44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 16, 2024 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, some might find it strange for a Bloc Québécois member to speak on a Canadian citizenship bill, but it will be easier for these “lost Canadians” interested in reclaiming their Canadian citizenship to acquire their Quebec citizenship once Quebec becomes a country. I am therefore pleased to speak on this question.
A few months ago, I stood in the House to speak to Bill S‑245, which sought to right a historic wrong by granting citizenship to Canadians whose cases had slipped through the cracks. I spoke about children of Canadian parents who had been born abroad and had lost their citizenship because of changes in the federal rules or for reasons that struck me as hard to justify at the time. In fact, what Bill S‑245 basically said was all these people who had lost their status due to overly complex and often unjust provisions of previous Canadian laws should have their citizenship restored.
This is the idea behind Bill C‑71, which we are dealing with today. In fact, the bill replicates all of the proposed amendments in Bill S‑245, which sought to rectify the Citizenship Act's well-known injustices and mistakes.
Bill C‑71 responds to the decision handed down by the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, which ruled that the first-generation limit to citizenship by descent for children born abroad to Canadian citizens was unconstitutional. As we are seeing yet again, the Bloc Québécois is defending the rule of law and a Canadian Constitution that Quebec did not sign. That should come as no surprise, since we will one day have our own.
At that time, the government had six months to amend the act. Bill C‑71 was tabled as a fallback, because Bill S‑245, unfortunately, could not get across the finish line. Why is that? Part of the reason is the partisanship at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
Speaking of which, I would like to bring up a point. As everyone knows, and as my colleague pointed out earlier, despite my differences of opinion with members from other parties in the House, I do not indulge in partisanship. What is more, I believe that being cross-partisan often helps me better do my job as a parliamentarian and better represent the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, who trusted me enough to elect me to work in the House of Commons. Whoever I am dealing with, from whatever party, if I can move a matter forward, I will, with no regard to political stripe. I do that for my people and on principle, because that is how I was raised. I often find the partisan-driven comments I hear in the House disheartening.
Today I will speak not only for Quebeckers, but also for a good number of Canadians whose files at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada have fallen through the cracks for far too long. Today, as the Bloc Québécois critic for immigration, citizenship and refugees, I want to talk about Canadian citizenship, because this affects everyone here. I am also the critic for international human rights, so obviously, matters of justice are also of concern to me.
Today, more specifically, we are talking about Bill C‑71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. I want to focus primarily on those individuals who are commonly known as “lost Canadians” because of a 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 the last group of “lost Canadians”. This bill corrects an oversight in the 2009 act, which missed a golden opportunity to do away with the requirement for these people to apply to retain their citizenship when they turned 28.
At the risk of ruining the surprise and mostly for the sake of consistency, something that is often sorely lacking in the House, I will say that I was in favour of Bill S‑245. Obviously, I am also in favour of Bill C‑71, as are all the Bloc members here. We will vote in favour of the principle of Bill C‑71 when the time comes to do so.
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, unless it is for reasons of national security. 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 granted to all members of the same community. It confers privileges as well as duties.
In this case, the Canadian government has failed in meeting its obligations to its citizens. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. As I was saying, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, citizenship must apply equally to all. This is simply a matter of principle. I do not believe I am alone in thinking that it is profoundly unfair that, in 2024, 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. Since time has not remedied the situation and since the reforms of the past have not been prescriptive enough, then politics must weigh in. That is what we are doing.
As we know, the process to regain citizenship is quite complicated. As I said earlier in a question to my colleague, the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is probably the most dysfunctional federal government department. Even my colleagues on the other side of the House, who currently form the government, must agree. They too have constituency offices, and most of the telephone calls they receive are about complex immigration cases. Even the Speaker probably agrees with me. Despite the fact that she has to remain neutral, I am sure that her constituency office probably gets a lot of calls about cases that are too difficult to resolve.
Everyone knows that that department is broken. There is sand in the gears and water in the gas. There is clearly a structural problem within the department itself. It is already complicated enough to deal with that department, so there is no need to be so secretive. The problem must be resolved as quickly as possible. We must at least identify the problem and find a solution. I think we have a pretty clear consensus to send Bill C‑71 to committee.
