rape.

This is totally unacceptable at all levels and must be stopped for all of our children. It must be stopped in organized activities, in sports and in our schools, just as human trafficking of all people must be stopped. Women, girls, men, boys and gender-diverse people are all subject to horrible forms of human trafficking in Canada.

While studying illegal border crossings at the immigration committee last fall, we saw time and time again the RCMP begging us for more money and resources to combat this problem. On November 25, I asked the acting commissioner for the RCMP, Michael Duheme, the following question about human smuggling: “How many charges have you laid for smuggling?” He said, “it's a challenge to get them to talk.... The idea is, how do you intercept them beforehand so that you can get them to talk a little more?” This is an issue I am clearly engaged in, and I will bring my expertise to a concurrence debate.

I am worried that making virtual Parliament permanent would change how concurrence debates and other parliamentary processes function. Others have raised serious concerns about the workload that virtual Parliament places on interpreters and the resulting diminishing of the French language in Canada. Unfortunately, I do not think a proper study has been done on these issues, nor has proper consultation taken place.

People may ask what the big deal is. Lots of people are working virtually now; why not MPs? Take my son, for example. He works in IT and has spent many hours working remotely from home. For him it works because his job mostly consists of sitting at a computer and writing code or responding to emails. My other son works in a potash mine, a physical job that requires his physical presence.

The point of all this is that some jobs are better suited to virtual and others not so much. I would suggest the job of an MP is best done in person. It is a job that requires extensive personal contact for success. It also depends on unplanned interactions in the hallway, in the restaurant or here in this House of Commons. I think everybody here can recall a time when a significant moment randomly happened simply because of being present. It is this work, this significant work, that we risk losing or diminishing.

Ultimately, what this debate is about is not what is best for me, for the Speaker, for the NDP-Liberal coalition or even for the Conservative Party. It is about what is best for the people of Saskatoon West. It is about how we as MPs deliver the best results for Canadians. As much as I would like to stay home and do Parliament via my computer screen, I know I cannot deliver the best results that way. Being an MP is a person-to-person, in-person job. If we want to deliver the best government possible, I believe we need to conduct our business here in person. I urge all members to vote against these NDP-Liberal measures.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech, and I find it a bit rich for the member to say that hybrid is problematic because of the issues around interpretation. I noted last week that, when we were doing votes in the House, many of the Conservative members were out in the lobby, just steps away from the chamber. Instead of coming in to do the vote, they were doing it through hybrid. Worse still, they were not using the proper headsets, hindering the ability of the interpreters to do interpretation. Even though the Speaker repeatedly told them to either give a thumbs up or thumbs down for their votes, they refused to listen and talked anyway without the proper headsets. Now they are saying that it is not working.

The member talked about resources. I sit on the immigration committee. If we want to talk about wasting resources, do members know what the Conservatives did? They wasted 30 hours debating Bill S-245, on lost Canadians. so we could not get on with business. Talk about wasting resources.

On the question of hybrid, I have to say this. One would think, the way the Conservatives are talking, that the only mechanism is to use Zoom to do our business, and that is not—

Citizenship and Immigration

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration relating to Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would just note that, when the Liberal-NDP coalition was trying to shut me down on this, I was barely a minute into my speech. These members need to let me get to the point I am trying to make, instead of just trying to silence me, as the government is doing with its censorship bills. This is what we are dealing with here, being silenced.

Instead of debating the budget, as we are supposed to be doing, the NDP put something forward called a concurrence motion. That is what we are debating right now. The concurrence motion is to deal with a very tricky bit of Liberal-NDP machinations, which is actually really harming people and delaying the help that Bill S-245 would provide.

Instead of debating the budget, we are debating a concurrence motion on something that happened, and I want to break down what happened. Bill S-245 is an act to amend the Citizenship Act. It went through the Senate. It was introduced by Senator Yonah Martin to deal with a very narrow scope, dealing with something called “lost Canadians”. It was very narrow in scope, and because it was so narrow in scope, it sailed through the Senate, on the understanding that it would stay narrow and it would go through the Senate.

It came to the immigration committee. What ended up happening was that, first of all, before moving this in the immigration committee, the member for Vancouver East went and did a press conference, pre-positioning herself to do this.

The Liberal-NDP coalition got together and did two things. It moved a motion to extend amendments to the bill by 30 days, which delayed action for people who would have been impacted by the bill, and then it also moved a motion to extend the scope of the amendments that would be debated well past what was in the bill itself.

For those who are watching who may not understand what this does, it allows members, in a private member's bill, which is supposed to be very narrow in scope, to put forward any amendment they want. What that does, in effect, and the reason why I do not think we should have done that, is forces the bill to go back to the Senate yet again.

This is going to delay justice for the people who we had non-partisan, all-party agreement to deal with. That motion itself, to do what the NDP-Liberal coalition wanted to do, passed in the citizenship committee with its support. Even though it passed, it introduced this concurrence motion in the House of Commons today, and it is doing what? It is eating up time to debate the deficit budget issue because it doesn't want to talk about it.

If it is saying, oh no, nobody should talk about this and then we go back to the budget, we actually gave it an opportunity to go back to debate. My colleague from Calgary Shepard rose to move a motion about an hour ago to move on from the debate, yet it voted against that.

That is the agenda here. The agenda here is to curtail debate on the budget while it is supporting the passage of Liberal censorship bills Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. These are the types of tactics that we are going to see over and over and over again from this Liberal coalition because it does not want to stand up for what Canadians need, either in the budget or in Bill S-245.

When the Liberal and the NDP coalition decided that it was going to delay the passage of the bill through the committee and delay justice for people who were in that bill, who we all support justice for, and open up the scope of the bill, it forgot one thing. It forgot that, if it opened up the scope of the bill for its one issue, which the senator and the Senate did not want because they agreed to sail it through on a small amendment, it forgot that maybe other people would want to put forward amendments too, such as me and my colleague from Calgary Shepard.

It then had the audacity and the gall to stand in this place during this debate, which it did not need, and which it put forward to waste time on debate on the budget because it does not want to talk about how much deficit spending money it puts forward, which has caused an inflationary crisis in Canada, all while it is putting forward censorship bills. Because it does not want that debate to happen, it puts this debate forward.

Now it is saying that it is because the Conservatives want to put forward amendments to the Citizenship Act. Well, guess what? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If the NDP-Liberal coalition, which is supporting censorship bills Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 to shut down conversations in the Canadian public, are using a concurrence motion to shut down debate in the House of Commons, we are absolutely right that Conservatives will be putting forward motions beyond the scope of the bill. It is as simple as that.

If the NDP-Liberal coalition wants a statutory review of the Citizenship Act, then let us giddy-up and do it. I have a lot of great ideas, which I will definitely be bringing forward. This does nothing to help the people who could have been helped if the NDP had just let this go.

The other thing I can show is why we should not be delaying this bill and why the scope of the amendment should not be put through. It is not just because it delays justice for people within this bill; it is also because the NDP is propping up a government that has refused to do this in its own government legislation. If the government had actually wanted to do anything else, it has had nearly eight years to put forward, through its own government legislation, what my colleague from the NDP wants to do.

