44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 20, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/20/22 3:15:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I listened to many of the speeches today given by especially Liberal members, I found it very interesting that they seem to be incredibly dismissive of the challenges facing Canadians. They are tying themselves into knots trying to figure out a creative way to somehow spin that this motion is not about providing real practical relief to a part of the country that does not benefit from their so-called federal backstop. However, I will leave the many criticisms I have about that and the fact that so many Canadians, in a country so rich in natural resources, are facing energy poverty.
My question for the member is very simple. Can he look past his partisanship, acknowledge the fact that many Canadians are simply asking for that bit of relief, come to the table and at least have a discussion about how we can get that relief to Atlantic Canadians who are facing unprecedented energy poverty?
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, even though I do not always agree with my colleagues from the other parties who sit here in the House, I tend to avoid getting into partisanship. I think I am even transpartisan, and often being transpartisan allows me to do my work properly for the people of my riding, who, since 2019, have allowed me to proudly represent them in my corner of the country, Lac‑Saint‑Jean.
Today I will speak not only for Quebeckers, but also for a good number of Canadians whose files at IRCC have fallen through the cracks for far too long.
Today, as the Bloc Québécois critic for immigration and citizenship, I want to talk about Canadian citizenship. Yes, members heard me correctly, because this affects everyone here. More specifically, I want to talk about Bill S‑245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. It is a continuation of Bill C‑37, which was unanimously passed in the House.
That is an example of cross-party co-operation. First, I want to quickly explain what this bill is about for those who are watching at home. Bill S‑245 seeks to correct a historic injustice by allowing Canadians who lost their citizenship because of past changes to the Citizenship Act or little-known regulations to regain it. We are talking about children of Canadian parents who were born abroad and who had their citizenship revoked simply because they failed to meet the requirement to apply to retain their citizenship before the age of 28, which is absolutely ridiculous.
These are people we now refer to as “lost Canadians”, those who were stripped of their citizenship because of an often little-known but truly ridiculous provision. According to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's estimates, there are still between 100 and 200 people who have still not regained their citizenship. They are referred to as “lost Canadians”.
This bill corrects an oversight in the 2009 act, which missed a golden opportunity to do away with the requirement for people to apply to retain their citizenship when they turned 28. In fact, the main message of Bill S-245 is that we should be giving citizenship back to all of the people who lost it because of provisions in previous Canadian laws that were overly complex, unfair, sexist or even racist.
At the risk of ruining the surprise, I will say right away that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill S‑245. If we think about it, this bill is perfectly in line with what our contemporary vision of citizenship should be. Once citizenship has been duly granted, it should never be taken away from an individual, with some exceptions. Only a citizen can freely renounce his or her citizenship.
Like all parties in the House, the Bloc Québécois supports and defends the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It states that “all are equal before the law”. In fact, citizenship is an egalitarian legal status given to all members of the same community. It confers privileges as well as duties.
In this case, the Canadian government has failed its citizens. This is a matter of principle. I do not believe I am alone in thinking that it is profoundly unfair that, even in 2022, people can lose their citizenship for reasons that they probably do not even know exist. These provisions are from another time, a time long ago when there were questionable ideas about what it meant to be a citizen of Canada. Time has remedied the situation and, if the reforms of the past have not been instructive enough, then politics must weigh in.
As we know, the process for recovering citizenship is much too complicated. There is no denying that the federal bureaucracy is not exactly super-efficient when it comes to handling immigration, refugee and citizenship files. I believe we have said quite a lot about this since returning to the House in September.
Just how slow is the government? The act was reformed in 2005, again in 2009 and yet again in 2015. How many reforms does it take? Many citizens were overlooked every time the act was reformed: men and women, soldiers' wives and children, children born abroad and members of first nations and Chinese-Canadian communities. The government did not do a good enough job of fixing the act, so these people were left out in the cold.
Let us look back in history. Don Chapman, a retired United Airlines pilot, fought to bring the plight of these citizens to the public's attention. Don Chapman discovered that he had lost his Canadian citizenship when his father immigrated to the United States. Thanks to his astute demonstration that this was a problem affecting many Canadians, including Roméo Dallaire, he was able to force Parliament to remedy the situation and pass the suite of legislative reforms before us today.
