SoVote

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

Sep/16/24 3:43:53 p.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that I have received notice of a request for an emergency debate. I invite the hon. member for Nunavut to rise and make a brief intervention.

32 words

The Speaker

Sep/16/24 3:46:56 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Nunavut for her intervention and for sharing her intention to bring this before the House. After reviewing the rules, I am prepared to grant an emergency debate concerning the recent deaths of first nations peoples by police forces. This debate will be held later today at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

58 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Sep/16/24 3:47:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to re-enter into debate on Bill C-71. What is this bill about? It is about a group of Canadians whose constitutional rights were stripped by the Conservatives 15 years ago. Bill C-37 was brought in by the Harper administration. Through that process, the government tried to fix some of the issues of lost Canadians, which Bill C-37 did in part. However, in that process, the Conservatives also created a brand-new class of lost Canadians. That is, they brought in a provision that took away the rights of first-generation Canadians born abroad to pass on their citizenship to their children who are also born abroad. By doing that, the Conservatives essentially indicated that some Canadians are more equal than others. Second-generation Canadians born abroad did not have the right to become citizens. This has caused untold harm, pain and suffering to Canadian families. I have met lost Canadian families whose children, as a result of this unconstitutional law, were born stateless. I have family members who have faced deportation as a result of this unconstitutional law. I have met families who were separated, the parent torn away from their children, as a result of this unconstitutional law. This law went on for 15 years. I joined the House of Commons back in 2015. One of the first things I did was to draft a private member's bill in an attempt to fix this problem. The then minister John McCallum was a minister who, while in opposition, said this needed to be fixed. Successive Liberal ministers have failed to do so until now. I will grant the minister some recognition for bringing this bill forward. It was not without a fight, because I do not think the government was going to do it. As the NDP critic for immigration, refugees and citizenship, I had to lobby, endlessly, successive Liberal ministers to get us where we are today. There was an opening to get this dealt with when Senator Yonah Martin brought in a private member's bill, Bill S-245, in the Senate. The bill would fix only a very small portion of the lost Canadians issue, what they call the age 28 rule. I will not go into all of the details around that, because most people already know what it is. That bill, in my view, and I said this to the senator at the time, was deficient because it did not deal with a variety of other lost Canadians resulting from the Harper Conservatives' punitive bill, Bill C-37. I had every intention to move amendments to her private member's bill to fix it. Most notably, I wanted it to ensure that the new class of lost Canadians the Conservatives created, the second-generation Canadians born abroad, would have the right to citizenship, albeit subject to a substantial connections test. They have the right to be recognized as Canadians and their children have that right. We went through this whole process at committee. Some 30 hours later, the vast majority of the NDP amendments I negotiated with the government were adopted. Where the government supported my amendments, they were passed. However, the Conservatives filibustered that committee for 30 hours over 12 committee meetings. I have to say that committee meetings are precious because we only get two a week. Sometimes we lose them, depending on the calendar day; it could be a stat holiday or whatever the case may be. It is precious time and an important time to get work done. The Conservatives filibustered that bill for 30 hours. Even then, we persisted and managed to get it through. The amendments were adopted and the report was tabled in this House with a wrong recommendation. Then what happened? The sponsor of the bill from the House was a Conservative member, because Yonah Martin is a Conservative senator. The member for Calgary Forest Lawn was the sponsor of the private member's bill, Bill S-245, which was supposed to be brought back to the House of Commons for third reading debate more than a year ago. Then what happened? The Conservatives traded the order of precedence for the bill to be brought back into this House eight times. They traded it over and over again to delay the bill from coming back to the House for third reading debate and a vote. To this day, it has not been