Debates of Sept. 16th, 2024

(Return tabled)

Question No.2891—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

With regard to federal investments and the communities which comprise the federal electoral district of Courtenay—Alberni, between the 2005-06 and current fiscal year: (a) what are the federal investments in innovation, science, economic development, and forestry, including investments in and direct transfers to the municipalities and First Nations, for the communities of (i) Tofino, (ii) Ucluelet, (iii) Port Alberni, (iv) Parksville, (v) Qualicum Beach, (vi) Cumberland, (vii) Courtenay, (viii) Deep Bay, (ix) Dashwood, (x) Royston, (xi) French Creek, (xii) Errington, (xiii) Coombs, (xiv) Nanoose Bay, (xv) Cherry Creek, (xvi) China Creek, (xvii) Bamfield, (xviii) Beaver Creek, (xix) Beaufort Range, (xx) Millstream, (xxi) Mt. Washington Ski Resort, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (b) what are the federal investments in innovation, science, economic development, and forestry invested in and transferred to the regional districts of (i) Comox Valley, (ii) Nanaimo, (iii) Alberni-Clayoquot, (iv) Powell River, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (c) what are the federal investments in innovation, science, economic development, and forestry invested in and transferred to the Island Trusts of (i) Hornby Island, (ii) Denman Island, (iii) Lasquetti Island, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (d) what are the federal investments in innovation, science, economic development, and forestry invested in and transferred to (i) the Ahousaht First Nation, (ii) Hesquiaht First Nation, (iii) Huu-ay-aht First Nation, (iv) Hupacasath First Nation, (v) Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations, (vi) Toquaht First Nation, (vii) Tseshaht First Nation, (viii) Uchucklesaht First Nation, (ix) Ucluelet First Nation, (x) K'omoks First Nation, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (e) what are the federal investment funding of the Strategic Innovation Fund, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project; (f) what are the funding of the Government of Canada's Sectoral Initiatives Program, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project; and (g) what are the federal investment funding of the Forest Industry Transformation (IFIT) program, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2892—

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

With regard to the Privy Council Office's response to the question on the Order Paper Q-2571, namely, that “Members of Parliament being considered for Cabinet position undergo a pre-appointment Governor-in-Council background check conducted by the Privy Council Office. Once appointed to Cabinet, the background check, coupled with the oath they take and the Ministerial Security Briefing they receive, permits them access to information classified to Top Secret for the duration of their tenure as Cabinet Minister”: (a) when did this become the policy of the government; (b) why was the 2008 policy, reportedly "that security background checks on Ministers, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries, and their spouses or partners, be renewed every two years while the appointee occupies a position as Minister, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary", changed; and (c) was there any other intervening policy, and, if so, (i) what was it, (ii) when was it in effect?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2893—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the temporary public policy creating permanent resident pathways for Hong Kong residents since 2021, broken down by month and year: (a) how many individuals of Hong Kong origin have immigrated to Canada, broken down by immigration stream; (b) how many individuals of Hong Kong origin have applied for permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds separate from the temporary public policy permanent residency pathways since 2021; (c) with regard to the figures in (a) and (b), how many have received permanent residency; (d) with regard to figures in (c), what was the average processing time; (e) what is the breakdown of the application numbers since 2021, broken down by Permanent Residency category for (i) Stream A, (ii) Stream B; (f) with regard to the figures in (e), how many applications have been (i) approved, (ii) rejected, (iii) are under review; (g) of the rejections in (f), what are the categorized reasons for rejecting the application, broken down by number; (h) of the cases under review in (f), how many of them are (i) individual applications, (ii) family applications; (i) of the approvals in (f), were any tied to existing departmental quotas for the temporary public policy or allocations made within annual immigration levels targets; (j) of applications for the open work permits for applicants of the Hong Kong permanent resident pathways, how many were made by individuals with “HKPPTR” inputted for the job title since the program was instituted in 2021; (k) of the applications in (j), how many were (i) accepted, (ii) rejected, (iii) under review; (l) of the rejections in (k), what is the breakdown of rejections by IRCC office or processing center; and (m) how many applications were rejected based, at least in part, on a labour market impact assessment?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2894—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

