Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and an honour to get up again to speak to Bill C-3, now in its amended form from committee, on behalf of the great constituents of the wheat city in western Manitoba.
I find the discussion that has taken place on Bill C-3, since it came back from committee with amendments, fairly startling. We are going to get into a discussion about the amendments that were approved in a multipartisan fashion at committee, but some of the comments coming from those on the government side have been alarming. They say this bill was required by a lower-court decision so we should absolutely agree to everything the court said.
Some members opposite have even commented that Parliament is not supreme in its ability to make laws on the citizenship question and once a court has made a decision at all. We know that is factually incorrect. In fact, my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill cited subsection 91(25) of the Constitution in her speech, which specifically discusses that Parliament has the power to make decisions regarding the provisions of citizenship in this country. The facts around that are clear. Whether the Liberal government is going to accept them and accept the amendments that were approved at committee remains to be seen.
We know the government has made a lot of comments about being a listening government and about wanting to work together more collaboratively. The Liberals are often griping about previous parliaments and the fact that no one wanted to work together with them. We have an opportunity here. Two other official parties in this place have come together and moved some fairly simple, basic and agreeable amendments to a government bill. We sincerely hope that the Liberal government is going to approve them and move this bill forward in an adequate and appropriate way for Canadians.
We know that the national identity of Canada is constantly under threat. We see commentary on all kinds of different ideals about postnationalism and globalism and what it means to be a Canadian citizen, and how being a Canadian and how Canada as a whole fit into that context. The biggest concern I am hearing from Canadians is with respect to the value of Canadian citizenship and what amount of value we place on being a Canadian citizen in an increasingly interconnected and interrelated world.
This bill, in its initial form, was pretty bonkers; that is the first word that comes to my mind. I do not understand the concept of citizenship that goes on and on, with multiple generations that have no connection to this country and, in many cases, that have barely or never been here, generation after generation.
I have family who have moved overseas, to anywhere from Europe to the South Pacific, and they are having children overseas. I know they are going to make sure those children have a connection to this country because they believe that being Canadian means something. It is not just words and a piece of paper. It is about a connection to this place, the actual physical space of this country, and the people who call it home and make up our nation as a community of diverse individuals. If they expect their grandchildren and great-grandchildren to be Canadian, they will make sure they spend time in this country. Even if they choose to live abroad, which is of course their right, they will make sure those relatives have a connection to this country.
What are the amendments we have put forward that the Liberals are so upset about? For citizenship by descent, an amendment was approved saying that citizenship would not be granted to persons when “neither of the person's parents who was a citizen was physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days during any period of five consecutive years before the person's birth”. That would be for citizenship by descent and by adoption. That 1,095 days is not an onerous length of time to expect someone, who was perhaps born abroad themselves and received citizenship, to spend in this country to pass citizenship to the next generation.
There are language provisions. We have two official languages in this country, and I should just pause here to thank my colleagues on the citizenship and immigration committee, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who was joined by the members for Saskatoon West, Markham—Unionville and Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, for the excellent work they did in putting forward fairly common-sense amendments to this bill.
I also thank my colleagues in the Bloc. Those folks are not typically standing up for Canadian citizenship. By definition, they are a separatist party that wants Quebec to be a different country in and of itself, but even they can see how badly the bill, as it was presented to Parliament by the Liberals, devalued the value of Canadian citizenship. Even Bloc members are concerned about this, so they worked with us to defend language rights and expect people who are applying for citizenship through descent or by adoption to know one of the official languages. That is a fairly common-sense, reasonable request. I would expect most Canadians to believe that as well. Whether the Liberals do, I guess we will see, but I certainly think the vast majority of Canadians expect someone who is becoming a citizen of this country to know either English or French.
We also know that an amendment approved at committee talks about having knowledge of Canada. I was just talking about the example of my own family. Going forward, many generations that have lived abroad and have never spent any time in Canada at all, under the way this bill was presented by the Liberals originally, would automatically be citizens of this country. We believe that is a choice that has to be made with an understanding of the country that someone is a citizen of.
This is very simple. People should take a citizenship test or knowledge test based on the citizenship guide. We expect other people applying for citizenship to take one. I do not think that is unreasonable. It is actually pretty normal to expect that. In fact, as Bill C-3 was originally presented, we would have been the only country in the G7 to grant citizenship in the fashion it noted. None of our allies, the most developed economies and countries in the world, would have had a citizenship provision like the Liberals presented originally.
As such, we amended the bill to add a citizenship provision so that people would have to declare that they do not believe in barbaric cultural practices, like, for example, female genital mutilation and other severe violence. We understand in this country that when someone wants to escape a terrible situation in the country they are in, when they are an immigrant, they need to leave the conflicts of the country they came from. That is not an unreasonable request, and we believe that should be applied to anyone who is obtaining Canadian citizenship from any path.
These are pretty basic bars that have been amended into this bill in a multipartisan fashion, but the main point is that we believe on this side of the House that Canadian citizenship has value, and with that value comes responsibilities and rights. It does not mean a blank slate. There are expectations of Canadian citizens, regardless of how people obtain citizenship, and they need to be outlined, which is why we have amended this bill.
There are adoptive provisions in this bill for people who are adopted that we agree with completely, but we need to make sure there is a discussion happening in Parliament, not just decisions made by judges, about the expectations and responsibilities of people obtaining Canadian citizenship. We feel that these amendments do that, and we know our colleagues in the Bloc agree. Being a Canadian citizen matters. It has value in the world, and we understand that folks who want to be Canadian citizens would be affected by the provisions of this bill, so let us make sure they are joining the citizenry of this country in the right way.