Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the applause, but they should save it for my second point, which is even better.
All of Canada will be united tonight. With one voice, we will support the Blue Jays. Tonight, they will beat the other team and bring home baseball's biggest prize. If they should happen to lose tonight, I am not even worried, because they always come back strong. There is no doubt that the Blue Jays are going to win the World Series.
Let me quote the famous slogan from Rogers: “Bring it Home”. It reminds me of something, but I do not know what.
Now I want to talk about Bill C‑3, which deals with an extremely important yet sensitive issue. This bill addresses immigration, citizenship and other delicate situations that must be handled with care. Once again, I am thinking of my parents. I am the son of immigrants. This is a subject that is very close to my heart.
Bill C‑3 replaces Bill C‑71, which was debated during the previous Parliament. It deals with citizenship by descent, lost citizenship and the status of children born abroad. Why was this bill introduced? It was because, in 2009, Stephen Harper's Conservative government introduced the first version of an amendment to the Citizenship Act. It put a limit on the conditions under which citizenship could be automatically granted to foreign children, and this applied to the first generation. There were some heated debates, but the bill was passed.
The act has been upheld to this day. However, the very nature of a law makes it open to challenge, and citizens are entitled to do just that. That is what happened in Ontario in the early 2020s. In 2023, an Ontario judge ruled this law unconstitutional and set the government a deadline for making adjustments. That deadline has been extended repeatedly in light of political events, including the end of a government, an election and the installation of a new government. We are therefore faced with a situation of some urgency considering that we have until November 25, if memory serves, to pass a bill amending the Citizenship Act.
The amendment has to do with the right of the soil. Can a person born on Canadian soil obtain citizenship automatically, within limits? This is a sensitive but fundamental issue that keeps coming up with increasing frequency. It prompted commentator Mario Dumont, among other observers, to write, “The Conservative Party of Canada has kicked off a real debate....Is the right of the soil completely off-limits?” So far, this right has indeed seemed like something carved in stone, beyond the realm of debate. He says that “the right of the soil is no longer off-limits” and that “the Conservatives are right” to take this action.
Bill C-3 addressed this issue, but in our view, it did not address the most sensitive aspects of it that call for serious, humane and political reflection, because we need to consider how this might affect future generations. That is why we had serious reservations about this bill as it was introduced and why we proposed amendments in committee. A total of 11 issues were discussed in committee, based on the amendments we brought forward.
These amendments were supported by the second opposition party, and we are grateful to our Bloc Québécois colleagues. We welcome their support and their endorsement of what we proposed, which related primarily to residence, language, knowledge and security.
One thing is certain. If we fail to properly define certain entry routes and to prioritize responsible immigration, the primary victims of our negligence will be the immigrants themselves. Sadly, we all remember the unfortunate events that have occurred over the past 10 years involving immigration practices that did not always show respect for those arriving.
Citizenship requires even more care. We know what a Canadian passport and Canadian citizenship are worth, so we need to treat it with dignity. We proposed several amendments that the Bloc Québécois supported. These amendments were incorporated into the bill because the committee welcomed them. That is great.
Now the Liberals have decided that they preferred the original version. That is a shame because the work in committee was done properly. It feels like the Liberals are saying that they are not interested in any of that work. Need I remind the government members that they were elected to a minority government? Being in the minority means having to work with opposition parties to find common ground. What common ground did we find with the support and assistance of the Bloc Québécois? We agreed on certain points.
With regard to the residency requirement, the parent must demonstrate continuous physical presence in Canada for the same period of time as that required of an applicant for naturalized citizenship, at any time prior to the birth of the child. This is entirely logical, relevant and practical in the context of the approach we wish to take.
With regard to language requirements, individuals must demonstrate proficiency in one of Canada's two official languages, English or French, unless they are children under the age of 18 or individuals over the age of 54.
With regard to the citizenship exam requirement, individuals must demonstrate satisfactory knowledge of Canada, as well as citizenship-related legislation and responsibilities.
With regard to the security assessment, individuals must not pose a threat to Canada’s national security, though this does not apply to children under the age of 18.
Can we really call them requirements? They are realities that all of us must deal with as citizens. There is nothing unreasonable or partisan about this. It is all common sense. It is all clear and specific. It spells out exactly what we expect from newcomers who want to become Canadians and who we gladly welcome into our country. We are grateful to them for choosing our country and they are grateful to us for making them welcome. However, there are a few basic conditions they need to meet. We want to require exactly the same thing for the right to citizenship.
In our opinion, our suggestions are fair, balanced, reasonable and, most of all, constructive. They are constructive for the country we love, for the hospitality we need to provide to people interested in living here with us, and for the approach we want for future generations. The right of the soil is not a given, and it comes with certain responsibilities.
That is why the amendments that we adopted, with the support and consent of the Bloc Québécois, are meant to be positive and constructive. They will ensure we can provide a better welcome and a better life for a lot of Canadians and people interested in becoming Canadians. Once again, certain basic conditions must be met. As I showed earlier, there is nothing unusual about these conditions.
I therefore urge my colleagues to reconsider their current position of rejecting the proposed amendments. It is never too late to do the right thing. Some people look interested, and I congratulate them. I would ask the Liberals to reconsider their position so that all Canadians can come out winners in this debate.