debated. When I saw that indication, it was as clear as day that the Conservatives had zero intention of doing what is right, despite the court ruling, by the way, that the provision was unconstitutional. Even then, they would not do the right thing. Then I approached the current Minister of Immigration to say that the government must bring forward a government bill because Bill S-245 would never come back to the House of Commons, as the Conservatives would continue to use delay tactics. After much discussion, the minister agreed and we worked together to bring Bill C-71 here. That is how we got here. Just to be clear, what did the courts say? I want to put this on the public record. The court decision by the Ontario Superior Court, in a 55-page ruling, found that the second-generation cut-off rule violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it "treats Canadians who became Canadians at birth because they were born in Canada differently from those Canadians who obtained their citizenship by descent on their birth outside of Canada.” The ruling went on to say that “the latter group holds a lesser class of citizenship because, unlike Canadian-born citizens, they are unable to pass on Canadian citizenship by descent to their children born abroad.” The second-generation cut-off rule denies the first generation born abroad the ability to automatically pass on citizenship to their children if they are also born outside of Canada. In her decision, the judge accepted claims that women are particularly impacted because the second-generation cut-off rule discriminates on the basis of gender, forcing women in their reproductive years to choose between travel, study and career opportunities abroad or passing citizenship to their children. One family member, who was one of the appellants in the case, was actually told by officials that all she had to do was go back to Canada to give birth. That was during COVID, by the way, when travel was not safe, and she had no family doctor here to follow the pregnancy. She would have had no health insurance and, of course, no family support because her husband was abroad, continuing to work. That means she would have had to give birth by herself here. She would have had to seek an extended leave from work to facilitate that. It makes zero sense to even suggest such a thing, yet there we have it. Her child was born stateless. That is the reality of what we are talking about. Those are the impacts, real impacts, on the lives of Canadian families. I am so happy the court made this ruling and made things clear. I urged the government at the time not to appeal the ruling, and I am also grateful the government did not. We heard the Conservatives say earlier they would have appealed the court ruling. Of course they would have. They were the ones who brought in the unconstitutional law to begin with 15 years ago. We also heard from the Conservative member for Calgary Shepard, who said they would apply a criminality test to this issue. Are the Conservatives going to apply a criminality test to Canadians who are born here? It is absolutely absurd to make these suggestions and to hold true to the idea that some Canadians have more rights than others. This has been struck down by the courts. It is time to do not only what is morally right but also what is legally required by the courts. The amendments I put through in committee on Bill S-245 essentially call for a substantial connections test for parents who are the first generation born abroad to be in Canada for at least 1,095 days. That would mean the connections test would be extended to the second generation born abroad and subsequent generations. My amendments also restored those impacted since the second-generation cut-off rule was enacted in 2009, and we would also apply the same amendment to adoptee families. It took some work, a lot of work, to negotiate and get to where we are today with this bill. It took at least 10 years of my time, but that is nothing in comparison with people like Don Chapman, who has dedicated his entire life to this. He was deemed a lost Canadian. He has fought for this and helped so many families regain their citizenship and other families who have suffered, those who have been lost because this law was never fixed. We have to do what is right, and I hope Conservative members will not filibuster. They said to the family members that they will support this provision, but actions speak louder than words, and all of the actions to date indicate otherwise. I am going to give them another chance now to do what is right, because we have to get this passed. We have to make this law, according to the courts, and because it is the morally right thing to do. At this juncture, I ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I am asking for this because it would expedite the bill, get it to committee so we can hear witnesses, make this law and do what is necessary and what is right for the people of Canada.