The NDP is actually in a coalition with the government. I do not know if the NDP wants to go to an election, but I know the Liberals do not. Considering what the polling numbers show today, I do not think there are a lot of people on the Liberal backbench who would want to go to an election today.

The NDP could be using that coalition agreement to say that, within a piece of government legislation, we need to do this. However, they do not actually have the leverage they claim to have over the government, so what they are trying to do is sneak through committee what they cannot get the government to do in the House.

To people who are watching and are impacted by this bill, I say that the Liberals delayed the passage of the bill because they did not understand what they were doing. That is brutal. It is terrible. I cannot believe it. I cannot believe they would not do what we all agreed to do in a non-partisan way, as the Senate did, which is to get Bill S-245 through.

Today, we are debating the concurrence motion and the substance of the motion, and we are using House of Commons time that we could have used to debate the budget. The Liberals moved this concurrence motion even though the bill has already passed through the immigration committee. They actually ate up hours of critical, precious House debate time, which we could have used to talk about the budget. This is a path to ruin that the government, the Liberal-NDP coalition, put us on by inflationary, deficit spending in the budget bill. That is critical.

People cannot eat. People in Vancouver, the member's home riding, are eating out of dumpsters because of the inflation crisis and the affordable housing crisis. Today, she moved a motion that would essentially cut off debate on the budget today, even though it has already passed through the House of Commons.

If my colleague wants to open up the scope of the bill so that it is going to have to go back to the Senate anyway, through her actions, not mine or those of any of my Conservative colleagues, then we will be putting forward other amendments as well. One of the amendments I would like to put forward, given that we are now reviewing the citizenship bill, has to do with the fact that the Liberals said they were going to do away with the need to have in-person citizenship ceremonies. This is something that has received wide, cross-party condemnation. I have an opinion piece published in the Toronto Star on April 10. The title is “I'm horrified by the suggestion of cancelling in-person citizenship ceremonies”. It goes through quotes from non-partisan people, including Adrienne Clarkson, a former governor general; a Syrian refugee; and others who are saying the government should not be doing away with the requirement for in-person citizenship ceremonies.

I would like to amend the Citizenship Act to ensure that, rather than doing away with the ceremonies because the government cannot figure out how to get services to where people want them, the government would actually be required to make sure new Canadians have the right and the ability to go to an in-person ceremony, take the oath with fellow new Canadians and be welcomed into the Canadian family in such a glorious way, instead of doing what it is doing now.

Members in this place have used up precious House time. I am speaking here because members of the Liberal-NDP coalition voted against a motion to end debate on this and move forward. They gave me an opportunity to speak. For once, instead of speaking on Bill C-11 or Bill C-18, the censorship bill, I am, they are darn right, going to speak in this place. I am certainly also going to be putting forward amendments. I do not know if they have forgotten how this place works or have forgotten that each of us has our own individual rights to work within the process that they put forward.

They stand up and say that one person can put forward an amendment that is completely out of scope, but they are going to use that to justify delaying justice for the people in the bill and use that to delay debate on the government's inflationary budget deficit crisis bill. Therefore, yes, I am going to put forward amendments that make sense for my constituents. My constituency is a diverse community in north central Calgary where the Citizenship Act matters. If the member for Vancouver East is going to use her Liberal-NDP coalition position to try to get the Liberal government to extend the scope of the bill and, in doing so, delay justice for people, while delaying debate on the budget, then yes, I am going to be putting forward amendments to amend the Citizenship Act.

To the people and stakeholders watching this, this bill could have been through our committee already. It could have been sailing through the House. However, what is the Liberal-NDP coalition doing? Instead of the government putting forward its own legislation to address any additional issues, the NDP is proposing a motion to extend this by another 30 days, plus have a statutory review of the Citizenship Act. It is plus, plus, plus. They did not think through the process. I am sure that when they were talking to stakeholders, they did not talk to them and were not honest with them about what could or might happen if this path were undertaken.

If I had been meeting with those stakeholders, I would have said that this is something we need to lobby the government for in different legislation, because the senator who put it forward in a private member's bill had agreement among her peers on a narrowly defined scope in the bill in order to get it through and get justice for people. If we do what the member for Vancouver East is suggesting, we would delay it for another 30 days. Then it would probably have to go back through the Senate. The Senate takes a lot of time to look at things. Then it would have to come back here again. That would be months and months of delay, when it could have been done maybe before June. Now we do not know when it is going to be done.

That is why I opposed the approach in committee. Frankly, it is why I oppose using all this time in the House to continue a debate that the NDP-Liberal coalition settled at the immigration committee, an unwise course of action, only to vote against it. They just voted, an hour ago, against moving forward. Also, as we saw at the start of this debate, time after time my colleagues were getting interrupted by points of order, with members saying we should not be allowed to raise the issue of the budget. Absolutely we should be able to raise the issue of the budget, after the NDP-Liberal coalition voted against a Conservative motion that would allow us to move forward to debate the budget.

However, here we are, and if members have given me the opportunity to speak by not moving on that, absolutely I am going to speak about it. Of course, the Liberal-NDP coalition does not want to talk about that inflationary budget, that big, expensive nothing burger that would cost Canadians more, that would lead to food inflation and that is not addressing the core issues facing this country, because it is an embarrassment. They do not want an election because they are all afraid of losing their seats. Canadians are on to them, just as I am on to them right now.

I am tired of this. I am tired of these games. We did not need to have this debate in the House. This could have gone forward to the immigration committee. What we have done, in effect, is delay justice for the people in Bill S-245, delay debate on the budget and, in doing so, delay justice for all Canadians, who are dumpster diving in Vancouver East to eat and who continue to not be able to afford places to live.

This is a hard truth. It is an inconvenient truth for everybody in this place. However, it is time coalition members are confronted with it. There are consequences for the actions of the coalition and its backroom dealings. They lead us into places like this, where they make mistakes on parliamentary procedures and where they do not explain the implications of their actions to stakeholders who are advocating for change in this bill. Again, the government could have done this.

Committees of the House

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just heard the member say again that he is in support of ensuring the lost Canadians issue is addressed. The Conservatives say that, and I hope it is actually true. If it is true, we have an opportunity to do it. It is a rare moment when all the parties in this House say they want to do this, and we can seize this opportunity to make those necessary amendments, through Bill S-245, and also indicate to the Senate that this is the direction we want to go.

I believe Senator Yonah Martin, who has done this work and put this bill before us, would support it if the Conservative members would join the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals to say that we need to go out of scope to address the lost Canadians issue once and for all, particularly because of the first-generation rule cut-off the Conservatives brought in, which hurt so many families and which we need to get rid of.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by letting you know that I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

I am here to talk about Bill S-245. It is not something I planned to do today, and I am sure most members in the House had not planned on doing this, but here we are, and I want to make sure that people are clear on what it is we are talking about.

This is a private member's bill that has come from the other place, the Senate. Senators, just like members of Parliament, are able to produce legislation called private members' bills, so this is the legislation that has come from Senator Yonah Martin from the other place. It is her intention and her idea. It is something that she wants to see done. That is what we are talking about here. It is now in the House and we are working with it.