Bill S-245 seeks to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. I would also add one thing. Every time we check, the government backlog is worse. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to prevent problems from occurring in the first place and making us wait once again for the federal machinery to make things right.
What does it mean to “make things right” in this case? It means ensuring for once and for all that the constituents in our respective ridings get what belongs to them. It is not right that in 2022, 17 years after the first reform to correct the situation for lost Canadians, we are not getting anywhere. In a situation like this, it is up to the government to offer a solution to the individuals to regularize their status so that they can have their dignity for once and for all, like every other citizen.
Whether this bill affects hundreds of claimants or thousands makes no difference to me. It is a matter of principle. In no way does that stop us from taking action for the good of the people we are fortunate to represent and who put their trust in us. I will say it again: It is a matter of principle.
At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to conclude with this. Most of the time when I have the opportunity to speak in the House, it is about suggestions that come from the opposition. I think we are all on the same side when it comes to helping people, and rightly so. When the government listens to us and we all work together, it usually results in better programs.
As parliamentarians, we must tackle the problems facing our constituents with a great sense of duty, and we must set partisanship aside to do so. The people of Lac‑Saint‑Jean, whom I have had the honour to represent since 2019, along with all Quebeckers and Canadians, must be considered on an equal footing.
The situation facing the so-called “lost Canadians” should never have happened. I will say it again: Citizenship must be equal for all. Let us make one last reform, once and for all. We have to get it right this time, for reasons of equality, justice and principle, but also simply because enough is enough.
1250 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 7:52:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it is a real privilege to be here today. I want to thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for getting us on the right track with this discussion. For people at home, we call this a debate, but really it has been a wonderful discussion around a serious issue.
I think the fact that partisanship has been removed from this conversation, and we can actually sink our teeth into a very sensitive and very important issue, means a lot to me. This is one of the first times over the course of the year where I can say that it seems like we are all 100% on the same page, and that is to help people who need help.
We know that the world is becoming more challenging for people. We can see it outside. When we go to the grocery store and talk to people, we can see the stress people are having. It is up to us as parliamentarians to look for ways to find solutions.
I served as a school board trustee in Toronto. I was a youth worker. I was also the minister responsible for children and youth, so I was responsible for children's mental health in Ontario. From what I have seen over 20 years in politics is that it comes down to a disconnect between the entire system. In my city, at least a few years ago, there were 47 different providers in the city, and there was no coordination at the time. That is happening right across this country in many ways.
We need to look for ways to bring people together. The member for London actually spoke about his area which, in many ways, is getting it right because they have a collective impact model, where 170 youth-based organizations come together under an entity called the London Child and Youth Network. They work together by setting similar goals and looking for ways to work with each other to accomplish a set of goals. I think that we need to continue to look for ways to share best practices across this country, to build a framework that connects school boards, municipalities, the federal government and the provincial government together, and really look for ways to move forward.
I will not go through some of the numbers. We know the impact of mental health and its cost of billions of dollars. I think two members have referred to $50 billion in lost productivity in this country. There is a cost to standing still. If we do not continue to invest, it is going to cost more and more.
We know in a place like Ontario that the wait-list has grown to almost three years. Postpandemic, the wait-list has grown by three times. We have a crisis on our hands, and we need to look for ways to go back to our provinces, gather information and bring it back here. I do think we need to look for ways to work together. It is a key piece in this whole equation.
In addition to that, the member for Cariboo—Prince George said something that I thought was very important. There is not one solution for everyone. It is an important piece. If we look regionally or culturally, or look at different age groups and situations in life, there are so many different lenses that can be applied to looking for solutions when it comes to mental health. I know that in Ontario there has been funding that has gone specifically to culturally based groups because stigmas are very different in different communities.
We are in this room today. What may apply back in one person's community may not apply in someone else's community. We need to build that flexibility and that collective impact across this country and look for ways to build a flexible system that allows for regions to continue to build, share best practices and coordinate those services.
666 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
