SoVote

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

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Sep/16/24 4:52:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know that Bill C-71 is the right thing to do. The bill would correct an injustice that was caused by the prior Harper government, when the courts ruled that the law in place at the time was unconstitutional. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled it unconstitutional. This is the right thing to do to correct an injustice. It is about fairness. I have much respect for the hon. member for Edmonton Manning. Why would he not support a piece of legislation that would correct an injustice?

91 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Sep/16/24 4:53:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I already listed many points as to why I do not support Bill C-71. I am not interested in a political game with the Liberals and the NDP. There are many other Canadians the government needs to speak to. The government should hit the road, talk to people and knock on doors. The first thing that will come out is how disastrous the immigration system has become in Canada and why Canadians need it fixed, rather than having an additional disaster added to it.

87 words

Support
71

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Sep/16/24 4:53:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to the last comment that my Conservative colleague made about how Canada's immigration system is a mess and how it is failing in so many ways. I completely agree with him on that. However, Bill C-71 does not deal with the entire immigration system. That is not what we have here. The bill seeks to correct an injustice, which affects women and people who work abroad for the government in particular. That is what Bill C‑71 seeks to correct. The Conservatives are filibustering. They did the same thing with the Senate bill on this topic. They are filibustering to prevent Bill C‑71 from being passed immediately. Is the fact that the bill targets legislation that was passed under Stephen Harper's Conservative government the real reason the Conservatives are against it?

147 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Sep/16/24 4:54:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am also surprised by the Bloc Québécois. I am not sure what there is for them in Bill C-71. As I said, the bill is ill-conceived and badly written. There is no evidence to support their argument. Therefore, I am surprised. I will throw the question back to them: Why will they be supporting the bill?

65 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Sep/16/24 4:55:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to say that my colleague's speech was deeply disappointing. I was in his riding quite a lot this summer. I spoke to a number of his constituents, a number of people who put him in his position. They are absolutely appalled by his failure to speak up for Lebanese Canadians and Palestinian Canadians about the genocide that is happening in Gaza. More importantly, when he stands in this place and talks about Canadians of convenience, does he feel that he is the one who gets to choose who is a Canadian and who is not?

100 words

Speech
Speak

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Sep/16/24 4:55:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for one thing, I deal with my community and I have the backing of my community. I do not need the NDP to go and knock on my doors to tell me what to do. Their time would be better spent elsewhere. The other thing is that I am not the one who is trying to impose anything on Canadians. If anybody is doing that, it is the Liberal and NDP members; throughout the last two years, they have made a disaster of immigration law in Canada. They should be ashamed. They should know what to ask people before they even make such suggestions.

106 words

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

Sep/16/24 4:56:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning says he wants Canadians who believe in Canadian values. Certainly one of those is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; this is why the courts ruled that the cut-off rule for second-generation Canadians was unconstitutional. How does the hon. member imagine that Canadians of convenience so cleverly plan ahead to choose their parents so that they can claim Canadian citizenship?

70 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Sep/16/24 4:56:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a much bigger question. That is a much bigger problem that she has raised right now. Again, there was nothing that I suggested in my speech that reflected on anything other than that allegiance to Canada is the right thing to have. To be Canadian is to live as Canadians live, to feel what Canadians feel and to be back in this country in every way, not just to have the convenience of having a passport to travel anywhere in the world. That is the argument. It is a valid argument, and many Canadians will respond to that in a positive way, as we suggested and as I am suggesting today.

