44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 16, 2024 11:00AM
- Sep/16/24 1:14:19 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry to interrupt the member. The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville is rising on a point of order.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 1:15:13 p.m.
- Watch
We were having problems with the interpretation, but I am told that everything is working properly now.
The hon. member was reading titles and mentioned the Prime Minister's name. I would ask him to say “Prime Minister” as opposed to his name.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, forgive me for the error of reading the Prime Minister's name into the record. Thank you for reproaching me for doing so.
I see that I have about six minutes left to address the backlog of applications at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. We always forget that it is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. These are two matters we are dealing with at the same time.
If we look at the backlog in the department, we see that it is over two million applications. At the same time, the minister insists that he knows what he is doing. He spends far too much time on Twitter, or X, fighting with anonymous users and others and taking cheap shots at other politicians who disagree with him. That is what he is doing instead of managing his department.
On the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, we often see a number of issues. There is a one-, two- or three-year backlog. Sometimes it could even take five, six or seven years. These applications should be easy to process in the allotted time.
Let us talk about the commission that is responsible for asylum claims. This is an excellent example of what happened in this country under this government and this minister in particular. Today, the department has a backlog of more than 220,000 asylum claims. More than 300,000 applications are on hold, and the waiting period is three and a half years before a file is reviewed and an answer is given. There is a backlog of 220,000 applications.
In 2016, an estimate published online indicated that there was a backlog of 17,000 applications. Under the Liberals, the backlog in the asylum management system went from 17,000 to 220,000, with more than 100,000 applications currently being processed. Some 220,000 people are waiting. These people came to Canada through another immigration program or crossed at Roxham Road. They applied for asylum, for refugee status. One would have thought that the government would have allocated enough resources to manage the number of people in the system in order to protect their rights. That is what the minister says.
Every year, the numbers grow. I have them here. In 2022, when the minister took office, there was a backlog of 70,223 applications. In 2023, the backlog was up to 156,023 applications. In July 2024, it was 218,593 applications. Today I received an answer to an access to information request, which I read very closely. It states that almost 18% of people who request an answer to their asylum claim are international students. Their applications are now part of the department's backlog.
When the minister is talking about not knowing the numbers so that he could not respond to the question, this is critical to how immigration and citizenship and refugee systems are managed in Canada. The minister does not know the impact of his own legislation. It greatly worries me that he is not aware of the details.
We Conservatives had a private member's bill, which was proposed from the Senate side, that offered to fix section 8 regarding lost Canadians. For those 50 months, we were on side. We proposed substantive amendments, once the scope of amendments was expanded, to the substantive connection test, and we proposed to introduce what I think was the most critical requirement, which was to have a police record check, to actually do a security record check. That was one amendment, I will say, that the Liberals voted against, with their allies in the NDP, at committee.
We have now seen, over the last six to 12 months, many security issues with different types of visa applicants who have been approved and who have come to Canada. I think the security of Canadians is incredibly important. The integrity of our citizenship system is critical. I do not trust the minister. I do not trust the Liberal Party. I do not trust its ally in the NDP, either, that it would be able to manage the new flow of applications because it just does not know how many people would be eligible, through Bill C-71, for citizenship by descent.
As the judge found in his own ruling, the reasons for charter non-compliance were not that there was an overall violation of it but that there was incompetence of the minister and the bureaucracy, which failed to provide accurate information. There were 50% errors in applications being processed: dates were wrong; names were wrong; and some even received a citizenship document for someone who was not even related to the same family. Those are serious errors in administration that the minister should have had fixed.
Therefore, we will be opposing this piece of legislation. We will then propose amendments. We are going to put forward amendments at committee to try to fix the legislation, and if we can fix it, then we will revise our position. I think that if we can fix it by providing the substantive connection test, the 1,095 or more consecutive days, we can come to some type of agreement on what Canadians expect. Also, a security record check is an absolute requirement.
