Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, I spoke to Bill C‑3, a reiteration of Bill C‑71, and Senate Bill S‑245, intended to correct a historic injustice by granting citizenship to Canadians whose files had fallen through the cracks.
I talked about children, born abroad to Canadian parents, who had lost their citizenship because of changes in federal rules or based on other conditions that seemed to me difficult to justify at the time. Basically, what all these bills tell us is that we need to restore citizenship to everyone who lost their status because of exceedingly complex and often unfair provisions of previous Canadian legislation.
In fact, Bill C‑3 incorporates all of the amendments proposed to Bill C‑71, which sought to correct injustice and errors in the Citizenship Act.
The bill responds to an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling declaring that the first-generation limit on citizenship applicable to the children of Canadians born abroad is unconstitutional. The government then had six months to amend the law. Bill C‑3 was introduced as a safeguard, because Bill S‑245 and even Bill C‑71 unfortunately could not proceed for partisan reasons.
On this point, I would like to reiterate the following. Despite my occasional differences of opinion with my colleagues from other parties in the House, as we all know, I am not in the habit of engaging in partisanship. I even think that being non-partisan often allows me to do my job well for the people of Lac‑Saint‑Jean, who, since 2019, have allowed me to proudly represent them in the House of Commons. In that sense, and without wanting to be partisan, I still believe that we must at least assess the overall impact of bills such as this on the public.
Let us come back to the matter at hand today. Although some believed it was 500 to 600, IRCC's initial estimates at the time were that between 100 and 200 people had still not regained their citizenship.
In committee, it quickly became apparent that the number of Canadians stripped of their citizenship was difficult to assess. Various publications, including that of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, came to the same conclusion. According to the Minister of Immigration, who was there in committee, it would be impossible—that was the word she used—to estimate the number.
Times like these demonstrate the importance of the parliamentary work done in House of Commons committees. As parliamentarians, we must be thorough and mindful of the impact our decisions have. The Bloc Québécois has always worked that way, and it will continue to do so.
Before continuing, I would like to confirm that, as was the case with Bills C‑71 and S‑245, the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C‑3 as amended by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. My colleagues and I have done work on this bill that may have been perceived as harsh, but after gathering some information and analyzing the facts, it was quite obviously necessary.
In particular, the bill was amended in committee to ensure that the requirements for passing on citizenship by descent to second-generation Canadians born abroad are identical to the requirements for naturalized citizens. Bill C‑3 calls for citizenship to be granted to children as long as one of the parents spends a minimum of 1,095 days in Canada over an indefinite period before the child's birth.
To ensure consistency across federal laws, we supported an amendment calling for this 1,095-day requirement to be met within a five-year period, as is the case for someone seeking citizenship through the immigration process.
We also supported an amendment that will require people who are over 18 at the time of their citizenship application to comply with additional requirements. They would have to meet the same requirements as those imposed on naturalized citizens, namely, to pass a language test, to pass a citizenship knowledge test and to undergo a security assessment.
Furthermore, Bill C-3 will now hold the federal government accountable to some degree. There can never be too much accountability where the federal government is concerned. We will require the tabling of a report containing annual statistics on the number of citizenships granted under this legislation, which seems perfectly normal and understandable to me.
We sincerely believe that these amendments address the court's ruling that we determine what is meant by a real connection to Canada. Since everyone should be considered equal before the law, replicating the naturalization requirements for second-generation children born abroad establishes that the same rules apply to everyone.
The amendments brought forward by the government at this stage are problematic. We know for a fact that they aim to restore amended clauses to their original form, except for the one about the three requirements, in other words, the security, language and citizenship test for persons between 18 and 55 years of age.
In addition, one insidious aim of the amendments is to overturn the careful work done by a majority of committee members to achieve this outcome. In that respect, the Bloc Québécois demands respect for the work of committee members. It blows me away to think that the House needs to be told to respect the work of committee members. For that reason, we are going to oppose the amendments proposed by the government at report stage.
As the House knows, I was in favour of Bills S‑245 and C‑71. I am obviously in favour of quickly passing Bill C‑3 to meet the court's requirements. However, that does not mean I am in favour of shoddy work. I am talking about swift but effective adoption. I am talking about adoption that is the result of rigorous work that has allowed the bill to follow the usual steps, including committee review and the tabling of a report in the House. I am talking about adoption that respects the decision of the majority of members of the House and the important work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
I find it a shame when I read amendments like the ones proposed today. I believe they reflect a lack of consideration for the work that is done at committee. As parliamentarians, we need to tackle the issues that matter most to our constituents with a strong sense of duty and without partisanship. At the Bloc Québécois, that is what we always do.
The Chair knows better than anyone in the House that when we step into this place, our goal is always to work for our constituents, not for anyone else. We in the Bloc Québécois are here for Quebeckers who care about Quebec's future, and not just when it is time to cater to our electoral ambitions. People know that. They saw the work we did in committee on this bill. They heard the evasive answers from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration officials when we asked them questions in committee.
I sincerely hope that the efforts and energy that my colleagues and I have put into studying this bill will be given due consideration and respect. I want to reiterate that citizenship status must be equal for everyone, and Canadian laws must be consistent.
Despite what my colleagues opposite may think, the amendments adopted by a majority of the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration are consistent with that approach.
I look forward to questions.