With regard to federal funding and the communities which comprise the federal electoral district of Courtenay—Alberni, between the 2005-06 and current year fiscal year: (a) what are the federal funding and capital investments related to the areas of arts and culture, environment and climate change, and higher education, broken down by these areas, including direct transfers to the municipalities and First Nations, for the communities of (i) Tofino, (ii) Ucluelet, (iii) Port Alberni, (iv) Parksville, (v) Qualicum Beach, (vi) Cumberland, (vii) Courtenay, (viii) Deep Bay, (ix) Dashwood, (x) Royston, (xi) French Creek, (xii) Errington, (xiii) Coombs, (xiv) Nanoose Bay, (xv) Cherry Creek, (xvi) China Creek, (xvii) Bamfield, (xviii) Beaver Creek, (xix) Beaufort Range, (xx) Millstream, (xxi) Mt. Washington Ski Resort, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, type of funding, funding opportunity or program, and project; (b) what are the federal funding and capital investments related to the areas of arts and culture, environment and climate change, and higher education, broken down by these areas, transferred to the regional districts of (i) Comox Valley Regional District, (ii) Nanaimo Regional District, (iii) Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District, (iv) Powell River Regional District, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, type of funding, funding opportunity or program, and project; (c) what are the federal funding and capital investments related to the areas of arts and culture, environment and climate change, and higher education, broken down by these areas, transferred to the Island Trusts of (i) Hornby Island, (ii) Denman Island, (iii) Lasquetti Island, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, type of funding, funding opportunity or program, and project; (d) what are the federal funding and capital investments related to the areas of arts and culture, environment and climate change, and higher education, broken down by these areas, transferred to (i) the Ahousaht First Nation, (ii) Hesquiaht First Nation, (iii) Huu-ay-aht First Nation, (iv) Hupacasath First Nation, (v) Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations, (vi) Toquaht First Nation, (vii) Tseshaht First Nation, (viii) Uchucklesaht First Nation, (ix) Ucluelet First Nation, (x) K'omoks First Nation, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, type of funding, funding opportunity or program, and project; (e) what are the federal funding and capital investments related to the area of environment and climate change, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, type of funding, funding opportunity or program, and project, including funding under the (i) Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention Fund, (ii) Oceans Management Contribution program, (iii) Coastal Restoration Fund, (iv) Aquatic Ecosystems Restoration Fund, (v) Canada Nature Fund for Aquatic Species at Risk, (vi) Ecosystems and Ocean Science Contribution Framework, (vii) Ghost Gear Fund, (viii) Whalesafe Gear Adoption Fund, (ix) any other funding opportunities and programs; (f) what is the funding of higher education, including, but not limited to, (i) funding offered through Indigenous Services Canada, (ii) student aid programs, (iii) grants for students with disabilities, and (iv) funding for educational infrastructure and institutions, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, type of funding, funding opportunity or program, and project; and (g) what is the funding of arts and culture, broken down by (i) fiscal year (ii) total expenditure, (iii) type of funding, (iv) funding opportunity or program, (v) project?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2896—

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

With regard to the Canada School of Public Service, broken down by department: (a) how many government employees, broken down by unit and percentage of total employees, have completed the Indigenous Learning Series, as of June 10, 2021; (b) is participation in the Indigenous Learning Series mandatory; (c) are new employees expected to complete any part of the Indigenous Learning Series as part of their training; (d) how many employees have access to the available learning products of the Indigenous Learning Series; (e) are employees, both new and experienced, given time to complete training through the Indigenous Learning Series during contracted working hours; and (f) what percentage of content available through the Canada School of Public Service is available in an Indigenous language?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2900—

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

With regard to the replacement vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard: (a) what were procurement cost estimates in 2016, for Canadian Coast Guard vessels scheduled for replacement in 2016 through 2025; (b) what were final procurement costs for vessels replaced from 2016 to date; (c) what are estimated final procurement costs for vessels currently in production; and (d) what is the breakdown of (a) through (c) by each vessel?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2902—

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

With regard to events sponsored by the government since January 1, 2023, where the sponsorship amount was in excess of $500,000: what are the details of all such events, including, for each, the (i) dates, (ii) location, (iii) title of the event, (iv) event description, (v) amount of the sponsorship, (vi) other costs associated with sponsoring the event (e.g. signage, hospitality, etc.), (vii) reason for the sponsorship?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2904—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

With regard to the electoral district of Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, between the fiscal year 2015-16 and the current year: (a) what are all the federal infrastructure investments, including direct transfers to municipalities, regional district associations or First Nations, national parks, highways, etc., broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project; and (b) what funding is allocated to highways, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Recent Deaths of First Nations People by Police Forces

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I wish to inform the House that I have received notice of a request for an emergency debate.

I invite the hon. member for Nunavut to rise and make a brief intervention.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I rise today to seek leave for an emergency debate regarding the recent deaths of six first nations people at the hands of police forces in Canada. The lives of indigenous peoples matter. Report after report, recommendation after recommendation, the RCMP is still instilling systemic racism against indigenous peoples in Canada. For decades, indigenous peoples have been injured and, worse yet, have died at the hands of the RCMP.

From August 29 to September 8, in just 11 days, Canadian police killed six people. All six were first nations. I honour the first nations families that are grieving and deserve justice. The injustices experienced by the first nations killed by the RCMP deserve our attention. Two were hit and killed by police vehicles. One was shot in the chest three times during a wellness check. Another was a 15-year-old child who had called police for protection. Two officers shot at him as he ran away. Two others were shot by police responding to service calls. This should never have happened, and we will not accept it.

With the exception of the APTN, not much other national media is exposing these deaths. Why? Because systemic racism and the deaths of indigenous people is normal and expected.

The government must answer this: Why do indigenous people continue to be victims of violence carried out by the government? As parliamentarians, it is on us to hold our institutions accountable. No more: We must show Canadians that their Parliament is addressing the institutional violence perpetrated in their communities, today.

The NDP and I are seeking an emergency debate so parliamentarians can discuss immediate measures to save indigenous lives, today. We must honour indigenous peoples. No more indigenous children must lose their fathers to the barrel of an RCMP gun. No more sisters must be stolen by the RCMP. No more indigenous children must get bullet wounds instead of help.

I call on you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure the country takes seriously the systemic racism that continues to kill indigenous peoples, to do your part to help indigenous lives and to demand accountability for indigenous peoples.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for Nunavut for her intervention and for sharing her intention to bring this before the House.

After reviewing the rules, I am prepared to grant an emergency debate concerning the recent deaths of first nations peoples by police forces. This debate will be held later today at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

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

Citizenship Act

[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.