The subject of this is the “lost Canadians”. We have heard many different explanations of this, but many people may not quite understand what that is. Essentially, our Citizenship Act has some flaws in it that cause certain people to either lose their citizenship or to not get it in the first place. They create these little categories of people who, through no fault of their own, do not have access to Canadian citizenship.

There have been attempts over the years to fix some of these problems. Many of them have been fixed over the years, but there are still some groups of people who are still considered lost Canadians and are not being treated the way they should be, as they are unable to receive Canadian citizenship status. Over the years, there have been bills brought attempting to plug those holes and fix those gaps to ensure that those people who deserve to be Canadian citizens are, and this bill is one of them. There is a particular group of people, a fairly clearly defined group of people, that it seeks to remedy. It is not trying to fix everybody, and that was part of the point initially.

I also want to mention that often times when we think about people who are not citizens of Canada, we immediately think of immigrants. This does not necessarily mean immigrants. There are in fact many people who would not consider themselves immigrants who fit into these categories of lost Canadians. They are just Canadians who do not have their citizenship. There are different categories of these. Part of the point here is that trying to catch them all, and fix all of the holes in the legislation in one shot, is very difficult. It has been attempted over the years and, so far, it has been unsuccessful. We believe that a better approach is to target a very specific area, a specific group of people who are lost, and at least fix those, and then if there were more holes, we would fix those holes, rather than trying to do everything at once. This is a simple bill to fix one of those groups.

This is the same as Bill S-230. In a previous Parliament, the bill was studied in the Senate. It went to committee, was looked at carefully, and was sent here to the House to be worked on. Then an election happened, so that legislation never saw the light of day. Therefore, the attempt to rectify the citizenship situation of those lost Canadians failed. It failed because it did not get through the process in time before an election was called. That is very significant because right now we are in another minority Parliament, which means an election can happen at any time, so we do not have a lot of time. Time is not our friend in this case; we need to move to pass these bills quickly.

The same senator, Yonah Martin, has now put forward the same bill, Bill S-245, which has also gone through the Senate. This time in the other place it was not reviewed or studied because it was exactly the same as the previous legislation. Therefore, the Senate decided to fast-track it, move it through the other place and then to the House here so that we could deal with it. That is where it is now. It is here in the House and we are dealing with it now.

I just want to mention this with respect to the sponsor of the bill, Senator Yonah Martin. She was able to get it through the last Parliament. It took a lot of work and effort to bring everybody together to agree on things, but she was able to get it as far as it got. Unfortunately, it was not far enough. However, she was able to get it here quicker, which is a testament to her ability to work across party lines and with other people in the Senate, because she knew that time was the enemy and the biggest problem that the bill faced. The assumption that went along with that, as she got it to this House, was that it was the same bill as last time. From the Senate's perspective, this bill is the same one that it studied before and therefore it did not need to study it again. That is important and we should remember that.

Why are we here today? We are studying this bill at committee. We are getting very close to the end. There has been a lot of debate and talk about it. We have heard many witnesses speak to this bill. Indeed, there are many groups of people who represent these groups of lost Canadians, because there are numerous groups of lost Canadians. Everybody wants to solve this problem. The Conservatives want to fix this problem, as do the Liberals and all of the other parties. However, we want to fix it; we do not just want to talk about it. We do not want to study it to death, but fix it. We were able to get a lot of testimony and hear a lot of things to understand what the scope is and how it is going to work.

So people understand, what happened toward the end of this process is this. With respect to private members' bills, we have to stay within the scope of the bill. We cannot add things that go beyond the original intent of what, in this case, Yonah Martin had. There must be some ideas out there to do that, to go beyond the scope of this bill, because the government and the NDP teamed up together to bring this to the House now so that it can authorize the committee to go beyond the scope of the bill. That is what we are here talking about today.

This is really significant, because the originator of the bill, in this case Yonah Martin, had an intent for this bill. She came to committee and spoke about the bill and what her intent was. She was specifically asked if she would allow for amendments to the bill that would expand its scope. She was very clear on that. She said that she was willing to accept amendments that would clarify the bill, but she was not willing to accept amendments that would expand it. The reason she said that was very simple and makes a lot of sense.

Why would she accept amendments to clarify the bill? She wants the bill to be successful. She wants to plug that hole for this group of lost Canadians once and for all, so in her mind, if her words were not quite correct and somebody had a better idea to make those words a bit better, she was all ears and willing to do that. It only makes sense, because we want to get the wording correct. We have an army of lawyers in this place who are able to interpret our laws and statutes who I am sure had ideas and suggestions to clarify those things.

Why did she not want to expand its scope? It is very clear. She knows that if the scope gets expanded it creates a whole new pathway for this bill. First, it goes beyond what she had intended, which makes it more complicated, which means more work and more understanding is required. It goes from a simple one-page bill to a multi-page bill that has implications on all kinds of things. Most significantly, should it come through the House and be amended and expanded in scope, then it ends up back in the other place. Why did it pass through the other place very quickly? Because it was the same bill that had been studied in the previous Parliament. It had been looked at and studied in the Senate. The senators had their chance to talk about it and tweak it. That had all been done. The only reason they expedited it through this time was because it was exactly the same as the last time.

If we put two and two together, if it goes back to the other place having been changed, what is going to happen? The senators would say that it is not the same bill and would want to know what happened. Senator Martin would have to explain that it has changed and grown in scope and they would say that they need to study the bill and that it is going to committee to be studied.

With the way timelines work around here, we would be adding months to the process. The enemy of this bill is time, so we would clearly be doing exactly the opposite of what we should be doing, which is adding time to this bill. We would be adding complexity to it, which means it would have to be studied at committee and looked at again. At the end of the day, there could be an election. We all know that an election could happen at any time. It could happen over this issue today. I heard members saying that might happen, so we never know what could happen. We never know what the day is going to bring. Time is the enemy of this bill, and this process would be adding a lot of time to it. That is the whole point of why Senator Martin wanted this to be done.

As I close, I want to highlight two things. First, we are all in support of fixing these problems for lost Canadians. There are no members on either side of the House who do not want to fix this law and correct the problem there. That is a given.

Second, we oppose the idea of the government taking a private member's bill, expanding it and putting things in there that were never intended to be there by the member who raised the bill. That is something we are very concerned about. We do not want to set a precedent. We do not want to allow the government to come in and pull up someone's bill and do that.

It was great to speak in the House today.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the comment about Don Chapman. Don Chapman came to committee and said very clearly that he wanted to see the scope of Bill S-245 be expanded to incorporate amendments for lost Canadians and the first-generation cut-off rule the Conservatives brought in be rectified so that the families of lost Canadians would not be lost anymore and be supported through this process.

The Conservatives say they support what Don Chapman would like to see done. Would they then pass this expansion of scope request in this House and not filibuster the work that needs to be done at committee?

Citizenship and Immigration

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be joining the debate on this bill. I want to begin by thanking my constituents again for returning me to Parliament to serve them, to speak on their behalf and to bring the voice of Calgarians here to Ottawa, to our national Parliament. Every day, I think about how lucky each and every one of us is, all 338 of us, to be able to represent constituents in the House of Commons and work on their behalf.