1680 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Sep/16/24 4:02:01 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: No.

7 words

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

Sep/16/24 4:02:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, once again, it is disappointing that the Conservatives do not see the value of, at the very least, allowing the bill to get to the committee stage. My question for the member is about passing legislation of this nature and how it would directly impact many people in different regions of the country. They would literally be getting their citizenship, which is something they should have today. I am wondering if she could reflect on the impact today on the individual who would benefit by the legislation passing.

90 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Sep/16/24 4:03:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the heart of the question is this. Bill C-71 would effectively make Canada's immigration law, particularly for the class of what we call lost Canadians, charter-compliant. It would mean that family members who have not been able to pass their citizenship to their children because their children were second generation and born abroad would have those rights restored. These are not new rights. These are citizens who should never have lost those rights, per the Superior Court of Ontario. We are not creating a new class of citizens. We are restoring this class of citizens, who were unjustly and unconstitutionally penalized. It would mean that children would not be born stateless. It would mean that families would not be separated. It would mean that people would not face deportation because of this unconstitutional law.

139 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Sep/16/24 4:04:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, desperate NDP members have been supporting the government for the last two years and are making a disaster out of immigration in Canada. How can they sit here and talk about better immigration when they made a mess out of immigration law in Canada? The results are showing for every Canadian.

53 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Sep/16/24 4:04:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the very member who said no to my motion has asked this question. This very member was part of the Conservatives who created this unconstitutional law, which said that some Canadians are less Canadian than others. They are the very same Conservatives who had been told by the courts that their law was unjust. It is time for the government and all parliamentarians to bring in a law that is charter-compliant. That is where I stand.

79 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Sep/16/24 4:06:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I read the outline of this bill, I thought that there was no way we would dither and debate this for long, because there is still a pressing need to correct an injustice. I do not see how anyone could justify waiting to correct an injustice. That is why I was very surprised to see the Conservatives say no just now to the motion that would have allowed us to move quickly to correct these injustices. What does the member think of this refusal?

87 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Sep/16/24 4:06:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is shameful, because justice delayed is justice denied. It has been 15 years already. Canadian families have suffered from this punitive, unconstitutional law created by the Conservatives, and now they want to delay it even further. We have debated this ad nauseam. I have lost count of how many times I have made speeches on lost Canadians. It is time to act, and it is shameful that the Conservatives will not do what is necessary and what is right.

84 words

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

Sep/16/24 4:07:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, indeed, and I recall attempts by the hon. member for Vancouver East to put this through by unanimous consent before we adjourned for the summer. One would have thought that reflection over the summer might have changed the automatic chorus of nays from across the aisle, because this is a matter of restoring rights to Canadians, not inventing new rights and not expanding a class of people. It is a matter of fairness and justice, and I lament the fact that the quite consistent efforts with real integrity from the member for Vancouver East have been thwarted here this evening.

103 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Sep/16/24 4:08:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Greens, Bloc members and the Liberals. We all stood together to say that we have to do this in a non-partisan way. Let us make sure that we restore the rights of Canadians. The only party standing in the way of that right now is the Conservative Party.

56 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Sep/16/24 4:08:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, for all of the work she has been doing on this. It is incredibly disappointing to see that the actions of the Conservatives, which began before the summer, are continuing. We know that it is vital work for us to restore the rights of Canadians. For the Conservatives, unfortunately this is a trend. They voted against provisions that would have rectified the unconstitutional second-generation cut-off amendments. They then, as my colleague mentioned, filibustered the bill for 30 hours at committee. They punted third reading debate eight times. As the member said, actions speak so much louder than words. I wonder if the member can share her thoughts on why the Conservatives are saying one thing to families yet doing something very different in the House of Commons.

142 words

Filibustered

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Sep/16/24 4:09:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the simple answer is that the Conservatives want to mislead families. In fact, the leader of the official opposition, in a reply to family members urging them to take action to fix this injustice, said that the Conservatives supported passing Bill S-245. However, what did they do? They did everything they could to delay and obstruct its passage, to the point that they are even refusing to have the bill come before the House for a third reading debate and vote. They are misleading Canadian families. They are pretending that they stand for justice. They are pretending that they stand for the rights of Canadians and treating all Canadians equally. They do not. It is the very opposite of what they say and who they claim they are.

131 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Sep/16/24 4:10:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments the member has shared, and I especially acknowledge the work that Don Chapman has done. I remember working for the former MP for Kitchener—Waterloo, Andrew Telegdi, and they had many conversations. I also take the point that this has been a long time coming and it is important that we get it done. I would like to ask the member about a private member's bill, Bill S-245, which I understand was sponsored by a Conservative member, and the Conservatives' continuous approach to not see it debated or come to a vote. What I find challenging in regard to that piece of legislation, which the government bill would rectify, is that the majority of members in the House of Commons helped to expand the scope of it and the Conservatives rejected that. The Conservatives tend to believe that there should be two classes of citizens in Canada. They tend to believe that only those who think like them should have the ability to advance. I would like to hear the member's comments on why the Conservatives did not want to see this bill go to committee so that we could debate and advance it or at least call the question.

210 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Sep/16/24 4:11:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge Don Chapman, and, of course, the family members who took the matter to court and the legal team that fought this issue so we can now have this rectified. The Conservatives, on eight occasions, moved the debate for third reading on Bill S-245. They did it in 2023 on October 16, October 25 and November 6, and then in 2024 on January 29, February 15, March 22, April 10 and May 1. That is their record. They moved it eight times. What does that tell us? It tells us that they do not support ensuring that Canada ends the practice of having two classes of citizens.

115 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Sep/16/24 4:12:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. I am pleased to rise in this chamber today to give some more context to the proposed legislation to amend Canada's Citizenship Act. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I would also like to recognize that indigenous peoples have been here since time immemorial. The contributions they have made in this country in the past, present and future have been and will continue to be significant. It is our responsibility to continue to work toward reconciliation in coordination and collaboration with indigenous people each and every day. Being Canadian means taking steps to tackle inequality and injustice within our society. We do this not only through our words but, more importantly, through our actions. Bill C-71 proposes amendments to the Citizenship Act in response to issues raised in both Parliament and the courts. These changes would restore citizenship to the remaining lost Canadians, individuals who either could not become citizens or lost their citizenship due to outdated legislative provisions. While previous amendments helped many, a small cohort of lost Canadians remains. The legislative amendments outlined in Bill C-71 would help lost Canadians and their descendants regain or obtain citizenship. They also address the status of descendants impacted by the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit. The revised law would establish clear guidelines for acquiring Canadian citizenship by descent. Once this legislation is enacted, the harmful first-generation limit will no longer apply, allowing Canadian citizens born abroad to pass their citizenship to their children, provided they can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. A Canadian parent born outside of the country will be able to transfer citizenship to their child if they have lived in Canada for a cumulative total of three years before the child's birth. These changes would result in a more inclusive and fair Citizenship Act and would right the wrongs of the previous Conservative government. Additionally, the new legislation would continue to reduce the differences between children born abroad and adopted by Canadians and those born abroad to Canadian parents. Any child adopted overseas by a Canadian parent before the law takes effect would be eligible for the current direct citizenship grant for adoptees, even if they were previously excluded by the first-generation limit. Once the law is in place, the same criteria will apply to children adopted by Canadian citizens abroad. If the adoptive parent born outside Canada can show a substantial connection to Canada, the adopted child will be eligible for citizenship. Bill C-71 would restore citizenship to those who have been wrongly excluded and would establish consistent rules for citizenship by descent going forward. These updates build on the work done by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill S-245, further refining the proposals and more comprehensively addressing the recent issues raised by the courts. Being a Canadian citizen is a privilege that we should never take for granted. In fact, we should all advocate as strongly for our right to citizenship as the lost Canadians have done. Canadian citizenship represents more than just legal status. It embodies an ongoing commitment and responsibility. What does it mean to be Canadian? There is no right answer to this question, and that is one of the great things about our country. Since Confederation, many diverse people have chosen Canada as their home. With the exception of indigenous peoples, every Canadian's history began with the story of a migrant. As Canadians, we have an ongoing commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples as we continue to strengthen our relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples across the country. Another commitment we make as Canadians is to come together to build a stronger country for everyone, which is evident in many ways. Canadians spring into action to help those in need, and it is not limited to family, friends and neighbours. We know that our country's future prosperity hinges on our sense of goodwill and our continued collective efforts. Canadians are also committed to inclusion. We choose to welcome diverse cultures, languages and beliefs, and that makes us unique. We value the experiences that have made our fellow Canadians who they are, just as we value the experiences others have. We respect the values of others as they respect ours. Celebrating our differences helps us learn from one another and better understand the challenges and opportunities that arise in our communities. In turn, we can identify new solutions to the problems we must overcome together. Though we are diverse, there are certain ties that bind us. In addition to helping others in times of need, Canadians also work to build opportunities for success and seek to share the benefits of that success with our communities. How we become Canadian can vary greatly. As the minister said, it is important to recognize that, regardless of how one becomes a Canadian citizen, we can all agree that we value each and every Canadian equally. Some of us are lucky enough to have been born in Canada, so we are Canadians by birth. Others are newcomers who choose Canada, and they join our communities and earn their citizenship. They are referred to as naturalized Canadians. Lastly, we have Canadian citizenship by descent, which is when individuals who are born outside of our country to a Canadian parent have their citizenship proudly passed down to them. We hold and value each of these citizens as equal and part of our diverse country. While we all define how we are Canadians in our own way, Parliament defines who and how we become Canadian through the Citizenship Act. Our citizenship process and the rules should be fair, equal and transparent. Recently, it became clear that the act must be amended to address the 2009 legislative amendments that exclude individuals due to the first-generation limit. The Ontario Superior Court has been clear that the Harper Conservative first-generation limit is unconstitutional on both mobility and equality rights. Bill C-71 introduces inclusive changes that would address the challenges raised by the courts. This applies in particular to those born overseas to a Canadian parent. Today, we have a choice. We can commit to addressing past wrongs, taking care of those among us who have faced injustice and inequality, being more inclusive, and sharing the benefits we enjoy as citizens with others who deserve to call themselves Canadian too. As proud citizens of this country, we must uphold the commitments that define us as Canadians. Whether we are citizens by birth or by choice, born in Canada or in another country, we are bound by our shared values, our mutual respect for our country and each other, and our enthusiasm to call ourselves Canadians. Canadian citizenship is a fundamental part of who we are. It unites us, opens up opportunities to us, and challenges us to live up to our values of self-knowledge, service to others, democracy, equality and inclusion. This legislation would lead to a better Citizenship Act, benefiting not only Canadians, but also anyone who is seeking to understand what it truly means to be Canadian. By restoring citizenship to those who have been wrongfully excluded, we all stand to gain. Our country becomes stronger when we embrace diversity and acceptance. I am thankful for the members' attention to this crucial piece of legislation.

1257 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Sep/16/24 4:20:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a level of desperation in the NDP members and the Liberals that is continuing to take place. Why would the hon. member not tell Canadians about the mess that he and the government have made out of the immigration law in Canada? Why would he not tell Canadians the sad stories about how the mismanagement of immigration has caused Canadians a lot of suffering at all levels, including cost of living, housing and everything else? He should tell Canadians that story.

85 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Sep/16/24 4:21:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I gave a speech on the subject of immigration, citizenship specifically, and how to better protect the citizenship of people who rightfully deserve it. The member chose to go off topic to talk about what Conservatives always want to talk about, which is basically anything but the content before the House. I will refrain from engaging with him on that because there will be another time for that subject. I want to highlight that, although I was born in Canada, neither of my parents were. My mother immigrated from Italy; my father immigrated from Holland. When they came to Canada, their parents brought them here because they shared the Canadian dream. They saw an opportunity to raise their children after leaving war-torn countries after World War II. I am a product of that. I am here. I was born in Canada, and I had opportunities because they chose to do that. We need to make sure we preserve those opportunities for future Canadians, in particular for those who rightfully deserve that citizenship. That is what this piece of legislation would do. It would correct the mistakes, in particular the mistakes of Stephen Harper and that member's government from 2009, so that those people could properly get the citizenship they deserve.

214 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Sep/16/24 4:22:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we recognize that this bill is a step in the right direction. That being said, I would like my colleague to talk to us about the fact that, like many laws in this federal system, it is often a real headache. Although this is a first step in the right direction, should we not instead overhaul the Citizenship Act, which is so complex and such a headache? I would like my colleague to say a few words about that.

81 words

Citizenship