A look at what has previously occurred shows just how thorny this matter is. The act was reformed in 2005. It was reformed in 2009. It was reformed once again in 2015. How many reforms do we need? There are now a large number of Canadians who have been overlooked. Men and women, soldiers' wives and children, children born abroad, members of indigenous communities and Chinese-Canadians have been overlooked through every reform. People have been left behind because we have not properly fixed the act. With Bill C‑71, we want to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.
I therefore urge my Conservative friends to propose their amendments. The Bloc Québécois members will study them, as they always do. If they are good, we will vote in favour. If they are bad, we will vote against. We are easy people to talk to. We do thorough work on our files, and we will carefully study the amendments that our Conservative friends send us.
The bill seeks to amend the Citizenship Act to, among other things:
(a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen;
(b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation...;
(c) allow citizenship to be granted...to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen;
(e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not make an application to retain it under the former section 8 of that Act or because they made an application under that section that was not approved;
Normally, Bill S‑245 would have gotten royal assent a long time ago, but we did not quite get there because of filibustering. That is what brings us here today. Constituents are having to wait because of petty politics. That is the way it has been over the past year in this Parliament on many files, in many committees. Both sides of the aisle are just the same. I have seen filibustering from the government side and from the official opposition. They are all just as bad. Unfortunately, there are people caught in the middle of all this. People are being held hostage by political or even electoral stunts. That is even worse.
As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois is here to work for our people. We are here working for Quebeckers who care about Quebec's future, and not just when it is time to cater to our electoral ambitions. According to the polls, things are going very well for the Bloc Québécois. We are here to work for our people. If it is good for Quebec, then we will vote for it. If it is bad for Quebec, then we will vote against it. Bill C‑71 will be able to give us far more Quebec citizens when Quebec becomes sovereign.
When I hear members of the federal parties arguing and then shouting nonsense at each other in the House or playing politics like they did with Bill S‑245, I imagine what it must be like for those who have been waiting impatiently and for far too long for royal assent. There are specific examples in Quebec. Take Jean‑François, a Quebecker born outside Canada when his father was completing his doctorate in the United States. Even though he returned to Quebec when he was three months old and spent his entire life in Quebec, his daughter was not automatically eligible for Canadian citizenship. This type of situation causes undue stress for families who should not have to deal with the federal government's lax approach.
Right now, the government is dealing with more and more delays every time we check. Every single immigration program is guaranteed to be backlogged. A new program has been created, and it is already behind schedule. There are already people on the waiting list. When we look into it, it is a mess. This is very hard for people. These are human beings. These are men, women and children who are caught up in the administrative maze of a department that seems to have forgotten that it should be the most compassionate of our departments; it is probably the least compassionate. It is frustrating. We are seeing horror stories every day. As the immigration critic, I see it all the time.
My point is that we will be there. We are there for people. We put people first. That is why we are going to vote in favour of Bill C-71 in principle. We will work hard. We will look at all the amendments brought to the table. I think that is why we are here. That is why we were elected, despite our differences and despite the fact that the Bloc Québécois wants Quebec to be independent. That should not come as a surprise to anyone. We will get there one day. The people who send us here to Ottawa know that we are separatists. They know that it will happen one day. They know that one day, with Bill C-71, we will have more Quebec citizens when Quebec becomes a country.
2093 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 1:49:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was not in fact elected at the time. However, Meili Faille, who was the Bloc Québécois member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, worked on the file and knew Mr. Chapman very well. This is important.
We in the Bloc Québécois have a lot of expertise when it comes to Canadian citizenship. As I said, that will be useful when it comes time to work with Quebec citizenship.
Right now, I do not want to talk about what happened in the past. My colleague will understand why. Anyone watching the debate might be surprised to note that the Bloc Québécois is probably the only adult in the room right now. I am not badmouthing anyone. I do not want to cause friction with the other parties over a bill that I feel would be easy to work on if everyone did their part. I am not going to badmouth anyone.
I think that we could quite easily send it to committee, since we know that three parties so far will vote for it in principle. Then we will study the Conservatives' amendments.
