SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 336

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 16, 2024 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 336 - Sep/16/24
Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)
  • Sep/16/24 12:50:39 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-71 
Madam Speaker, coming back from the summer recess, I was hoping the minister would not start by being so partisan on the bill before us. I want to remind the minister, because he mentioned it several times, about the Harper government. In the session of Parliament on February 7, 2008, the Liberal Party voted for the first generation limit and then proceeded to vote again for it at third reading. This original ruling, this decision in legislation to introduce a first generation limit, was supported by the Liberal Party at the time. However, I missed the part today where the minister said how many people would be impacted by the legislation in its multiple parts, which is the key criteria here. It is reckless to continue to forward legislation when government officials have told us at committee repeatedly that they do not know how many people would then be eligible for citizenship by descent. How many people would be eligible for citizenship by descent through Bill C-71?
168 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 336 - Sep/16/24
Hon. Marc Miller
  • Sep/16/24 12:59:19 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, this is fundamentally about rights. The court case that generated this is a pretty short one. I would invite members to take a quick read of it. One of the telling statements by the judge in the case was to highlight the fact that women, in particular, were unduly burdened as to where they would have to decide to have their child, failure of which to have them in Canada would result in the the individuals in question losing their citizenship. These are not faraway examples. My children were not born in Canada. Their next generation could possibly have been in jeopardy. Therefore, it hits home in a lot of ways. It is not about people who have never been to Canada. Obviously, this is about Canadian citizenship; it is not for all. There are tests to become a Canadian citizen. We know, or at least I and my department know, how important it is to ensure there are rigorous rules to decide who becomes a Canadian citizen or not. This is a question of rights, and the court case in question is about women's rights. As Don Chapman said, and as the court said, this will perhaps be the first time where the Citizenship Act is charter compliant when it comes to women.
217 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 336 - Sep/16/24
Mr. Brad Vis
  • Sep/16/24 5:11:16 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I will admit I am not an expert on constitutional law like my colleague from Kamloops is, but I do know, like every other Canadian, that intuitively our citizenship is something that is sacred. It is something that needs to be upheld, and a lower court decision should not be the determining factor on a matter of such importance as determining our citizenship. I will note again that the Liberals, on February 15, 2008, voted to eliminate the second-generation provision that is being debated here today, and I think the Liberals back then made a right decision. I call upon the Liberals to listen to their constituents and uphold the citizenship law as it is today with respect to the first-generation limit.
126 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border