I also want to start by saying that I am a Canadian who was born overseas; I happen to be one of those who were naturalized back in 1989. I was able to share that story when I was doing outreach activities on the Island of Montreal. I also talked to many new Canadians about their experiences of coming to Canada. I reminded them all the time that anyone could become a member of Parliament if they make the effort, tell the truth and have the work ethic and dedication. Representing people in this country in a legislative body is a great privilege, and we should never forget that.

I want to go over a few points very quickly, just to give an outline of the trouble I have with what is happening today with this concurrence of a report coming out of the immigration committee. There is the issue of timing and how we have come to this point, where the vote would now be necessary. I want to talk about the mover of this Senate bill, Senator Yonah Martin of British Columbia. I want to talk about Senate Bill S-230, the original piece of legislation, and how Bill S-245 is basically the exact same bill.

I also want to speak briefly to process. This is not an issue related to the substance. I think many people agree on the substance; of course, Conservatives agree because this is a Conservative legislative initiative. It is very simple to understand why Conservatives, for example, would not do something like move amendments to a bill being proposed by a Conservative. It is because we all agree with it. We went before our caucus. We had a presentation. Of course we agree with it; it is a Conservative senator proposing a Conservative idea. That idea is the rightful restoration of Canadian citizenship to a particular group of Canadians, and we are talking about a small group that is affected.

The bill is very simple. It is all on one page. It is a simple idea that would address a specific group. This does not mean that others do not have a case for it to be restored. There is a legislative case for it to be done. However, this particular bill has been in the works in two minority Parliaments now to try to fix it. As we know, minority Parliaments are unpredictable, despite there being an NDP-Liberal coalition. Here, we have a government and an opposition party, and we do not know where one begins and the other one ends. We do not know when there could be an election; that would wipe out all the legislative initiatives being considered by the House and by the Senate.

That is exactly what happened to Bill S-230. When the election was called on August 15, 2021, it wiped out all the legislative initiatives that were under way back then. Bill S-230, dealing with these lost Canadians, had already gone through the Senate. It had one meeting of consideration, with expert testimony being provided by government officials; this was useful in understanding that the contents of the legislation were correct and would in fact fix the situation that we are facing. We heard new testimony and new consideration on Bill S-245.

The timing is the issue that I am hung up on. I do not know when an election could come. I want to expedite a bill like this, with no changes, in order to consider new legislation. The House is always free to do that. Any member of the House or any senator could table a private member's bill. In fact, senators can now legislate faster than we can, which I think is wrong. I hope some government members would agree with me on that. It is a separate legislative idea. Maybe there could be changes to the Standing Orders someday.

I know there is at least one member from Winnipeg who would agree with me that members of the House of Commons should be the ones legislating the most often, and senators should not do so as often or as quickly. Now we have a lottery system, and the Speaker drew the numbers. I am going to remind the Deputy Speaker of this, because I think I drew third from last when he was doing the draw. I really think there should have been a recount. I see another member from Montreal, from one of my alma maters, Concordia, saying that she drew a much better number than I did.

Timing is an issue in this matter. This is a group of lost Canadians who could have their citizenship restored. They would be made whole. If we made no amendments to the bill, once passed through the House of Commons, it would receive royal assent from the Governor General and be made law.

Any amendments we make at committee would then return to the House, and any report stage amendments would delay the passage of the bill. The bill could then go again for another set of reviews. I am sure that senators, when they agreed to pass this bill on an expeditious basis, were passing the original bill, Bill S-230. They were passing a bill they had already considered and debated.

They are going to consider the debate that took place in the House. They are going to review why, for example, government officials before the committee in the House of Commons provided different information than some other government officials, though some of them were the same, at the Senate committee two years ago. They will wonder why the advice was slightly different and why they now have a problem with some of the wording in Bill S-245. They say it does not address the issue as well.

When I looked at the titles of these government officials, they are the exact same positions. Some people have been promoted and some have moved to different positions.

I am sure senators will review the bill. That would be months of extra waiting. As the Senate considers the bill, it will have more witnesses come before the Senate committee, and then with whatever potential amendments the Senate might have, it will send the bill back to the House of Commons. I know I am supposed to call it “the other place”, but I feel Canadians at home should know that this might delay and potentially kill the bill. The bill may not become law if this does not get done.

How did we get to this particular situation? We have a terrific vice-chair on the immigration committee, the member for Saskatoon West, who has been negotiating with the other parties in good faith. It is what I hope the government is doing during the public service strike by PSAC and at their negotiations at the table. The member has been negotiating in good faith and providing information to other parties, such as what our voting position is, what our concerns are and what type of subamendments we would consider.

We were considering some amendments that would strengthen some of the ideas we had heard and had talked about before the committee. The motion that was passed at committee, over our objections, broadens the scope beyond section 8 amendments to Bill S-245. The way I interpreted the motion was that it would mean anything in Bill S-245, the Citizenship Act, and that would be concurred in on a vote in the House of Commons. This sounds to me like a statutory review of Bill S-245, so anything in the Citizenship Act could be done.

There are many things I have heard in my travels across Canada in meeting with both new Canadians and people from families that have lived in Canada for generations. They have issues with the Citizenship Act, such as how citizenship ceremonies are organized, and whether they are done in person or virtually, at a click. Some of those are also around the rules of specific lost Canadians. Is it right to put citizenship ceremonies on certain holidays, which were maybe not as major 40 years ago? Those are all issues that members should be mindful of.

When reading this motion, and I am not burdened by a legal education so I read it like a layman would read it, with the words as they are, and it says that it would go beyond section 8, which means that anything else in the Citizenship Act should be eligible for an amendment. We have an opportunity to help lost Canadians. We also have an opportunity to ensure there are no future lost Canadians, who might have missed a citizenship ceremony because of a holiday, travel or any number of other reasons.

We have come here because other parties have not been forthcoming in explaining their position. At committee, I moved a very reasonable amendment that would have provided more time for to consider new out-of-scope amendments. We have no in-scope amendments because we agreed with the contents of the bill.

It would have been good to have more time on out-of-scope amendments, and then we could have provided the amendments. We could have all had time to consider them within our caucuses. That is what our side does. We have a fulsome debate in our caucus where our members of Parliament and senators come to an agreement on different amendments that we might consider, especially if they are major amendments, such as this seems to be, a statutory review of the Citizenship Act.

We can now take a moment to talk about the mover of this bill, Senator Yonah Martin. I think many members of the House of Commons, and I hope of the other place, the Senate, would say that she is a very non-partisan member, a member who is able to work with all members, regardless of political affiliations, on any number of issues.

She has a big heart for the Korean-Canadian community and for the battle of Kapyong. She is mindful to remind us of the battle of Kapyong and how important it is to Canadians of Korean heritage every single year. She has been of huge assistance not only to Conservatives, but also to Canadians of Korean heritage all over Canada, by connecting them with their civic officials, with Canadian political and civic life, and with community organizations.

She has a bill, which she successfully negotiated through the Senate with no amendments. That is unusual. For many of us, when we put together private members' bills or motions, there is always that potential for amendments to come forward that we were not aware of, or were not considering.