I am willing to work with everyone here, because we in the Bloc Québécois are responsible people. When we study a bill, we set electioneering aside. We simply want what is best for the people who elected us to represent them.
240 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, his intelligent and constructive attitude and his open-mindedness.
Of course, he talked about the prospect of Quebec citizenship. We are currently talking about Bill C‑71, which solves some of the problems. Does the member not think that the entire immigration and citizenship process needs a solid overhaul and that we could commit to contributing to it in a constructive and intelligent way?
As he mentioned, it would be good practice for us for Quebec citizenship.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 2:03:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have lost a great patriot. My friend Marcel Tessier, who shaped the imagination of Quebeckers for several decades, passed away on August 26.
Some heard him sing opera with gusto. Others watched him charm audiences on television or read some of his books. The really lucky ones had him as a teacher. Without exception, anyone who spent time with him would be left spellbound, hanging on his every word.
Marcel was exceptionally charismatic, but above all, he was a historian with a vast knowledge of history and the ability to teach it. One thing he used to say was that if Quebeckers knew more about their history, Quebec would have been an independent, free and sovereign country a long time ago. Even among friends around a table, he was a fascinating storyteller and communicator.
Marcel will be missed, but not forgotten. May my friend rest in peace.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 2:16:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to pay tribute to Benoît Roy, a defender of Quebec and the French language, who was named a knight of the Ordre de la Pléiade de la Francophonie on July 8.
Benoît has been advocating for Quebec sovereignty and defending Quebec culture through various organizations since 1974. In 2000, he founded the Rassemblement pour un Pays Souverain, a movement that seeks to achieve independence for Quebec and protect the French language. Today, he still chairs that organization, which, in just a few months, will be celebrating its 25th anniversary. Over those 25 years, Benoît has had the opportunity to give out 117 awards.
What is more, in 2005, he launched an annual gala dinner to celebrate national patriots day, in tribute to those who work for Quebec's political freedom and independence.
His unwavering commitment makes him a key player in the promotion of Quebec's identity and the francophonie. I want to congratulate Benoît and thank him for all that he does for my riding and for Quebec.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 2:25:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when we announced a major investment in Telesat to create good jobs in Quebec, jobs that will have a positive impact on connectivity and national security across the country and around the world, the Conservatives' response was to call their friend Elon Musk to say that these jobs should not be sent to Canada and that the money should be given to American billionaires instead.
The Conservatives' view on investments that will create jobs is completely ridiculous. We will be there to invest in Quebeckers for the future.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 2:31:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is easily confused. He just trampled on a jurisdiction exclusive to Quebec.
On Friday, he also said that Quebec anglophones were not entitled to the same health care services in English as francophones receive. That is not true. I am therefore specifically asking him, as the law requires, to acknowledge that he misled anglophones in Montreal, Quebec and LaSalle—Émard—Verdun when he said that they are not entitled to the same health care services in English as francophones.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 2:32:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois claims to speak for the Government of Quebec but does not seem to acknowledge that the Government of Quebec admitted that it was going to issue an order to clarify and explain that it did not intend to attack anglophones. We are still awaiting that explanation. However, if the Government of Quebec could acknowledge it, maybe the Bloc Québécois could do likewise.
Seniors 65 and over who received dental care could not care less about their area of responsibility. They want the dental care that Quebec was not providing. The federal government is there to pay for seniors and help them get dental care. The Bloc Québécois voted against it.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 2:33:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the housing crisis in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, like everywhere else in Quebec, continues to worsen under the Liberals. Hundreds of people are currently homeless. This is a result of the rules the Liberals and Conservatives created so that wealthy investors can get richer while tenants pay more. Together, the Liberals and Conservatives have lost over one million affordable housing units. People deserve better.
When will the Prime Minister stop working for the real estate giants and start protecting tenants?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 2:44:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next time the Bloc Québécois supports seniors, that will be the first time in the history of this Parliament.
Let us look at the facts. When we restored the age of retirement to 65, how did the Bloc Québécois vote? It voted against. When we increased the guaranteed income supplement, helping hundreds of thousands of seniors in Quebec, the Bloc Québécois voted against. When we brought in dental care for millions of seniors, the Bloc Québécois voted against.
