SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 336 - Sep/16/24

Sep/16/24 12:32:31 p.m.
Watch

I would like to thank the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his substantive and comprehensive question of privilege that he has put before the House. It is my understanding and it is a normal tradition that we would hear from the different party House leaders as to their comments on this and I hope that they will do so forthwith. I see that the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising.

76 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Sep/16/24 12:32:56 p.m.
Watch

Welcome back to the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. I listened with interest from the lobby to what my colleague was saying. The NDP would like to reserve the right to revisit this issue in the near future.

39 words

The Speaker

Sep/16/24 12:33:10 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his comments, and I hope that he will do that in the near future, as he said. I will turn now to the Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House.

44 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Sep/16/24 12:33:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to extend the same courtesy, we would like to be able to review what the opposition House leader has said and then return back to the House once we have had the opportunity to do so.

38 words

The Speaker

Sep/16/24 12:33:36 p.m.
Watch

Again, as I indicated to the other hon. member, I appreciate the intervention and I hope that the parliamentary secretary will do so forthwith so that the Speaker would be able to make a determination to the House. I do not see any members of the Bloc Québécois rising. I would imagine that the Bloc members listened to the speeches in the House. I hope to share my ruling with the House soon.

77 words

Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.)

Sep/16/24 12:34:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-245 Bill C-71

