Debates of Sept. 15th, 2025

Citizenship Act

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Before I begin, having been away for the summer, I want to welcome everybody back. It is always a pleasure and an honour to speak on the floor of the House of Commons, something that so few Canadians get to experience. I welcome everybody back. I welcome you, Madam Speaker, back to the chair.

I recently got some sad news. A childhood friend of mine, a friend I went to school with from, I believe, grade 3 or grade 4, Dennis Doyle, passed away tragically and unexpectedly. He leaves behind his father, Peter Doyle; his mother; his sister, Leanne; and his fiancée, Ashley Sumner. This was completely unexpected.

I went to high school with Dennis. He was such a character. Whenever he walked by, everybody would give a good-natured sound effect; if someone knows, they know. To Dennis' family, I am so sorry to hear of his loss. I am going to say it one time for Dennis, in commemoration of his life: bah.

I also wish to recognize the life of Marilyn VanDongen. Marilyn VanDongen was somebody who was so devoted to the community of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. She and her family were active participants in the Alzheimer's walk. She was afflicted with this horrible disease, a disease that ultimately took the life of my grandmother.

Marilyn leaves behind her husband, Casey, to whom I awarded a Queen's Platinum Jubilee Medal. She also leaves behind her daughter Diane; son Ken; another son, Neil; and daughter Sheila. Neil and I actually went to kindergarten together, so this is a family I have known for over 40 years. Their contributions cannot be understated. I see Neil and Sheila frequently in the community, and I want to recognize Marilyn's life. May perpetual light shine upon her.

We are talking about immigration today, and I often speak about this topic in the House of Commons. It actually came up in my first speech. It is something that is really close to my heart. People are probably tired of hearing about my family story, but I am going to say it again because I am able to say it again. When I talk about how proud I am to walk onto the floor of the House of Commons, I mean it. Every single day, I just take it in.

In fact, the night I was elected, September 20, 2021, my mother, who came to this country as an immigrant, asked, "What would your grandfather, my father, think if he saw this today?" This simply was not an option for him, to be in the House of Commons. My mom has told a story about how he had to borrow money for a chicken so he could have a chicken on Christmas Day. Those are my roots. That is where I come from.

My mother followed her father, who came when he did not have the money to bring the whole family. He came to Canada to work because he came from a very poor part of Italy. My mother followed him in 1957. My father came with his family in 1959. They met in Canada. My dad actually did not finish high school; he went to work. He went to work at a place called Balco, now named Tolko, a huge employer in British Columbia, and he worked there until he literally could not physically work there anymore. That was the Canada they came to.

My mom spent her time as a homemaker. She went back to school when I was 10 years old and became a legal assistant. On the one hand, we had a mill worker; on the other hand, we had a legal assistant. They had three children: my sister Rosie, my other sister Ellie and then me. My sisters both became teachers, which is a very noble career.

My parents lived that Canadian dream, and now I am living that. To me, that is what this place embodies. That is what Canada embodies.

What do we have to say about that? I owe everything I have to immigration. I would not be standing here were it not for immigration. My parents came to a very different Canada, and places change. When my dad came to Canada, if someone showed up, they got a job. If they worked hard, they kept that job. That was the promise of Canada. That was the Canadian dream.

My dad worked very hard. I know that because I spent a summer working at the sawmill where he worked, and after two shifts, I had never had more respect for my father, knowing the back-breaking labour that he did for over 30 years. There I was, 19 years old, thinking, “I do not know how my dad has done this.” He sacrificed so much. In return, he gave back so much to Canada. I cannot tell members how many hours of volunteerism they gave or how proudly patriotic my family is.

This all comes back to immigration. I owe Canada. We, as a family, owe Canada a tremendous debt of gratitude, and it is against that backdrop that I speak about Bill C-3, a bill on immigration. Frankly, I have heard a number of falsehoods, things I vehemently disagree with from our friends on the Liberal side.