It is high time that they stood up for our seniors.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 2:46:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome back the Bloc Québécois, which supports seniors, just as our government's actions do. Look at what we have done. We implemented the grocery rebate, increased the guaranteed income supplement and brought in many other measures, including dental care, which is being offered to people across Quebec this year, including those in my colleague's riding, even though she voted against it.
We are there for seniors.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I went all over Quebec again this summer to talk about Bill C-319. Everyone agrees that it is unfair that seniors aged 74 and under receive 10% less than other seniors. Everyone except the Liberals agrees that grocery bills do not discriminate based on age.
That is why this is a key issue for the Bloc Québécois. Quebeckers understand the problem. Quebeckers understand what we are doing.
Will the Liberals finally understand this as well and give royal recommendation to Bill C-319?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 2:47:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what the Bloc Québécois does not seem to understand is that actions do matter. Votes in the House matter. They voted against dental care, and Quebec seniors noticed. They voted against lowering the retirement age to 65. Quebeckers are paying attention.
The Liberal Party of Canada is always there to support the federal pensions of Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois has never demonstrated that it is there to protect Canadians' pensions in Quebec or elsewhere.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 2:48:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our government is proudly progressive. Our government is proud of our climate action. Our government is proud of our support for day care and early childhood centres. Our government is proud of our support for families.
We know that the people of Quebec share our progressive values. That is why we followed Quebec's lead on day care and the climate. We are proud to have done that.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 2:49:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the “Liberal Bloc” says it stands up for the interests of Quebeckers. Is it in the interest of Quebeckers to support the most costly government in the history of Canada? Is it in the interest of Quebeckers to increase their taxes to reinforce the federal state that keeps encroaching on Quebec's jurisdictions? It is clear that the “Liberal Bloc” does nothing but stand up for the interests of the Prime Minister.
What did the Prime Minister offer the leader of the “Liberal Bloc” to get him to agree to support all his centralist spending?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 2:51:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this summer, I had the opportunity and pleasure to invite my Quebec Liberal caucus colleagues to my riding, Brome—Missisquoi. I gave them a little tour of all the budget cuts made by the Conservatives when they were in power. I took them to the experimental farm in Frelighsburg. The Conservatives do not believe in science and they cut spending on agricultural science. I also took them to a cultural centre that we built because all the Conservatives did was cut spending on arts and culture. Quebeckers remember that all the Conservatives can do are cutbacks and austerity. We do not want that in Quebec.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 2:55:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have gone to Sacré-Coeur many times to meet with people from the Boisaco forestry company. The employees are feeling extremely insecure, and with good reason. They risk losing their jobs.
The order by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is a disaster for the forestry industry. It will kill jobs, close businesses and potentially wipe communities off the map. The industry represents 1,400 jobs in Quebec and $900 million in economic benefits.
Will the minister take into account the human beings behind his radical policies and guarantee that he will not impose his order?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 2:56:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be back with you for the new session.
That said, might I remind my colleague from the Conservative Party that the Government of Quebec has committed since 2016 to presenting a woodland caribou recovery plan in Quebec. We are now in 2024, soon to be 2025, and we have been waiting eight years for the plan. In 2022, the Government of Quebec signed a joint letter with the federal government stating that they would have a plan by June 2023. The plan would specify how to protect at least 65% of caribou habitat.
The Government of Quebec committed to do that. If Quebec does not want a federal order, it simply needs to act.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 3:03:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on October 30, Quebec will move forward on behalf of patients and their families and implement its own legislation to regulate advance requests for medical assistance in dying.
Six professional associations are calling on the federal government to harmonize the Criminal Code with Quebec's legislation. The Collège des médecins du Québec said, and I quote, “We deplore the fact that Ottawa has not yet amended the Criminal Code to authorize this well-established procedure, which has consensus in Quebec.”
Will the Minister of Justice listen to patients, doctors and the science and amend the Criminal Code?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 3:04:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have listened to what Quebec has to say. This is a very sensitive topic and we need time to consider not only the legal implications of these remarks, but also to engage in a national dialogue. The dialogue is not limited to my provincial and territorial counterparts. It extends to the entire country because it will have consequences. My discussions with my hon. colleague opposite will continue.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
