Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here again after a summer in London engaging with constituents and listening to their concerns. I very much look forward to working with all colleagues in the House on matters of immigration, obviously, but, in general terms, we have a lot to do to serve our constituents and ensure that our country is on a very good footing going forward.
Today, obviously, with Bill C-3, we are debating an issue that, at its heart, speaks to our democracy, and that is citizenship. It was Hannah Arendt, the great philosopher, who said that citizenship is “the right to have rights”. That is because of the fact that from citizenship, all else follows in our democracy. There are no rights, there is no sense of belonging, without that fundamental value of citizenship and everything that means.
We know, for example, that all of us, or, I would assume, those of us who have been elected in a previous Parliament and those of us who are new in the chamber, newly elected, will go to citizenship ceremonies and see how special those ceremonies are. There is something quite valuable in that. I know that there is a debate and a discussion ongoing in Canada now about immigration levels, and I think the government is responding appropriately to that.
This is what I worry about, in fact, with the whole politicization of immigration that may be going on. I hope it is not going on, but I think it might be. When it comes to immigration, when that matter is politicized, we lose the understanding of the value of immigration and the sense of how special it is when citizenship comes through that process, but I digress.
We know that individuals, all of us, have natural inalienable rights: the right to dignity, the right to fundamental justice and the right to fair treatment. Citizenship strengthens that principle, because it codifies rights. In Canada, of course, we have the charter, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which stands at the heart of our democracy, making all else possible, including debates in the House of Commons. The document expresses, in the clearest terms, the rights of all of us and the rights that come, again, from citizenship. Without those rights, democracy cannot be said to exist.
The House is now considering Bill C-3. I give credit to anyone who has spoken on the matter but, in particular, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands made a spirited speech talking about court rulings of the past. I believe the NDP has put this on record, and I believe the Bloc has put it on record as well, that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling of December 2023 is something that cannot be ignored. The justices, in fact, have said that the problem that needs to be responded to by the government is the fact that citizenship is two-tiered at the present moment.
What does that mean? The court came to that decision because a Canadian who obtains citizenship either through birth or through the immigration process can freely transmit that citizenship to their children, but this is not true for a Canadian who is born abroad. Bill C-3 seeks to change this, so that Canadians born abroad can transfer that citizenship to their children if their children are also born abroad, provided that there is a substantial connection to Canada that is established. That connection is cumulative.
I heard the hon. member speak on the Conservative side, taking issue with that. One thing that he did not mention, interestingly, and I think this is key to this whole discussion, is that the 1,095 days that stands as the substantial connection test in the legislation, which is three years, is not drawn from thin air but represents and takes its cue from the requirement that permanent residents have when they seek to go through the immigration process and obtain citizenship. That is also a three-year requirement in terms of spending time in Canada.
The other point that cannot be lost on us is the fact that we live in a modern age in which mobility is crucial to so many jobs. Think of military officials or diplomats, or individuals who spend their time working abroad for non-governmental organizations. They need to be paid attention to here. We should put ourselves in their position.
If someone is in a position, in a role, where they were born abroad and do not have this ability to transfer citizenship, even though they have a Canadian tie, then there is an issue. The substantial connection test allows for that to be acknowledged and brought to bear in the force of law.
If my colleagues have concerns on the merits of the bill, then of course they can raise them at committee. However, I do not want to see a situation where this bill is obstructed needlessly. There is a court deadline, as we just heard. That court deadline is in November of this year. It is a deadline that must be adhered to. Otherwise, we would have a very significant gap in the law.
The reality is, if we are dealing with, as we are, a matter of citizenship and rectifying an issue that exists as identified by the court, then there is a special responsibility on all of us to work together so that the outcome ensures fundamental justice, ensures consistent citizenship and meets a particular standard. That 1,095-day period is exactly that; it is three years.
It is, as I say, not arbitrary by any means, but draws from existing Canadian law, and specifically immigration policy, relating to permanent residency, and that is why I think the bill needs to be supported. Certainly our side will be getting behind the bill. I hear the same from the Bloc. I hear the same from the NDP. I do not hear that from the Conservatives, but I hope that, at committee, their concerns will be assuaged somehow. We will have experts there to speak to the matter on a range of points that Conservatives wish to raise.
We have something very substantive here and I urge colleagues to get behind it.