I just heard a question: “Why are we not prepared to welcome Canadians?” Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I received a message from somebody the other day. I had worked with her on a few things. We had worked together on one thing in particular, and she said that she had just gotten her permanent residency. She went through it the right way. I wrote a note back, and I said that I could not wait to sign her citizenship certificate someday.

This idea that Conservatives are not welcoming, that there is a carte blanche “no” to immigration, could not be further from the truth. We are a welcoming party, an inclusive party, and if I look around, even in the House of Commons right now, I see people like me who are first-generation Canadians, who owe everything they have to immigration, or who themselves immigrated, like the member who spoke just before me.

Against that backdrop, we have to ask ourselves how we deal with this and how we deal with immigration law going forward. We have Bill C-3 before us. This bill would eliminate the first-generation limits and grant citizenship to those born abroad if one parent were to spend just 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada, and there would be no criminal record checks.

I want to dive into that. I know I have spoken a lot about my background, but I think it is really important. I wish I had more time to speak to it. Maybe the member for Winnipeg North will pass a unanimous consent motion so that I could keep on talking.

The reality is that for those 1,095 non-consecutive days, or about three years, somebody could divide their time up. How much time are we talking about? How many of those 1,095 non-consecutive days are we looking at? Where are the checks and balances to determine whether the person has actually spent that much time?

What we are talking about is what the courts have called a “substantial connection”, and “substantial” is one of these legal words. I come from a legal background, as most people hear way too much about, but the reality is that “substantial” is one of these legal buzzwords. What does it actually mean? Can I have a substantial connection to a number of places? Do I have a substantial connection, for instance, to the place where my parents came from, where they landed when they first came to Canada, where they settled or other places? I question whether somebody can have a substantial connection to a number of places.

The reality is that Conservatives are completely open. We want to show an angle of compassion and an angle of just immigration and appropriate immigration. I am completely open to that. In fact, I welcome it. I want people to live and experience what I have lived and experienced. I cannot wait to welcome these people with an immigration system that is just, appropriate and reflects Canadian values.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we have been here all morning listening to Conservative after Conservative stand in their place to say that there are some just cases for which people would be able to have their citizenship if we were to pass this legislation. Members on all sides of the House recognize the value of it, so if the member says that the Conservative Party wants to show progressive forward movement, one of the things it could do is recognize that there have been hours of debate. Back in June, we were debating this legislation.

There is no reason whatsoever that we cannot continue this debate at committee and look at the amendments the Conservatives have. It is a minority government. That means all they have to do is convince a majority of MPs to be on side with them. The opposition has a majority membership on the standing committee.

My question for the member is this: If he is convinced of the amendments the Conservatives apparently have, why not allow it to go to committee?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, what I appreciate about the member for Winnipeg North is not what he says, but how loud he says it.

I have watched here all morning and have seen countless Liberals, many women, standing behind him, who do not get to ask a question of the government or of us here, when all the while he stands and speaks. If this is going to be a discussion and the government is going to put its money where its mouth is, this is the reality. There is one member who speaks on behalf of the government. I take issue with the fact that he is asking all the questions on behalf of the government when there are countless individuals, some newly elected, who would love to participate in this debate, and they have to take a back seat to that one member.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member that that is not correct. There have been other members asking questions. Also, it is not the tone of the debate to remark on who asks the questions.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that this member should lecture us on the tone and volume of speech in the House. That said, it is evidently the tone and volume to be expected in the coming year.

In practical terms, I believe that one question remains, a question that was raised by the member for Winnipeg North: What will be studied in committee? I need to understand the loophole because I cannot imagine that the government would not conduct any background checks. If so, then we would definitely have to clarify the legislation to make these checks mandatory. That said, mounting a fearmongering campaign by saying that it will allow in people who are going to threaten our security is a dubious conflation.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the amendments that the Conservatives are going to propose in committee.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that we as Conservatives have spoken about propaganda and fear. In fact, I spoke about the Canadian dream and how amazing it is to be here speaking about this.