moved that Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024), be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, as we return to the House, I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathering today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples. I am honoured to rise in this House today to discuss the proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act. The legislation would provide a clear framework for citizenship by descent with the immediate goal of restoring and granting citizenship to lost Canadians. Some of us, like me, were fortunate to be citizens by birth. Others come from far and wide, choose Canada to be their home and earn their citizenship through our naturalization process. There are those who are Canadians by descent, who are born outside the country to a parent who is a Canadian citizen. Regardless of how someone acquires their citizenship, I think we all agree that we appreciate each Canadian just the same in this great nation of ours. Whether one was born Canadian or chose Canada as their new land, we are united by a common set of principles and mutual respect for our communities and our country. We are all proud to be Canadian. Since the founding of what we now call Canada, people from around the world have made this country their home. Canadians are a welcoming people who help others and one another. We demonstrate our commitment to others within the community and the world over when we support charities, volunteer our time and extend a helping hand to those in need. Canadians are a diverse group, but we share a set of common values and take pride in who we are and what the country stands for. We are welcoming, inclusive, generous; a country that supports human rights, equality and respect for all people. There is no doubt that Canadian citizenship is highly valued and recognized around the world. We want our citizenship system to be fair and accessible and with clear and transparent rules. That is why, when issues arise around our citizenship laws, it is important that Parliament address them. Given recent challenges to the first-generation limit that Harper Conservatives unfairly introduced, it was clear that changes were needed to the Citizenship Act to address cohorts excluded from citizenship. This is especially relevant for those born outside Canada to a Canadian parent. It is important that members understand the history of the Citizenship Act in order to better understand how this problem arose. Canada's first citizenship law was passed in 1947. It contained provisions that could revoke some people's citizenship or prevent others from becoming citizens in the first place. Today we view those provisions as outdated, and they were either removed or amended. Those affected by these provisions who lost their citizenship or never became citizens are referred to as “lost Canadians”. In the past, Canadians could hand down their citizenship to their descendants born abroad not only in the next generation but also beyond the first generation, so long as they met certain conditions and applied by a certain age. When a new citizenship statute took effect in 1977, children born abroad to a Canadian parent also born abroad were citizens, but they had to act to preserve their citizenship by age 28, or else they would lose it. This requirement was not well understood, so some people lost their citizenship and became so-called lost Canadians. To wit, my department generally receives 35 to 40 applications for resumption of citizenship per year because of this problem. In 2009, several amendments to the Citizenship Act remedied the majority of these older lost Canadian cases by providing or restoring citizenship by their 28th birthday. Since 2009, approximately 20,000 individuals have come forward and have been issued proof of their Canadian citizenship because of these changes. However, the Harper Conservatives introduced the first-generation limit, which the Ontario Superior Court has deemed unconstitutional on equality and mobility rights. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested he would use the notwithstanding clause if given the chance, and that they are considering taking away people's rights when it suits the Conservatives. What the Conservative Party did here is a concrete example of taking away the rights of Canadians. When Conservatives say that we have nothing to fear, Canadians need to take note of what they have done in the past. This is a record where Conservatives, with the Leader of the Opposition as one of their members, took people's rights away. This should speak for itself. The legislative amendments of 2009 also allowed anyone born after the 1977 act who was not yet 28 years old when the changes took effect to retain their status and remain a Canadian citizen. However, there is still a cohort of people who self-identify as lost Canadians. These are people born abroad to a Canadian parent after 1977 in the second generation or beyond who lost their citizenship before 2009 because of rules since revoked that obliged them to take action to retain their Canadian citizenship before their 28th birthday. Some of these people born abroad were raised in Canada and were unaware that they needed to take steps to retain their Canadian citizenship. We know that the number of people in this cohort is rather small. We know this because the only people affected are those who were born abroad in the second generation or beyond between 1977 and 1981; in other words, only Canadians who had already reached the age of 28 and lost their citizenship before the passage of the 2009 act, which revoked the requirement. As we can see, this is a complicated issue. Senator Martin of British Columbia introduced public bill S-245 in an effort to address the issue. The goal of the bill and the amendments adopted by the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is to restore the citizenship of this cohort, of these lost Canadians affected by the age 28 rule. When Bill S-245 was studied by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the bill was amended to include not only a mechanism to restore the citizenship of this cohort but also a mechanism to allow some people born in the second or subsequent generation to be born a Canadian citizen by descent if their Canadian parent could demonstrate that they held a substantial connection to Canada. That is, if a child's Canadian parent had been in Canada for three years before the child was born, they could pass on their citizenship to that child. Bill S-245 also proposes that children born abroad and adopted by a Canadian could also access citizenship. The process for adopted children is a grant of citizenship. What has changed since we began the review of Bill S-245 is a key decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that determined that the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent was unconstitutional. It is clear that the House must now take immediate action to address the issues the court noted. Since Bill S-245 went through a number of changes and improvements based on feedback from experts and those impacted, the Conservative Party continues to delay the progress of this bill. Not only that, but Conservatives filibustered Bill S-245 for nearly 30 hours during the actual study. It is obvious, again, that there is little care for Canadians' rights. During that time, the member of Parliament for Calgary Forest Lawn, who sponsored Senate Bill S-245, as well as the former Conservative immigration critic, recommended the introduction of a private member's bill or a government bill to address the remaining cohort of lost Canadians. We have a government bill in front of us to do just that. Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, 2024, establishes a revised framework governing citizenship by descent and restores citizenship to lost Canadians and their descendants. This revised regime would also address issues raised by the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling by providing a pathway to citizenship for those born or adopted abroad. Similar to what is proposed by Bill S-245, this bill expands access to citizenship by descent, but in a more comprehensive and inclusive way. Like Bill S-245, it would restore citizenship to the last cohort of lost Canadians, but it also proposes that all individuals born outside Canada to a Canadian parent before coming into force in this legislation would also be citizens by descent, including those previously excluded by the first-generation limit. For those born outside our borders, beyond the first generation, or after the legislation comes into force, they would be citizens from birth if their Canadian parent can demonstrate their own substantial connection to Canada. That means that the parent was in Canada for three years, cumulative, and it does not need to be consecutive, before the child was born. Any child born abroad and adopted by a Canadian parent before this bill's coming-into-force date would have access to the direct grant of citizenship for adoptees, and that includes those previously excluded by the first-generation limit. Today, we are dealing with fundamental issues of fairness for people who should be Canadian citizens. When the legislation comes into force, the same substantial connection to Canada test will apply for Canadian adoptive parents who are also born outside the country to access a grant of citizenship. If the adoptive parent was physically in Canada for 1,095 days or three years prior to the adoption, their child could access the adoption grant of citizenship. Finally, as with previous changes to the Citizenship Act that helped other lost Canadians, this bill would confer automatic citizenship on some people born outside Canada who may not wish to be citizens. In many countries, dual citizenship is not permitted in certain jobs, including in government, military and national security positions. In some countries, having citizenship in another country can present legal, professional or other barriers, including restricting access to benefits. That is why this bill will provide access to the same simplified renunciation process as the one established in 2009. Most people who would automatically become citizens when the bill comes into force but may not wish to hold citizenship will be able to use the simplified renunciation process. This mechanism has a few requirements. These individuals must not reside in Canada; they also must not become stateless by renouncing their Canadian citizenship. That is an important point. In addition, people must apply to renounce the citizenship granted to them through the—

1791 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Sep/16/24 12:47:13 p.m.
Watch

One moment, please. The hon. minister can start his last sentence over. I believe the hon. minister's phone is on his desk, and that is causing problems for the interpreters. I would ask him to move his phone, if that is indeed the issue. The hon. minister can repeat the sentence he was saying before I interrupted him.

59 words

Hon. Marc Miller

Sep/16/24 12:47:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, please let me know if the problem persists because my phones were rather far away. I will go back to what I was saying about the statutory mechanism allowing those who do not want to become Canadian to renounce their citizenship. A few requirements need to be met. The person must not be a resident of Canada; they must not become stateless as a result of renouncing their Canadian citizenship; and they must request the renunciation of the citizenship that was conferred on them through the ministerial process. When the legislation comes into force, the same substantial connection to Canada test will apply for Canadian adoptive parents who were also born outside the country to access a grant of citizenship. If the adoptive parent was physically in Canada for that 1,095-day period or three years prior to the adoption, the child can access the adoption grant to citizenship. Finally, as with previous changes to the Citizenship Act to help other lost Canadians, this bill would confer automatic citizenship on some people born outside of Canada who may not wish to be citizens, and we will remediate that as the case may be. This bill introduces changes to make the necessary improvements, to restore citizenship to those who lost it and to expand eligibility beyond the first generation to people who have proven that they have a substantial connection to Canada. These legislative changes address the concerns raised in the recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which calls on the federal government to act. Don Chapman, a long-time advocate for lost Canadians, who has met many members of Parliament in fighting for this noble cause, has said, “This bill will be the first time in Canadian history that women achieve the same rights as men in the Citizenship Act.” It will be the first time that the Citizenship Act is actually charter compliant. There is urgency in this matter. It is crucial that we establish an updated framework as soon as possible. I would hope, given the cross-party support from the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party to restore citizenship, that we are positioned to move the legislation forward quickly. I look forward to working with members and senators to move this bill forward without delay with the appropriate considerations and reviews. Canadian citizenship is integral to who we are, uniting us through shared values of democracy, equality and inclusion. Through this legislation, we are working to provide a more inclusive Citizenship Act and ensure that those who are rightfully Canadian are seen as such under the law.

446 words

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

Hon. Marc Miller

Sep/16/24 12:51:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what the member opposite fails to note is that this is a question the rights of Canadians, people to have the right to be Canadian, the right that was denied to them by the Harper government. He wants to talk about numbers, and perhaps that is important from a logistical planning perspective, I do not deny that, but please do not continue to deny the rights of Canadians who duly should be Canadian today. On the 2009 amendments, as an indicative matter and as I mentioned in my speech, about 20,000 people were affected and became Canadians. We routinely, as a matter of people who apply to our department, have about 40 to 45 people per year who ask us for the restoration of their rights. There will be more to this, and we will need an organized way to do this. This is why we are responding in an organized fashion to a ruling of the Ontario Superior Court. If the member opposite is concerned with numbers, he will take heart in the fact that we will have a three-year naturalization limit for people to prove that substantive connection to Canada.

196 words

Harper

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Sep/16/24 12:52:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to wish everyone a warm welcome back to Parliament. The Bloc Québécois will support the bill in principle so that it can be studied in committee. We understand that the bill's ultimate aim is to right a wrong. Of course, that is no easy matter. I have the same question as my Conservative colleague. How many people does the government estimate are involved? I understand that the aim is not to put quantity ahead of quality. Still, the numbers matter. When you decided not to appeal the decision, you also said that the people likely to be affected would have a lot of questions about what it means for them personally and their families, and that you would take the time to explain the process. Would the minister tell us how he intends to explain this situation?

146 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Sep/16/24 12:53:50 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member used the word “you” several times while addressing the government directly. I would remind her to kindly address her comments to the Chair. The hon. minister.

31 words

Addressing

Hon. Marc Miller

Sep/16/24 12:54:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the Bloc Québécois members for their support. They are not necessarily the biggest advocates of Canadian citizenship, but they are supporting us in correcting an injustice related to Canadian citizenship. This is a fundamental matter of justice and rights, as they so clearly said, and I thank them for their support. The first step will be to pass the bill and get royal assent. Then, we will have to implement an internal process, which, obviously, we have started doing, because we have to respond to several questions from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding the process and the mechanism for ensuring that these individuals can obtain Canadian citizenship within a reasonable time frame. Obviously, several tests will be required, as set out in the bill. I would be happy to talk more about this in committee or in person.

153 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Sep/16/24 12:55:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-71

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing Bill C-71 to the floor. The New Democrats have fought for this ever since John McCallum. It has been more than a decade, at least for me, in this fight. With Bill C-71, the minister touched on the issue around royal assent. In the bill, there is the commencement provision which confers discretion on the Governor in Council, meaning the cabinet, to determine when to proclaim the act into force, but does not set a specific date. Could the minister advise the House, and families that are waiting to have their rights restored, how long it will take for the bill to become law. Would it be a proclamation and royal assent?

122 words

Hon. Marc Miller

Sep/16/24 12:56:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would expect that to be the case. Again, I want to thank the New Democrats for their support. This was a modification that we made relatively recently, simply to ensure that the court did not feel like it was constrained to a certain number of days by our legislative process. We have told the court time and again that we plan to put this into force as quickly as possible. Otherwise, it is a bit more of an open application process where I would have the discretion to grant citizenship. I would implore Parliament to move quickly if members do not feel that my discretion should not be fettered by Parliament. It absolutely should in this case and there should be a number of reasons and concrete bases for people to get their citizenship. The naturalization test is a perfect point.

144 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Sep/16/24 12:57:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-71

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking members in other parties, and in particular the Minister of Immigration for bringing Bill C-71 forward. The hon. member for Vancouver East has been tireless, as have many citizen champions, including, as mentioned by the minister, Don Chapman. The work to restore the rights to lost Canadians is urgent. With all due respect to the minister, I would like to repeat the question from the member for Vancouver East. When might we see this pass into law? It is obviously urgent that it be done as expeditiously as possible, through the House and the Senate.

104 words

Hon. Marc Miller

Sep/16/24 12:57:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is probably a question best— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

14 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Sep/16/24 12:57:45 p.m.
Watch

The hon. minister has the floor. I would ask members to please hold their thoughts.

15 words

Hon. Marc Miller

Sep/16/24 12:57:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as soon as possible, obviously. This question is best answered by the Conservative Party. A lot of us in the House would like to see it approved at all stages and get it enforced, so we can get these rights recognized by Canadians who are waiting, and have waited for a hell of a long time, to become citizens.

61 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Sep/16/24 12:58:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did shout out to the minister, because there seems to be a will to see this legislation advanced. I was yelling out to say that we should call the question. What is clear from the official opposition is that for the Conservative Party of Canada, whether under the current leader or under Prime Minister Harper, there has always been two classes of Canadians and a change that they made left certain Canadians behind. One of the reasons I ran for office was that the Conservatives never wanted people like myself to have their voices heard. I would ask the minister the following. What is it about the legislation and the constitutionality? We know that there have been a couple of rulings. On the comments of Don Chapman, I worked for the Hon. Andrew Telegdi when Don Chapman was leading this charge to ensure that their rights and their abilities were also advanced. It was important that it happen then but it did not, and here we are today. What is the importance of this legislation and is there a willingness to have the question called so we can see the legislation advance as quickly as possible?

199 words