This is a member who, at committee, specifically asked that we not make amendments because of the timing issue I mentioned right at the beginning. This is why I want to bring it up. She specifically said, when asked, that she did not want an expansion of the scope of the bill if it would delay the bill. That is what would happen here. There would be a delay of the bill.

She offered a solution, which was new pieces of legislation. The government can always table government legislation to help these Canadians, which they have identified through our witness process, through the submissions the committee received. That would be entirely okay. We could consider the merits.

The House of Commons has expedited bills in the past. We just did it last week. Portions of the budget were expedited through the House of Commons. It is possible to do these things, especially when there is consensus and we work collaboratively, which I heard a parliamentary secretary talk about.

Many members on that committee will agree that our vice-chair and the Conservatives work collaboratively. We were doing that when this was moved. We were working on a draft report in a committee, and at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration no less. We are more than happy to do that. The immigration committee has done a lot of work exactly in that manner, collaboratively, by everybody being upfront about the positions they will be taking and the concerns we have with amendments and different policy issues, as well as where we are coming from. That is another one.

I wanted to make sure I brought up Bill S-230, which was the original version of the bill, in the previous Parliament, because I want to highlight the fact that, the committee on Bill S-230 in the Senate had one meeting to consider the details of the bill. We are going to be adding on basically new sections on lost Canadians. What I have found about the Citizenship Act, and I know many members will agree, especially those on the immigration committee, is how complicated it is. It is easy to make a mistake on dates, years, months, days and specific words, where we could have individuals lose their ability to pass on their citizenship to their children or grandchildren or not be able to retain it in cases of marriage.

I was born in Communist Poland, a country I always say does not exist anymore. It is a footnote in history. As a Canadian who was not born here, I know that the Citizenship Act is something to be mindful of. All my kids were born in Calgary, so they are not affected directly for things like the first generation rule, but others are. I absolutely recognize that, but there is an opportunity to legislate.

Another senator could put forward another Senate bill to address individuals, and we could again have an expedited debate to push it through the House if we could get to the terms and the words we all agree on. Like I said, in Bill S-245, there were government officials who came before the committee in a previous Parliament to say that this wording is the exact wording to address the issue the senator is concerned about. The same government officials, at least with the same titles from the same department, said it actually needs to be changed because it might not do what one says it would do.

Now we are left with not knowing what types of amendments are going to be brought forward at the committee if this concurrence of the report passes of the motion that came out of the immigration committee. We just do not know. Nobody knows now what amendments will be brought forward, except for the mover of the amendment, who will be at the table behind closed doors, potentially in camera, considering these amendments. It will hopefully all be done in public.

It is important to remember none of the parties will be obliged to provide any new amendments out of scope to be considered. Like I said, there are lots of different situations we could look at.

I always have a Yiddish proverb to share. I was in Montreal at a synagogue on Saturday, a very observant one, and there is a great Yiddish proverb: Hope for miracles, but do not rely on one. It is unpronounceable for me in Yiddish, but it is indeed a good one. I always hope for miracles. I hope we can come to some type of consensus that this bill should be expedited in its current form.

I want to vote for it the way it is right now, and I think those on my benches want to do the same thing. We want to help these lost Canadians and restore, rightfully, their citizenship. There is an opportunity to help others, and that is what I hope this place would be good at. I hope it would be able to come to a consensus on new pieces of legislation that address certain things.

I am serving in my third Parliament, and I think this would set a bad precedent. To go into another member's bill, and over their objections, say that we are going to change their private member's bill or their Senate Bill, the idea they put forward, is a bad precedent.

I know it has happened off and on in the past 10 to 20 years. In those particular cases, the individual members have brought it up to me that it should not have happened that way. I really believe that for members who have an idea that they are bringing forward, we should honour their requests and have a simple up or down vote.

Even Senator Yonah Martin said that, if there are particular technical amendments to the way this legislation is worded that keep the intent and the principle she is trying to address, which is helping this particular group of lost Canadians have their citizenship regained, which is in the summary that is provided for the bill, and it uses the term “regain”, then she was okay with that. However, what we have talked about so far, and what I have heard from the parliamentary secretary and the member of the New Democrats, are things that are potentially far out of the scope of the original intent and principle of the bill. Here I have concerns.

I have expressed those concerns. I have made forceful promises. I intend to keep my forceful promises. I have done so at other committees, which I have been on, whether it be at the PROC committee, where I remember serving with other members to ensure that the intent of motions and bills was retained. Members would have a straight up or down vote on particular subjects, and that made it very clear what we were voting for and against.

Again, I see this as an opportunity. We do not know when the election could come. I do not want to send this back to the Senate. The Senate already has had its say on the matter. It has reviewed this piece of legislation. What I want to do is expedite this bill. I was ready to do that at the first meeting on Bill S-245.

We could have maybe considered some particular amendments that were perhaps on the edge of what would be permissible. Looking to my vice-chair, I think it is fair to say that we were willing to consider them.

We had that conversation with the Liberal benches, and we were forthcoming with what our ideas were, what our concerns were and where we wanted to go. My expectation was that we gave it due consideration. We had received valuable insight, information and ideas from Canadians, both overseas and here, who had expressed concerns with different groups of lost Canadians.

We could have addressed those in other pieces of legislation, and then a senator could take up the case, or a member of any party could take up the case in a private member's bill, although probably not me, because, like I said, the Speaker drew me third from last, I believe. I still remember that, so I will probably not be one of those members.

The House can work collaboratively. I will give another example. On bereavement leave, the Minister of Labour was kind enough to work with me before Christmas, and this was 2021, to insert part of my private members' bill on bereavement leave straight into Bill C-3 and then expedite it through the House.

To the parliamentary secretary's saying that they were hoping we could work collaboratively, well, of course we can. There is even an example where we have done that. It was our shadow minister for labour at the time, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, who did it. It can be done, when people come in good faith at the negotiating table and we hammer out a deal. That deal was done before Christmas and Canadians in federal jurisdiction had bereavement leave provisions provided to them.

Those types of situations can happen. I call them legislative miracles, getting back to my Yiddish proverb. Legislative miracles can happen when people want to make change. That was a private member's bill that likely would have never passed. It had drawn such a high number that it would not have been able to pass. I would not have been able to have the opportunity to have it debated.

With that said, I have laid out my case of why we should vote down this report, and I move:

That the House proceed to Presenting Petitions.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a situation with the cut-off rule for first-generation born Canadians has been in place for 14 years now, and many families have suffered during this period. It is true that the government could have brought in legislation to make that change, but that has not happened. With that being said, we now have an opportunity before us through a Senate bill, Bill S-245, to fix the lost Canadian rules once and for all.

If we all care about this issue as we say we do, should we not then seize this opportunity to expand the scope of the bill, fix the lost Canadian community that has not been addressed in this bill and fix those issues once and for all?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a specific question for the member. It is more of a commentary on what I heard her read to the House to provide the perspective of her party.

I will mention to those listening at home that the member is a parliamentary secretary. The government has known for almost eight years that there were these different groups of lost Canadians. There is always the ability to table government legislation, and I think we will find that a lot of members of this House are willing to consider plugging holes in legislation.