At the end of the day, we want an immigration system that is just, is appropriate and reflects that those who should be coming to Canada, those with an appropriate connection, would actually come here. The reality is, when it does come to consideration at committee, we should be looking at a number of different things. We should be looking at the substantial connection. How much time does that really mean? How many generations beyond the current generation are we looking at?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, how is it that the bill provides a system for people to obtain citizenship in a way that the government cannot even estimate how many people would be eligible over a set period of time? That is problem one.

Problem two is that the bill does not have any language requirements for people who are obtaining citizenship by descent, whereas we do for citizenship by naturalization. The third problem is that the bill has no criminal record check, and the fourth problem, as my colleagues have already talked about, is that the presence in Canada test is probably not adequate.

What is important to understand is that the Liberals, in their debate, are trying to move away from the fact they have broken Canada's immigration system. Can my colleague talk about how Conservatives have been putting forward common-sense proposals to fix the immigration system the Liberals have broken and restore order and fairness to a once great system that served our country well?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe it was Senator Martin who put forward a bill that would have rectified so many of these issues, yet the Liberals, as I understand it, voted against it.

When we are talking about who is on what side and how we are doing this, a Conservative senator put forward this bill and it was voted against, and that should be remembered.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to raise very serious concerns about Liberal legislation, Bill C-3. This legislation proposes to create a new system of unlimited chain migration into Canada at a time when Liberal immigration policies have already skewed population growth to the point where public services are under great strain. I believe this is not only bad policy, but also immoral policy.

The Liberals would like to make it easier for people who have never stepped foot in Canada to obtain Canadian citizenship. It is absurd. It is outrageous. The population growth the Liberals have already inflicted upon our country has put us in a vulnerable position on many fronts. The reality is that they want to hand Canadian citizenship out like candies at the counter.

By treating Canadian citizenship this way, the Liberals will further increase the number of people who are trying to access social programs, housing and health care. This is already a growing problem where we have more people than we have services available for the people who are here. The quality of life for Canadians is threatened to be further eroded by Bill C-3. It would make many of the problems in our country even worse.

I am particularly concerned about the implications this would have for our health care system, which is already in a state of degradation because of the surge in population growth across the country. We do not have enough hospitals. We do not have enough beds. We do not have enough doctors. We do not have enough nurses. The prospect of Liberals wanting to bring even more people into Canada is truly concerning to many.

I would like to share with the House a story to illustrate just how population growth is lowering the quality of life for Canadians across this country, and it is a personal story of my family dealing with the hospital system. On Monday of last week, my dear mother, who I love, went into the hospital for hip replacement surgery.

As has become the norm across Canada, she had to wait far too long for her surgery date. In fact, by the time my mother went in to have her surgery, the surgeon said the damage to her hip had reached the point of being a 10 out of 10. That means that my dear mother was dealing with a lot of pain for a long period of time while waiting for the chance to have a surgery that everybody in the health care system acknowledged she needed much more urgently than it was provided.

The state of our health care system becomes even more clear with the experience we had in the hospital itself. The morning of the surgery, everything went smoothly. I was with my mom. The surgeon was awesome. The nurses were awesome. They took great care of her. We are very thankful for the excellent work they did. We are also very grateful to be in a country where someone does not have to go into debt to see a doctor. It was a very good experience in the morning.

I was with my mom in the afternoon and in the evening. Around 10:00 p.m., I decided I was going to go home to get some sleep. I hit the 401. I was driving east on my way back home, and I got a phone call from my mom, who was frantic and upset. My mother is a very calm, cool and collected lady. She does not get upset easily, but she was freaking out. She was freaking out because she awoke from her rest while recovering from surgery to the sounds of hospital staff moving a male patient into her room.

I appreciate that some people in the House might not see that as a big deal, but a lot of people across Canada would. When someone is recovering from a surgery in a hospital, they are in a physically vulnerable state and can barely move. The idea that hospital staff would move a dude into my mom's room in the middle of the night with no notice and no acknowledgement, and not even recognize that this was a bizarre and weird action to take to begin with, made my mom quite unhappy. The male patient who was moved into the room was also very uncomfortable with the situation. The only thing dividing them was a thin curtain pulled between the hospital beds.

Naturally, when my mom is upset, it is like the bat signal going up. I got off the highway, headed westward and got back to the hospital. I went to speak to the supervising nurse. After some persistence, and I think, Madam Speaker, you know me well enough to know what my persistence might look like, the staff did move my mom to a new hospital room with a female patient.

I asked the supervising nurse what the hospital policy was that allowed it to force a male patient and a female patient to share a room without their consent. The supervising nurse printed the policy off and handed it to me. I looked at it, and it was a policy that said that, due to overcrowding and under-resourced hospitals, the hospitals in Toronto had made the decision that they would have to give themselves that power.

I am not of the belief that this makes it a good choice for them. I do not like the policy, but in that moment, I could see very practically what population growth has done to our hospitals. I did some research, and I found that this has become a common practice in hospitals all across Canada. They give themselves the ability to pair male and female patients in the same room against their will because they do not have enough space.

A week later, after that whole ordeal, I came back to Ottawa, and what was the first thing on the legislative calendar? The Liberals want to make it easier to bring even more people into our country, increasing the demands on our health care system even further and continuing to demonstrate a quite objectively observable pattern of policy-making that indicates the Liberals would rather bring new people into this country than take care of the people who are already here.

My mom and seniors like her built this country, paying taxes for decades on the promise that they would be looked after when they needed it. However, we have a series of policy choices continuously being made by the Liberal government to make life harder for people like my mom. Forgive me, but I cannot get down with that. It is not right.

I appreciate that Liberal MPs may want to dismiss or deflect this. They might say this is a provincial issue, asking why we do not take it to the provincial government and claiming they have no responsibility. Well, my response to that would be this: Maybe that is a message they could deliver to the Prime Minister, as he is the one having fireplace chats with the Premier of Ontario. He is the one sipping Chardonnay by the fire with the man who is in charge of the government in this province. If the Liberals want to make health care funding an issue, by all means they should encourage the Prime Minister to do so. I am not able to. I do not get invited to the fireplace. I do not think the Speaker does either. Most Canadians do not get to go to the fireplace.

What do we have control over in this House? We have the ability to control what we vote for and what we stand for. We get to represent our constituents and say to them that we are going to take a stand for what is right and what is good for the people of this country. With Bill C-3, the Liberals cannot even tell us how many new people they would bring into the nation. They cannot give us an answer. They expect us to just rubber-stamp their legislation when the basic information required to know how it would affect our families, our communities and the people who send us here to Ottawa is not being provided by the Liberal government.

It is unacceptable. It is an unacceptable way to do business, and the reality is that the Liberals are going to continue this approach of valuing bringing more people in instead of taking care of the people who are already here. We will all lose. That is what will happen. We will all lose in that situation.

My request of every Liberal MP here and every Liberal MP who might hear my words is for them to please do their job, please take care of the people of this country, join the Conservatives in pointing out how reckless Liberal policies are in growing our population and join the Conservatives in pointing out that, at minimum, the Canadian people deserve to know how many new people will be entering this country.

My mother did not deserve what happened at the hospital. I do not think anybody's mother deserves it. That is a good enough reason to say this legislation is just not good enough.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague chose to spend his time talking about the health care system, and it is the hon. member's right to do so. He shared a story about his mother. I appreciate that, because I too have a story, with my mother recently being in the hospital for emergency surgery. My mother and I actually had a similar conversation about the state of our health care system, and I shared with her that I was very proud of the fact that I voted in favour of providing even more money for transfers to the provinces, record funding of $200 billion, which we know is going to have a very positive impact on the health care system. I am wondering if my hon. colleague can say the same.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Madam Speaker, with every dollar the Liberals claim to be spending, they are bringing more people here. There is a pretty basic way of understanding how the math works: When money is added to a system, demand is also added to that system, and then we expect to get better results. It is illogical, immoral and dishonest to pretend the Liberals' immigration policies are not adding to the burden of our health care system and making it harder for Canadians to get the health care they deserve.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think there are some very good things in this bill that will correct some injustices. I am sure other changes need to be made too. The Citizenship Act as a whole is very confusing.

Does my colleague agree that the Citizenship Act is in need of a complete overhaul?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not understand why the first question everybody is not asking is “How many people?” This is the primary point I am trying to make here today. We do not have basic information on the number of people. We can make this more complicated and dress it up in political language if Liberals would like, but all I want to know is how many people they are planning to bring into our country, so that when we go back to our constituents, we can at least say that we made an informed decision.

I would encourage my hon. colleague from the Bloc to ask that very same question and make it the number one priority in this conversation. How many people are coming here, and how many hospital beds, jobs and houses will not go to Canadians because of this legislation?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask a follow-up question on something my colleague said about the spending of health care dollars and the number of people coming into the country.

I am looking at an article from December 12, 2024, that says, “Canadians faced longest ever health-care wait times in 2024, study finds”. We had one colleague get up and say that we are spending all this money on health care, but at the same time, we have a vertical hockey stick increase in the number of people who are coming into the country. The government cannot even say how many people it will allow into the country through this bill.

The government is trying to claim it is spending enough money on health care while exponentially juicing the immigration numbers. It is not an immigrant's fault for wanting to come to Canada. It is the Liberal government's fault for burdening our already broken health care system with numbers of people that our country cannot support. Does the member agree?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, I agree.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier in my speech, debate on a subject as serious as access to citizenship merits accuracy and discipline on our part. When I said that, I was referring to this type of speech. I think we should avoid exaggeration, oversimplification and provocative slogans designed to rile up social media. We should take our responsibilities as legislators seriously and focus on studying Bill C‑3, which is about access to citizenship.

Here is my question for my colleague. What so-called amendments would his party make to Bill C‑3?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have yet another example of a member of Parliament saying that he is concerned about information and studying the legislation and that he really wants to make an informed decision and elevate the discourse. However, when I ask basic questions like how many people would be brought into our country, that is crossing a line somehow.

This is basic stuff. People deserve to know, with the scarce resources our country has, how many people the Liberal government is going to bring in to further divide what is a finite pie of resources and opportunity. This is a basic element of managing a country, an economy and a health care system. The Liberals want to make it more complicated than that, but it is very simple.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to once again stand in the House and speak on the first day back in session.

First, to all my colleagues, I want to say welcome back. After a summer spent in our constituencies, I am certain we are all excited to be back doing the work Canadians elected us to do. As a new MP elected just under five months ago, I can say that it has been a busy summer in Edmonton Southeast talking with people, studying their issues and building a new office that will faithfully serve them. I want to thank the people of Edmonton Southeast again for putting their trust in me to be their champion in Ottawa.

The people of Edmonton Southeast are upset. They are upset with rising crime. They are upset with the chaos in the immigration system. They are upset with the cost of living crisis. They are upset with the old Liberals, who did nothing under Justin Trudeau and have done nothing under the current Liberal Prime Minister. To Edmonton Southeast, I am here and I am listening. I am eager to bring their voices to the House and to fight for them.

Bill C-3 is just another Liberal upset. This amendment to the Citizenship Act would do little but cheapen what Canadian citizenship is. Right now, Canadians living abroad pass Canadian citizenship on to their children. However, if the family continues to live outside of Canada, it would not pass on to the next generation. There is a one-generation limit. There are reasons that a one-generation limit exists. Introduced by Stephen Harper in 2009, it was a reasonable and necessary measure to stop Canadians of convenience.