115 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Sep/16/24 4:57:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, Bill C-71, seeks to amend the Citizenship Act to do three things. First, for children not born in Canada but adopted by Canadian parents, it would ensure that they are treated as Canadian-born citizens for the purposes of passing on citizenship if they have children abroad in the future. This is something I support. Second, it would restore citizenship for individuals who lost it due to non-application for retention or rejection under section 8 of the former Citizenship Act. Again, this is something I support. Third, and most important, the bill would abolish the first-generation limit for Canadian citizenship by descent, established in 2009, and replace it with a substantial connection requirement that would allow a foreign-born Canadian citizen to pass down their citizenship to their children and grandchildren born abroad as long as they have spent at least 1,095 days in Canada cumulatively. I have concerns with this portion of the bill that I will outline here today. The first issue relates to birth tourism, a hot-button issue in British Columbia for many years. Birth tourism has long been an issue in Canada, and the bill would leave the door open to the practice's continuing long into the future. In fact, it would encourage it. For those who do not know, birth tourism is the practice of travelling to another country for the purpose of giving birth there. This is generally done to obtain citizenship for the child, taking advantage of birthright citizenship laws. In Canada, there are three pathways to citizenship. The first is jus sanguinis, or “right of blood”; in other words, it is being born to a Canadian parent. The second is naturalization, which is the process of immigrating and obtaining permanent residency and eventually citizenship, as my colleague alluded to previously. The third is jus soli, or “right of soil”; in other words, it is being born on Canadian soil. A 2023 article in the National Post discussed jus soli, highlighting how a single hospital in Richmond, B.C., had 502 non-resident births in 2019. Across Canada, 4,400 non-resident births took place in 2019, which is more than triple the number from 2010. In 2023, the first baby born in Vancouver was born to a birth tourist. The mother even told local reporters that she had made her first-ever trip to Canada specifically to secure a Canadian passport for her daughter. A 2020 CBC article titled “‘All about the money’: How women travelling to Canada to give birth could strain the health-care system” highlighted that Canada is in a small minority of fewer than three dozen countries that grant citizenship based on a baby's birthplace, regardless of the parents' nationality or status. The article noted that a high concentration of non-resident patients giving birth in Canada “has led to compromised care for local mothers-to-be and struggles for nursing staff”. Another article from 2023 noted that, while air travel restrictions during the pandemic slowed down the trend, numbers have now started to increase again. It highlighted that, of 102 non-resident women who were surveyed after giving birth in Canada between July 2019 and November 2020, 77% cited birthright citizenship as their primary reason for giving birth in Canada. It is very clear that this pathway to citizenship is being abused; this program will only see the numbers increase as the Liberals reduce security checks for visitor visas as well. Thousands of children each year are born in Canada and leave with the full rights and privileges granted to any other Canadian; should they choose to come back to Canada at any time in the future, they will have access to Canada's health care and generous social security benefits without being required to pay any taxes before they arrive. Right now, Canadians are paying more taxes while getting less. How is it fair to Canadian taxpayers? Even Liberals have recognized that this is a big issue and called for change. In 2018, the former Liberal MP for Steveston—Richmond East, Joe Peschisolido, presented petition e-1527, which called on the government to address birth tourism, citing its exploitation of Canada's generous public health care and social security system and violation of Canada's sense of fairness. I would be remiss if I did not note that, in 2019, when the first-generation limit was brought in, Liberals even voted in favour of it at third reading in the House of Commons. How is it just that a birth tourism baby would be able to pass citizenship on to their grandchildren under the proposed law? That is the big question today. Citizenship would be passed on to the grandchildren of Canadians born here solely for the purposes of obtaining citizenship. For my constituents, that is not just. The second issue I have to raise respecting the bill is the obvious ramifications of eliminating the first-generation limit, namely the capacity of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to meet its current obligations on top of the additional files the law would inevitably create if it is passed. Earlier today in the minister's remarks and in response to questions from the member for Calgary Shepard, the minister was not able to say the number of people who would be impacted by the law. That is irresponsible. The proposed legislation could lead to tens of thousands of additional files to process, leading to even more backlogs in our strained immigration department. In the Ontario superior court ruling that led to the legislation proposed here today, the court cited a 50% error rate even among the samples that were cited during the court proceedings. We already have seen the effects of an overcrowded immigration system. In fact, we are living them today. Checks are being missed, and dangerous people have been allowed into our country due to a lack of due diligence and effectiveness by officials. Just over a year ago, Hardeep Singh Nijjar was murdered outside a gurdwara in Surrey. It was revealed that his alleged murderers were in Canada on student visas. In just the last months, the RCMP has foiled multiple terror plots by people who had recently come to Canada. In the spring, RCMP officers foiled a plot by a 62-year-old Canadian citizen who had been filmed taking part in a beheading on behalf of ISIS in 2015, which was not found before he was granted citizenship. Then, over the summer, we learned of the arrest of a 20-year-old Pakistani citizen who obtained residency in Canada and who was planning to commit a massive attack in New York around the anniversary of Hamas's barbaric attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. His plan was to kill as many Jews as possible. With IRCC already failing to ensure that dangerous people are not granted visas, PR or citizenship, how can we trust it will be able to effectively track the three-year significant connection clause for potentially tens of thousands of new applicants on top of our already overburdened system? Additionally, the bill would not require individuals granted citizenship to undergo criminal background checks, which would pose even more security risks and undermines Canada's standards for who can become a Canadian citizen. The third issue I would like to raise today relates to the Supreme Court and the lower court in Ontario. When it comes to something as important as the granting of Canadian citizenship, I believe this decision should have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada and not a provincial court judge in Ontario. If I had more time today, I would also raise points on the financial implications of the bill and the effects it could have on our democracy and voters abroad in future elections. Finally, on the financial implications as well, the government has not been able to provide any estimates in respect to the costs the bill would have on Canadians. As was referenced in the House already multiple times today, the former Conservative government brought forward a first-generation limit in response to the crisis in Lebanon in 2006. It cost Canadian taxpayers over $94 million. As my colleague from Edmonton outlined, many of those people left Canada after they used our consular services and generous supports that Canada used to protect them. The question before us today is whether we really want to create a new wave of Canadians of convenience. In closing, I do not believe it is a good idea to extend citizenship to the second generation, born abroad, for the reasons I have been able to briefly outline.

1465 words

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

Sep/16/24 5:07:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether the member can expand upon his thoughts in regard to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision. The Conservatives have taken the approach that they would have appealed that decision. Would the Conservatives have agreed if the higher court had reinforced that particular ruling, or would they have potentially given their opposition to it and used a notwithstanding clause?

65 words

Mr. Brad Vis

Sep/16/24 5:08:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that I believe that our citizenship is sacred. It is something all of us, especially in this room, have a responsibility to uphold and to dignify, and I believe that a question of such importance, namely who is able to be granted Canadian citizenship, should not be determined by an Ontario Superior Court of Justice judge. I believe it would have been in the interest of Canada and the Government of Canada to appeal that decision to higher courts, so ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada could have made a decision on jus soli and its implications moving forward. That said, I will not answer a hypothetical question about what the Supreme Court could or could not have done.

127 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Sep/16/24 5:09:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what my colleague said in his speech is exactly what I was talking about. It does a lot, but it does not address the main issue. Let me give an example. A Quebec couple goes to work abroad for the Quebec government. They have a child. They come back. That child spends his whole life in Quebec and is therefore a Canadian citizen. When that child becomes an adult, he himself goes to work abroad. He has a child, but that child will not automatically have Canadian citizenship. Does my colleague think that is acceptable?

97 words

Mr. Brad Vis

Sep/16/24 5:09:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, right now the Bloc Québécois members have a serious determination to make: Do they stand with the Liberals in centralizing more power in Ottawa and removing the powers of citizenship under Quebec's rules? I do not believe that the 1,095 cumulative days is a good test for determining citizenship.

57 words

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Sep/16/24 5:10:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Something that has come up frequently is talking about this court case. What I understand is that it is a lower court decision. What really interests me is that the Liberals talk about the decision and ask why it should have been appealed. I will remind the Liberals here that there was a decision of a year or two ago from a court of appeal that they did not like because it was about oil and gas. That very day, the Prime Minister marched in here and said they would be appealing, because it fit his narrative. I wonder what the member has to say, when the Liberals seem to talk out of both sides of their mouth about whether things should be appealed or not appealed, like this.

149 words

Mr. Brad Vis

Sep/16/24 5:11:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will admit I am not an expert on constitutional law like my colleague from Kamloops is, but I do know, like every other Canadian, that intuitively our citizenship is something that is sacred. It is something that needs to be upheld, and a lower court decision should not be the determining factor on a matter of such importance as determining our citizenship. I will note again that the Liberals, on February 15, 2008, voted to eliminate the second-generation provision that is being debated here today, and I think the Liberals back then made a right decision. I call upon the Liberals to listen to their constituents and uphold the citizenship law as it is today with respect to the first-generation limit.

126 words

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

Sep/16/24 5:12:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity on a couple of occasions to ask Conservatives what their actual position is with respect to the notwithstanding clause. At the end of the day, Canadians need to be very much aware that the Conservative Party has demonstrated that it really does not have a problem resourcing the notwithstanding clause if the need is there. If we listen to what the Conservatives are saying about this particular piece of legislation and look at what they have done with regard to a so-called Conservative-friendly Senate bill that was brought in, we begin to believe that they are diametrically opposed to what the legislation would do. We all need to be concerned about that because, at the end of the day, through legislation and the manner in which they vote, they start to show their cards whether they like it or not. People will start to get a sense of what the Conservative Party stands for. We know that the Conservative Party does not have reservations about using the notwithstanding clause. I asked the question directly to the member. He said it was hypothetical and he was not going to answer the question. That kind of pushed it to the side, maybe a little too quickly, because I do think it is a very important point. When we talk about citizenship and the first generation, the second generation and what was done back then, we have to put it in the perspective of Canadians and what it is that Canadians do abroad. I had the honour of serving in the Canadian Forces for a few years, and through that process I got to know a lot of people, whether it was veterans or current members at the time. A lot of members of the force spend a great deal of time outside of Canada, and while outside Canada, they often have a child. That child might ultimately come back to Canada for a relatively short period of time, maybe for a posting or education, and then have to leave Canada again, and they find themselves in the situation where the Conservative Party has made the decision that the serving member does not necessarily deserve the right to have his or her children recognized for Canadian citizenship, depending on the situation. The same principles—

391 words

Notwithstanding

Mr. Brad Vis

Sep/16/24 5:15:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is not debate. The citizenship law, as the member is referring to, does not apply to Canadian Forces members.

29 words

Citizenship

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Sep/16/24 5:15:20 p.m.
Watch

The member is trying to elaborate on the hon. member's speech and on policy, and he can do that during debate. There is another point of order by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

37 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Sep/16/24 5:15:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate you, but I am very concerned that the member is trying to undermine legitimate questions that are being asked of his rather ridiculous speech.

30 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Sep/16/24 5:15:43 p.m.
Watch

I again want to remind members that if they want to contribute to the discussion, they should wait until questions and comments. These are not points of order; they are more points of debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

43 words