That is exactly what Senator Yonah Martin has been doing in two Parliaments. She was able to convince the Senate to move Bill S-230 through the Senate with one committee hearing to consider the exact same bill we have today, Bill S-245. She was able to do so because she is widely considered to be a non-partisan member and widely considered to be well informed on the subject of the Citizenship Act. Members at that committee voted against my amendment to suggest, if we are going to go beyond the scope, that we give ourselves more time to consider what groups of lost Canadians we could consider and what different situations lost Canadians might find themselves in. I will tell the parliamentary secretary that the Liberal benches voted against my amendment to the motion that brings us here today to debate this concurrence report.

This is about process. We do not know when the next election will come in a minority Parliament, and it very well could be that lost Canadians will have to wait again for another Parliament before this particular group of lost Canadians will have their citizenship restored to them, as it should be.

This is not a question about whether it is the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do. It is about process. We have a bill and an opportunity to fix something for a particular group of Canadians. We all agree on that, and by doing this, the bill will be sent back to the Senate, and the Senate will thereafter make further considerations and call more witnesses to the committee. That is simply the legislative process.

I know that is difficult for the government to understand. I know it is difficult to have such a thin legislative agenda. However, this situation could have been avoided.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to wrap up my comments, I will share the last thoughts of the stakeholder who wrote to the committee. She said:

If you can see us as the Canadians we are then I believe this issue can be dealt with more clearly. This cannot be an issue where members let their views, beliefs or desires regarding immigration cloud an issue that is very clearly about citizenship policy....

We are Canadians since birth looking to return home, not immigrants desiring to move to a new country. We may be lost, but we are proud and hopeful.

See us for who we are so that you may help us. Kindest Regards, Jennifer Johnnes.

I think the words speak for themselves and show how deeply painful the subject of lost Canadians is and how traumatic it is for them. I would add that the amendments in 2009, in essentially creating a situation where families would be separated, where they could not be reunited and where almost a two-tier system of who is Canadian has been created, is something we should be addressing.

While Senator Yonah Martin may have put this bill forward with one intention, I think it is a unique opportunity for us to correct the path to make sure everyone who is eligible for Canadian citizenship by birthright, by the right of their parents and by the right of their families to raise their children here or their desire as Canadians to raise their children here is contemplated. We must take this up with the utmost urgency.

I humbly ask members of the House to consider the importance of expanding Bill S-245 so that it can be improved and ultimately better meet its objective of addressing more lost Canadians.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to speak to the motion to concur in the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, with regard to expanding the scope of Bill S-245, which seeks to address lost Canadians.

While the bill is well intended in its aim to address the remaining lost Canadians, as drafted, it falls short of correcting what I see as the key challenges on this file. As a matter of fact, it is something that I spoke to in our first debate on this bill when it came to the House.

Before outlining the concerns that I have with Bill S-245 as written, I will briefly touch on the circumstances that led to the emergence of lost Canadians. The requirements and complexities of the first Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, and former provisions of the current Citizenship Act, created cohorts of people who lost or never had citizenship status. They are referred to as “lost Canadians”.

To address this issue, changes to citizenship laws that came into force in 2009 and 2015 restored status or gave citizenship for the first time to the majority of lost Canadians. Before the 2009 amendments, people born abroad beyond the first generation, that is, born abroad to a Canadian parent who was also born abroad, were considered Canadian citizens at birth, but only until they turned 28 years old. This is sometimes referred to, as my colleague mentioned previously, as the “28-year rule”. If these individuals did not apply to retain their citizenship before they turned 28, they would automatically lose it. Some people were not even aware they had to meet these requirements and lost their citizenship unknowingly. These people who lost their citizenship because of this rule are often referred to as “the last cohort of the lost Canadians”. Since we began this debate in the chamber, many of them have written to me and other members of the immigration committee.

To prevent future losses, the age 28 rule was repealed in 2009. At the same time, the law was changed to establish a clear first-generation limit to the right of automatic citizenship by descent. This means that, today, children born outside Canada to a Canadian parent are Canadian citizens from birth if they have a parent who is either born in Canada or naturalized as a Canadian citizen. Unlike the former retention provisions of the Citizenship Act, those children do not need to do anything to keep their Canadian citizenship. Those born in the second or subsequent generations abroad do not automatically become Canadians at birth. This first-generation limit is firm on who does or does not have a claim to citizenship by descent.

I would like to lean into this with a personal experience I have had with this, with my own two daughters. As is well known, I am a citizen of two countries, born Canadian but raised in Israel. At a certain point in my early adulthood, I chose to return to Israel to be with my family there. I got married and had my eldest daughter. She was born there, and upon her birth I applied for Canadian citizenship for her. Subsequently, we returned to Canada, in approximately 2008, and my second daughter was born here in Toronto, where we live today, in York Centre. She also obviously has Canadian citizenship, having been born here. However, if my eldest daughter chooses for some reason to live elsewhere in the world, such as in Israel, where she is currently living this year, and if she has children, my grandchildren will not be Canadian, even though she has lived here the majority of her life. Although her core ties to Canada are clear and well committed to, she has lost the ability to confer that citizenship onto her children as a result of the Bill C-37 change that was made under the Harper government in 2009. Ironically, if my younger daughter, who was born here, were to have children abroad, they would automatically be Canadian, as she would be able to bestow upon them what I was able to bestow upon her. Herein lie some of the problems we have been discussing as colleagues in this House.

I can appreciate the work of Senator Martin in wanting to narrow it down to a specific group of individuals, but, frankly, as my colleague from the Bloc said, this is about dignity, compassion, and a sense of heritage and connection that is being stripped away from many, so I will continue to talk about this. There are many people who are born abroad or adopted from abroad to a Canadian parent beyond the first generation. These individuals are not citizens, but still feel they have a very close tie to Canada, just like my daughter does, and also see themselves as lost Canadians.

Currently, these individuals can only become Canadian citizens by going through the immigration process. That is to say, they must first qualify and then apply to become permanent residents. Then after the required time, they must apply to become citizens. In some specialized cases, people born abroad in the second generation are eligible to apply for a grant of citizenship, but only in exceptional circumstances.

Turning back to Bill S-245, though it is well-intentioned as written, it does not address some of the remaining lost Canadians. Bill S-245 is targeting only the lost Canadians who lost citizenship because of the age 28 rule for those who were born abroad after the first generation and had already turned 28 years old and lost their citizenship before the law changed in 2009.

The bill as written excludes people who applied to retain citizenship but were refused. This is an issue because those who never applies to keep their citizenship would have their citizenship restored by the bill as written, while those who took steps to retain their citizenship but were refused would not benefit from this bill. Recognizing that the age 28 rule was problematic for all, it is my hope that the committee will consider amendments to restore the citizenship status of all those impacted by the former age 28 rule, which has since been repealed.

The committee heard compelling testimony from witnesses that precisely highlighted the problem with excluding one of the cohorts impacted by the age 28 rule. As I understand it, the committee for immigration also received dozens of written submissions from stakeholders both inside and outside of Canada. As a matter of fact, some of those stakeholders have also written to me in light of my previous interventions in the chamber on this matter. It would seem that there were many people watching Bill S-245 closely, like me, as parents. What is interesting is that almost all of the written submissions point out the challenges that exist for people born abroad in the second generation or beyond.