This Liberal bill would throw that out. All that would be required of a foreign-born Canadian is to spend three non-consecutive years of their life in Canada, and they can pass on citizenship to their children. This would create a repeating cycle. Generation after generation of foreign-born people could maintain Canadian citizenship without ever living in Canada. People who have never been in Canada would get citizenship because their parents spent a few months in Canada and their parents spent a few months in Canada, and so on. It is chain migration.

This would not be a small number of people either. We are talking about 100,000 new people who would become eligible to get Canadian citizenship if this law passes, with no background check, no security check and no need to contribute to Canada. This would be on top of an already backlogged immigration system that cannot even keep up with the number of people applying for citizenship who are living in and contributing to Canada.

I am an immigrant, like many in this House. Like many across the country, I worked to become a Canadian. I contributed to Canadian society. I built my career. I am raising my family here. I am representing my neighbours and community here in our sacred democratic institution. I, like many Canadians, chose to invest myself here and become part of this great country because I believed in it. Canadian citizenship comes with value, responsibility and something we Canadians truly love and believe in.

Being Canadian is something many people seek. There are many people who have invested their lives, built businesses and raised families in this country. So many of these people are still waiting for citizenship. There are many good people taking the right steps out of love for this country.

It is a long process and has many hurdles. One has to prove their commitment to this country. It has always been a privilege to be earned by birth or by contributing to and living in this country. It has never been up for grabs so easily with so little effort in Canadian history. If Bill C-3 passes as is, we will have two tiers of foreign-born Canadian citizens. We will have those like me, who worked hard to proudly call themselves Canadians, and we will have those who were raised abroad and have a grandparent or great-grandparent born in Canada.

Neither of these groups was born in Canada, but only one would need to believe in Canada to get citizenship. Only one would need to prove themselves to get citizenship. Only one would truly need to contribute to get citizenship. Do not mistake me for believing that foreign-born relatives do not deserve Canadian citizenship. There are Canadian families that live much of their lives abroad and that have children abroad, but we need to have reasonable measures in place.

This legislation would come with major risks to the immigration department, the IRCC, as well. When the bill was proposed in the last Parliament session as Bill C-71, it was estimated that over 100,000 people would get Canadian citizenship.

At the moment, IRCC is completely dysfunctional. There is a massive backlog that has pushed back the decision-making ability of IRCC way past the acceptable timelines. In the few months since I was elected, over 400 constituents have come to me with their concerns over delays with IRCC applications. Papers are misfiled. Officials do not respond. On average, it takes 18 months to two years for people who are living in Canada, who are investing in Canada and who are building in Canada to get their citizenship complete.

The status quo is not okay. People's life plans, their futures and their families are being messed up because IRCC cannot process their applications in a timely manner. If over 100,000 citizenship requests were added to the system tomorrow, what would happen to the system?

I wonder if the minister would consider the practical organizational effects of the legislation. It would be a nightmare for the department. A great Canadian, Dr. Jordan Peterson, once wrote that if a person wants to change the world, they should start by making their bed. If the immigration minister wants to change immigration in this country so badly, perhaps she should start making her bed by fixing the absolute embarrassment of the immigration department, IRCC, and its backlog.

There are good things in the bill, and Conservatives will support those things. However, Conservatives want the bill to be amended. There is room for compromise, but what is clear is that the requirement of three years, or 1,095 nonconsecutive days, spent in Canada in order to pass on citizenship to the next generation is unacceptable. There must be stronger ties, such as at least five years of time; then we would know that the people have invested in Canada. They have children who have ties with Canada, and it would not be just because of a technicality for convenience that they would pass their citizenship on.

The hon. Minister of Immigration said on the record that the Liberals are open to amendments. I hope she keeps her word. The bill could be properly studied in the immigration committee, and real safeguards could be put in place so that Canadian citizenship is not weakened and abused. Then those who were born here, or those millions of other Canadians who worked as hard as I did to become Canadian citizens, can feel that their citizenship is worth something.

In closing, I want to see the bill fixed. I want to see this go to the immigration committee. Conservatives want proper safeguards in place. We want stronger requirements for passing down citizenship. It is clear that Conservatives are the ones standing up for strong and fair Canadian citizenship. My hope is that the eyes of my colleagues across the aisle will be opened to the need to protect Canadian citizenship and to amend the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the 1,095 days that we often hear about from the Conservative benches is not just a number pulled out of the House. Today, it takes 1,095 days in order to be able to qualify for citizenship when people who are permanent residents apply. That applies to a lot of people today in Canada.

What I consistently hear from the Conservatives is that they have amendments, but when asked to share them, the amendments magically disappear. Conservative voters want to see more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons. A lot of the debate that we have seen in the last three hours could have been taking place in the committee stage, when we could actually do what, in part, the Conservatives want. That is to provide citizenship for some individuals who should have citizenship today.

Does the member not agree that we should be listening to Canadians, being more co-operative and at least allowing legislation to get to the committee stage without having to use time allocation?

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my initial speech, Conservatives need the bill to be amended. Strong changes need to be made. A mere three years, or 1,095 non-consecutive days, is not enough to claim citizenship down the road after a third or fourth generation. It is not enough. There needs to be a more genuine connection with the country. Citizenship is not easy; it is not up for grabs. People should have to prove their intent and their genuine ties to the country in order to have citizenship, and Conservatives are in agreement with that.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, to my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North, Conservatives are listening to Canadians. Canadians have concerns. We are already facing hospital closures in our province of British Columbia. There are not enough doctors. There are not enough nurses to be able to fulfill the duties and the services that we need right now. The Liberals cannot tell us how many people they are going to bring into our country.

To our hon. colleague from Edmonton Southeast, how is that compassionate? When we bring new entrants into our country, we want to be compassionate. There is no compassion in showing that the Liberals cannot tell—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I will give the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast 30 seconds for a brief answer.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I said, Conservatives will propose for the bill to go to committee for proper review, for proper safeguards to be put in place so that Canadian citizenship is not misused, so that it is not abused and so that it is equally valued by the hard-working non-Canadian-born Canadians like me and like millions of others, so they also feel appreciated. There should be no two-tier tests for immigration.

Wildfires in Courtenay—Alberni

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary courage and resilience shown in my riding during the devastating Wesley Ridge and Mount Underwood wildfires that struck our communities this summer.

At the heart of the response were career and volunteer firefighters, men and women who put their lives on the line, working around the clock with bravery and determination on the front lines. Their skill and sacrifice protected homes, livelihoods and lives in dangerous and unpredictable conditions.

I also want to thank first nations, local governments and the many neighbours, volunteers, church groups, service clubs and local businesses who rallied to support families, opening their doors, caring for animals and ensuring no one was left behind.

These fires reminded us that in the face of danger, we are strongest when we stand together. I ask all members to join me in expressing our deepest gratitude to the firefighters and to every person whose courage and compassion has carried us through these increasingly frequent and devastating wildfires.

International Day of Democracy

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope you and all of my colleagues had a good summer. I want to welcome everyone back to the House.

I rise today to recognize International Day of Democracy. Democracies around the world are facing strong headwinds. Misinformation, disinformation, foreign interference, growing polarization, political violence, declining trust in institutions, hyperpartisanship and the increased inequalities are rising significantly.

On this International Day of Democracy, I urge us all to remember why Canada is the best nation. I urge that we strengthen our democratic institutions through honest dialogue, participation, transparency and trust.

Together, to ensure a peaceful and inclusive future for generations to come, we should all work to build a stronger democracy.