We already have chaos in the immigration system. The immigration minister and the government he is part of have destroyed the consensus in Canada that immigration is a great thing. I think it is a great thing, but I was sad to see so many Canadians come up to me during door knocking and at town halls to say that they do not agree with it anymore. Therefore, because we cannot trust the Liberals with something as important as our citizenship, we are going to vote against them.
966 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 1:15:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we cannot hear the French interpretation.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 1:21:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I found it really fascinating listening to that member's comments. It is interesting that, in Canada, we have an elected House, so Canadians get to choose who they vote for. However, we also have an independent judicial process, and that independent court ruled the Harper legislation unconstitutional on multiple grounds. The member, rather than actually respecting our independent court processes, is suggesting that the government should have appealed that decision rather than give Canadians their rights. Members of the Conservative Party today, no different from those under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, believe that they can pick and choose Canadians' rights. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
I would like to understand from the member, when he challenges the substantive clause, why he believes a second-generation born abroad should need to do the substantive clause, yet people born prior to that should not. Why does he believe he has the ability to determine who should be a Canadian and who does not have the right to be a Canadian?
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to the point I think the member was making, nobody would lose their citizenship through Bill C-71. There is no new person who would lose their citizenship.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Tom Kmiec: Madam Speaker, the member is heckling me now. If she would allow me, I will give a thoughtful answer, as best I can.
Her own party voted for this legislation twice, back when it was Bill C-37, the first-generation limit—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 1:23:17 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member has had her opportunity to ask a question.
I want to remind members that if they want to have other conversations, they should take it outside so as not to disturb the member who has the floor.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Waterloo.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 1:23:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know that I do sometimes speak in the House when it is not my turn, but when I do not speak and I am given that credit, I do not appreciate it. In the case the member referred to, it was actually not me speaking.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 1:23:47 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry, but the hon. member was having a conversation with someone across the way. I would just ask her to step out and have that conversation, if she wishes to speak, because it does disrupt, as there is an echo in the House; therefore, we can hear what is going on at the other end.
The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to continue what I was saying, when we had Bill C-37, the first-generation limit was introduced, and the Liberal Party of Canada voted in favour of those changes, twice. The Liberals cannot now claim that it is a charter violation and that they have changed their minds. They supported it then for the reasons they had, and I do not know exactly what those were, but they did, twice, so it was not a mistake.
I believe that with this legislation, the key is what the impact would be on our citizenship system and our immigration system, and how many people it would impact. The minister is incapable of answering, and I think it is a critical question that Canadians need to know the answer to.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 1:24:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard. We get along very well, he and I. We are able to work together. I think we are both able to set aside partisanship and work on improving bills sent to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, on which we sit.
I agree with some of the points my colleague made in his remarks, particularly when he said that the situation at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is chaotic. This department is probably the most dysfunctional of all the federal government apparatus. On that point, I think we see eye to eye. When he talks about politicians who should stop being aggressive and insulting people on X, I agree with him. I think this is the right way to view things. Here again, I agree with my colleague.
As for the bill itself, the only thing I have trouble understanding about the Conservative position, which I respect, by the way, is that my colleague plans to table amendments to improve the bill if and when it is sent to committee. My understanding is that we must solve this problem. We agree on the principle of the bill. Now, it is possible to improve the bill, so why would my colleague not vote in favour of sending it to committee? We will work on these amendments, and then we will vote yea or nay on the bill based on the amendments that will have been adopted.
248 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 1:26:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague. We work together on the committee as much as we can. Sometimes we are on opposite sides, but I do not make it personal when we have differences of opinion or political differences. It happens. We are in different parties. People in our ridings voted for us because we belong to different parties.
The problem is that the last time we studied this issue in committee, we put forward nearly 40 amendments to change various parts of the Citizenship Act, including requiring that the 1,095 days be consecutive. There was also the need to run security checks to be able to say, yes or no, whether any of the applications received by the department raised any national security concerns.