Given the call from stakeholders, I feel strongly that the committee should be empowered to at least consider solutions for some of the other people who consider themselves to be lost Canadians. This is the subject of today's debate. Does the House support the request from committee to expand the scope of the bill to see what could be done for the other lost Canadians? I think we must support this.

My story with my daughters is really not unusual for many of the constituents I represent in York Centre whose children go back and forth between Israel and get married here or in the United States. The Jewish community has very close cross-border ties, and these families, like many Canadian families, sometimes have some fluidity due to faith, culture or language and have other strong connections. They are watching this closely as well.

That is why I think we should be supporting this, because those who were born to a Canadian parent abroad beyond the first generation, including those adopted from abroad, are not Canadian citizens but feel they should be because they have a strong connection to Canada, similar to my older daughter. To address these other lost Canadians, the bill could be amended by introducing a pathway to citizenship for people in this exact situation.

I was really disappointed to hear about the reaction by Conservative members when the motion to expand the scope of Bill S-245 was presented at committee. They are, of course, entitled to their opinion, but rather than give serious or substantive arguments about why the scope should or should not be expanded, some members took the opportunity to make threats about what they would do if the scope were expanded. This is actually very disappointing. The member for Calgary Nose Hill stated:

...do we really want to have the immigration committee all of a sudden drop into a broader review of the Citizenship Act? If we are opening up this bill beyond the scope of what is here right now, I will propose amendments that are well beyond the scope of this bill. There are a lot of things I would like to see changed in the Citizenship Act. I will come prepared with those things, and we will be debating them.

I really take issue with this approach. I am not a member of the committee so I do not know what confidential amendments the members have already put on notice for the bill, but the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill absolutely does not have that information. We do know that. When she made these comments, she was fully aware of what members were going to propose.

Furthermore, the member for Vancouver East was pretty clear in her comments on the motion that she was not trying to make changes to some completely unrelated section of the Citizenship Act. As a matter of fact, she said that today as well. It is quite something for a member to threaten to overwhelm committee processes by trying to propose amendments that are, in her words, “well beyond the scope”.

I am disappointed, and it is unfortunate that the Conservatives are closed off to the urging they heard from stakeholders and that all members heard at committee from witnesses. I am not alone in having been put off by that fact, and I want to read into the record a communication that I understand was sent to committee members after the motion to expand the scope was moved at committee last Monday. I think it has a lot of meaning for all of us listening to this debate today. It says:

Dear Members of the Citizenship and Immigration committee of the House of Commons,

First I would like to thank the committee for taking the time to reflect on and discuss Bill S-245. Although the current language of the bill will have no effect on my status as a Lost Canadian, I am hopeful that this bill will help to pave the way for a path to citizenship for myself and others who are lost.

My story is like that of many other Lost Canadians. I live a life unfairly exiled from the country that my mother lives in. She lives alone in Haida Gwaii, and as she grows older, I wonder how I should be able to care for her, when it is illegal for me to live in the same country as her. I will not at this time speak to the immense pain, suffering and grief I live with every day.

I am not writing to you to tell you another story of a Lost Canadian. I am here instead, asking that the language you use while discussing Canadian citizenship be more sensitive and fair to those with ancestral ties to Canada. I do not believe it is the members intention to further marginalize those Canadians who have been stripped of their ties to Canada and it is for that reason that I make this plea to you all.

Time and time again, when discussing citizenship and lost Canadians, House members use the words “immigrant” and “citizen” as if they are interchangeable. The intent of Bill S-245 has nothing to do with immigration, and everything to do with citizenship. As a Lost Canadian, when I am referred to in the same sentence as someone looking to immigrate I am astounded. I am heartbroken. Above all, I fear that if we are constantly grouped together with those individuals looking to immigrate to Canada, that we will never be seen for who we really are—individuals who have been unjustly stripped of our birthright to Canadian Citizenship.

From an outside perspective it seems that the members inability to separate these two concepts—citizenship vs. immigration—while trying to address the issue being studied in bill S-245 is creating divisiveness over expanding the bill to make it fair and just for those of us who have been unfairly stripped of, or denied our birthright to Canadian citizenship.... It is disingenuine to speak of this as if it were an immigration issue. [Such language]...continues to reinforce the emotional damage and trauma we experience daily living in exile.

It goes on:

The intent of bill S-245 is to extend Canadian citizenship. To threaten amendments to Bill S-245 such as mandating in person citizenship ceremonies, is not only ridiculously out of scope for this bill, it is insulting to the masses of Lost Canadians simply looking to return home.

I understand that the complexities surrounding this issue of Lost Canadians and second generation born abroad Canadians make the situation difficult to understand. But until the members of this committee, those with the most influence on legislation regarding citizenship can themselves make the distinction between “Citizenship” and “Immigration” there will be no clear path forward for those of us who are lost.

So I beg of you. Lost Canadians are not immigrants. We are Canadians. The language used by the members should reflect that. The words spoken in this moment have much weight for those of us who are suffering. Please see us for who we are so that you may more fully open your minds and hearts, and let us in.... If you can see us as the Canadians we are then I believe this issue can be dealt with more clearly. This cannot be an issue where members let their views, beliefs or desires regarding—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved that the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration presented on Tuesday, April 18, 2023, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this important motion before the House, the concurrence motion.

What we are dealing with is essentially seeking authority from the House to expand the scope of Bill S-245. Bill S-245 is a Senate bill that is before the House to address the situation of those who are commonly known as “lost Canadians”. Bill S-245 would amend the Citizenship Act to allow Canadians who previously lost their citizenship due to the age 28 rule to regain their citizenship. The age 28 rule means that second-generation Canadians born abroad were subject to the laws of citizenship under the former section 8 of the Citizenship Act, which required them to apply to certify their citizenship before they turned 28 years old.

In 2009 the Conservatives repealed this section through Bill C-37. However, the legislation did not restore citizenship to those who lost their citizenship prior to 2009. This oversight created major problems for many Canadians, as they somehow could lose their citizenship status as they turned 28. Many of them actually did not even know that was the situation they were faced with. It was only when applying for their passport, for example, that they realized they had lost their citizenship.

Bill S-245 seeks to fix the age 28 rule. However, the rule does not address other situations where Canadians have lost their citizenship. The archaic provisions of the Citizenship Act have resulted in many other lost Canadians, and New Democrats seek to actually fix this problem.

Mr. Speaker, 14 years ago, Bill C-37 passed in this House and came into force, and as a result of that, many people lost their citizenship rights. In fact, it created a scenario where Canada's Citizenship Act, for this group of lost Canadians, in many ways was not charter-compliant. For decades some Canadians have found themselves even to be stateless due to a number of these archaic immigration laws.

In 2007, the UN's Refugees magazine listed Canada as one of the top offending countries for making its own people stateless. In 2009, as I mentioned, the Conservatives said that they were going to fix the lost Canadian issue with Bill C-37. Sadly, this did not happen. Worse still, the Conservatives created a brand new group of lost Canadians, and today we have an opportunity before us to fix that.

