Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address the legislation through its amendments. I hope I can provide some clarification as to why we are here today having this particular debate.
It is important to recognize that amendments and changes were made to the Citizenship Act under the former government, a Conservative government that the leader of the Conservative Party was very prominent in. Through the Ontario Superior Court, we found out it was in violation of rights. Ultimately, we are here today because of a Superior Court order about an issue that Bill C-3 is attempting to resolve.
We have a deadline. The court has indicated that as long as we can pass the legislation by November 20, then the system will in essence stay intact. I have been working in the area of immigration and citizenship for many years, and I really believe something of great significance has been overlooked or, at the very least, not talked about enough.
There are three ways in which one acquires citizenship. The first is the most common and recognized way; a person is born, raised and lives in Canada, as is the case for a high percentage of members in the House.
Another way is through naturalization. Ultimately, naturalization means that individuals are able to come to Canada through some form of an immigration stream. The numbers have fluctuated over the years. Many individuals have been permanent residents in Canada for years but have never taken the next step to get their citizenship, for all sorts of reasons.
For those who do make the decision to pursue their citizenship, which is the majority, there is a 1,095-day qualification in order to get that citizenship. I acknowledge that there is a certain time frame around that number, but these are individuals who have never set foot in Canada in the form of having a successful permanent resident application, which is a very important qualifier. A person can be in Canada as a visitor almost indefinitely. Typically it is a six-month return; people go back to their home country, and then they might come back for another visit. We encourage people to come visit our great lands from coast to coast to coast. This is a positive thing, but it does not count toward a person's citizenship. In order to acquire naturalization, people have to go through a process that sees them being in Canada, after being a permanent resident, for a minimum of 1,095 days.
The third way a person can be a citizen of Canada, and this is where the contention seems to be, is through descent. I will give a very specific example. There are literally thousands of Canadians who serve abroad in order to serve Canadians here in Canada. I am referring to our military personnel and foreign service, and these are just some national government-related positions. There are many international companies rooted here in Canada, headquartered in Canada, with individuals working outside the country in one way or another.
I will try to simplify this. I want members to imagine I am a civil servant working in the embassy, in the foreign service, and I am now posted to country X. While I am in country X, I have a child. That child is not born in Canada but is born in, let us say, Germany. Being part of the foreign service as a diplomat, I might be there for a number of years. I could possibly come back to Canada, or I could stay on a foreign deployment for a number of years, as many bureaucrats will.
Let us say my son or daughter is the age of majority and has an opportunity in the country I was posted to, decides to stay there and, ultimately, has children of his or her own. I end up coming back to Canada, whether I have retired or my posting brings me back to Canada. What the Conservatives are saying, along with the Bloc, is that if my son or daughter has a child, that child cannot be a Canadian. I am suggesting that my grandchild should be entitled to be a Canadian.
In terms of facilitating some sort of a connection, we do have, within the legislation, that there should be evidence of a substantial connection. That substantial connection is 1,095 days. I referred to 1,095 days a few minutes ago. If my son was to maintain that relationship with Canada and have that substantial connection, then why should my grandchild not be able to have the opportunity to call Canada home? This is where we differ. I do not quite understand the opposition to that.
They will take the extreme position, which, I would suggest, is a bit of an exaggeration. Is it possible? All sorts of things are possible, but is it justifiable in order to prevent a second generation from being able to come to Canada as Canadian citizens? Some may argue and ask, why could they not just reapply to become a Canadian? As we all know, it is not as simple as that.
Canada is recognized around the world as one of the countries, I would say the country, to come to, with the strongest reputation today and over past years. There are far more people who want to come to Canada and call Canada home than we can sustain. When we look at immigration and the issue we are talking about today, I think it is reasonable for us to support this because we can still have integrity within our immigration system. We have the flexibility.
The Prime Minister has been very clear on the immigration file and the need to bring stability to it. With Bill C-3, we are empowering Canadians abroad to become Canadians. I see that as a positive thing.