The governing party, namely the Liberals, joined the NDP in voting against. For us, that was very important. We see the same thing happening in committee. We will vote against the bill at second reading.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the Conservatives actually filibustered Bill S-245 for 30 hours at committee. Even after it had gone through the committee and had been referred back to the House at third reading, they traded down that bill in the order of precedence eight times so that we would not get to debate it at third reading in the House and vote on it.
The leader of the official opposition's office wrote to family members who were concerned about their rights being taken away and about their constitutional rights being violated stating, “Conservatives will...preserve what it means to be a citizen of this country and fundamentally what it means to be a Canadian. Please be assured we will continue to support and advocate for this legislation to reach its third reading in the House of Commons.” That is in reference to Bill S-245. This is blatantly false. If that is the case, why did the member for Calgary Forest Lawn trade the bill on the order of precedence eight times so that it cannot come to the House for a third reading debate?
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 1:28:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the NDP complain about committee work because they always want to send things to committee. I want to do the work at committee, and when it is presented to me, I do it. We proposed well over 49 amendments. I am looking at them because I have them with me. Ten times, we voted with the Liberals in support of their amendments that we agreed with, so we were willing to do—
An hon. member: It was 30 hours.
Mr. Tom Kmiec: Madam Speaker, I am being heckled again.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 1:28:48 p.m.
- Watch
Again, I want to remind members who have had an opportunity to ask a question, if they wish to ask more questions, that they please wait until the appropriate time.
The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that this is the first day back, and I think I have been heckled more as a member today than I have, probably, in the entire last session. I am not a member who does the heckling. I hope you will agree. I try to restrain myself. I am not always perfect. I have a member next to me who sometimes does the same.
With respect to the committee work and the amendments, we proposed substantive amendments that would improve the bill. I told the members of the committee that if we could seek consensus on our amendments, we would vote in favour of the legislation, but we could not find it.
Police record checks are important. Making sure a person has a substantive connection to Canada is important. At the very minimum, it should be consecutive, not just spending a few days in a year. There is also the question of how would one prove 1,095 days in the previous 40 years of their life if they started having kids when they were 40? These are important administrative questions. The minister recognized that, but he could not answer how many people would be impacted.
I will just remind the NDP that they voted for Bill C-37, with a first-generation limit, back in 2008.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 1:30:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think there is a very simple question that many Canadians are concerned about. The leader of the Conservative Party has no issue raising the notwithstanding clause. We have a former Conservative government that tried to establish the first-generation limits, and we have a superior court in Ontario that says it is unconstitutional.
Will the critic for immigration give clear indication to the House that the Conservative Party, the official opposition, would never use the notwithstanding clause in order to invoke its will with respect to Canadian citizenship? Will he give us that assurance?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member well knows, as the parliamentary secretary on the government side, who speaks often in the House, that we will only use it with respect to justice bills. This is not a justice bill; this is the Citizenship Act.
I want to remind the member, because again he implied or basically said that there is a taking away of rights here, that the Liberal Party of Canada, on February 7, 2008, voted in favour of Bill C-37 at second reading and referred it to a committee. On February 15, it was again the same thing, seeking unanimous consent. It was not for unanimous consent and a vote on division, but for unanimous consent to simply proceed with the motion at third reading, to pass it at report stage and to have it concurred in. The Liberal Party supported the 2009 first-generation limit at the time, so it cannot now back away from it.
We just want legislation that is reasonable, not reckless, where the numbers are provided to parliamentarians so that we know what we are voting on and we know what the impact would be on Canadian citizenship and on Canadians in general.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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 1:45:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think we need to put it in perspective, as the member made reference to, in terms of the people it actually affects. There are many individuals in the different regions of the country whose ability to get their citizenship recognized is being challenged. Whether it is Senate legislation or, now, government legislation, it is imperative that we try to see the legislation at least get to the next step.
Conservatives say that they have amendments, and I would welcome seeing the types of amendments they have. Maybe we can come up with some sort of unanimous support in getting the legislation through.
Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to advocating for getting the bill out of second reading and into committee, where we would at least be able to advance it?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