Bill S-245, the bill that was introduced by Senator Martin, is now before the committee for citizenship and immigration, and the bill aims to address this group of lost Canadians, lost due to the age 28 rule. I want to be very clear that the NDP wholeheartedly supports ensuring those who one day woke up and found themselves without Canadian status are made whole. This absolutely needs to be done. However, it is the NDP's strongest view that the scope of Bill S-245 is too narrow. The NDP wants to seize this opportunity to fix the lost Canadian issue once and for all.

Currently, there is a large group of Canadians who are deemed to be second-class citizens, due to the Conservatives' first-generation cut-off rule brought on by the Harper administration in 2009. Bill C-37 ended the extension of citizenship to second-generations born abroad. By stripping their right to pass on citizenship to their children if they were born outside of Canada, the Canadian government has caused undue hardship to many families. For some, it means separating children from parents. Some even find themselves stateless.

I spoke with Patrick Chandler. He is a Canadian who, while born abroad, spent most of his life in Canada. As an adult, he worked abroad, married someone from another country and had children. He was later offered a job in British Columbia. When he moved back to Canada, he had to leave his wife and children behind because he could not pass on his citizenship to his children. He had to go through an arduous process to finally reunite with them a year later.

There are many families being impacted in this way, and it is wrong. We should not put Canadians in those kinds of situations, yet here we are and that is what they have to suffer through. There are many families being impacted.

Another family faced with this situation is the family of Emma Kenyon. In fact, Emma lived here in Canada, as did her husband. However, they worked abroad and they met abroad. They had a child abroad. That child is stateless because neither Emma nor her husband has status in that country. They are now in a situation where they have a stateless child born to a Canadian. This is so wrong, and we need to fix this problem. Immigration officials said to them at the time that, before their child was born, they had a choice. They could actually travel back to Canada and have their child be born in Canada.

This, of course, did not make any sense. It was during the COVID period, when, basically, it was unsafe for her to travel. If Emma did travel back to Canada, she would be without a family doctor or a gynecologist to care for her pregnancy. None of that made any sense, but that is what she was told to do. Of course, she did not risk the birth of her child in that situation. She did not risk her own health either. As a result, her child was born abroad and is now in a stateless situation. It should never have been this way.

Families are so frustrated with these archaic immigration laws, especially with the stripping of the rights of immigrants having children born abroad. Those rights were stripped because of the Conservatives’ Bill C-37. Families are now taking the government to court to address this inequity. The Conservatives deemed first-generation Canadians born abroad to be less worthy and less Canadian, even though many had grown up in Canada. The implications are so serious that people are taking the government to court.

At the citizenship and immigration committee, when the opportunity arises, I will be moving amendments to ensure that this does not happen to anyone else. The NDP amendments would ensure that first-generation, born-abroad Canadians would have the right to pass on their citizenship rights to their children based on a connections test. They would also retroactively restore citizenship to persons who have not been recognized as citizens since the second-generation cut-off rule was enacted in 2009.

The same principles would apply to adoptees as well. We need to make sure that individuals and families that adopt children are not going to be caught in this bad situation. For those who do not wish to have citizenship conferred upon them, upon notification to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, these changes would not apply to them.

This will mean that people like Patrick, whom I mentioned, and people like Emma and her family would not have to suffer the challenges they face as a result of Bill C-37’s stripping of their rights.

In addition to the amendments related to the first-generation cut-off rule, I will also be moving amendments to symbolically recognize those who died before citizenship was conferred upon them. For example, many of Canada's war heroes fought and died for Canada. However, they were never recognized as Canadians. The NDP amendments would also honour them and recognize them as citizens, retroactive to birth.

The situation with what I call “war heroes” is this. The first Governor General of Canada, in 1867, right after Confederation, said that Canadians were a new “nationality”. However, according to Canada's immigration laws, Canadian citizenship did not exist prior to January 1, 1947. That means that no soldiers who fought and died for Canada in battles like Vimy Ridge or D-Day are deemed to be Canadians.

Bill C-37 was supposed to fix this, but it did not happen. Don Chapman, who has fought for so long on the issue of lost Canadians and trying to rectify those concerns, indicated that “the government has confirmed they're leaving out all the war dead [pre-1947]. So, the war dead in Canada were really just British. We might as well just scratch the Maple Leaf off their headstones.”

Symbolically recognizing those who fought for Canada and ensuring that they are recognized as citizens would have zero implications, no legal consequence whatsoever or liability for the government. It is really a strictly symbolic gesture, and it is an important one, especially for family members of loved ones who fought and died for Canada. I see some of these family members on Remembrance Day every year. Many veterans went to war and fought for Canada, and never came back. We should remember them as Canadians.

Beyond this, there are a couple of other categories of lost Canadians, who, due to one of the discriminatory rules, such as the gender discrimination rule that existed in Canada, were not recognized as citizens. The NDP's amendments would aim to fix that as well. Suffice it to say, there are long lists of people who have been hurt by this set of rules, and successive governments have said they would fix it. However, it never came to be. Now we have a chance to actually do that work. It is important we do that work now.

I fear that the Conservatives would not support this effort. At committee, when the senator and the sponsor of the bill were before us at committee to talk about this bill, the Conservatives indicated they wanted to just ensure the bill would be left as is and address only the 28-year rule, not deal with the other categories of lost Canadians. To me, that is wrong. Their argument is that it is too complicated, that we do not have time and that if the matter goes back before the Senate, then an election might be called and the bill might just die. That is, of course, if the Conservatives want that to happen.

We could actually work together, collaboratively, to say that we are going to fix this problem once and for all, for lost Canadians. We want to make sure that people like Emma Kenyon, whose child was born stateless, would never be in that situation. We could actually make that happen by amending the bill.

I know that Conservative members, even their leader, would say that they support the immigrant community and that they are there for them. If they are there for them, first, I would say that Bill C-37 should never have stripped of their rights the immigrants who became Canadians, such as myself. If I had a child born abroad, my child should have citizenship conferred upon them. The Conservatives took that away. We have a chance today to fix that, to say that immigrants, such as myself, would be able to have the same rights as those who were born in Canada, and be able to pass on their citizenship rights to their children born abroad.

To be sure that there is a connection between individuals like that, we could put forward a connections test, such as, for example, having been in Canada for 1,095 days. This happens to be the same number of days required, through the Citizenship Act, for people getting their citizenship. We could put in provisions like that to ensure there is a clear connection between them and Canada. There is no reason to say that we are not going to do any of this and that we are just going to strip them of their rights and not recognize them. Let us fix this once and for all.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:21 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration concerning the extension of time to consider Bill S-245.

Call in the members.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

In relation to Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, granting citizenship to certain Canadians, I have the honour of presenting the 14th report. The committee has studied the bill and, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), requests a 30-day extension to consider it.

I also have the honour of presenting the 15th report. The committee has studied the bill and recommends to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, granting citizenship to certain Canadians, to expand the scope of the bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to an application to retain his or her citizenship under section 8 as it is read before April 17, 2009.

Message from the Senate

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

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians).