SoVote

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

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Sep/16/24 5:15:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my comments are part of the actual debate. I can tell the member who stood up on a point of order, calling into question my statement on the legitimate concerns people have with respect to that second generation limit and beyond, that there are many Canadians who have all sorts of reasons and rationales they can use that might put them into a position where the law that was passed back in 2009 by Stephen Harper ultimately has compromised them. What is being lost in a lot of the discussion, especially coming from the Conservative Party, is that this legislation would have a very profound, positive impact for many people who believe, as they should, that they are Canadian. The Conservatives are saying no to that. They will come up with a rationale or an excuse to attempt to justify their attitudes toward it, but I would suggest that there is a fundamental flaw in their thinking, which is that the law passed by Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party back in 2009 has a fundamental flaw. It is called the Constitution. The Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights clearly demonstrated, through the Superior Court in the province of Ontario, that the law, as it was passed by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, was in violation of the Constitution. That decision was made toward the end of 2023. If we were to rewind a bit, we would find that there was a wonderful opportunity to address the issue in the form of a piece of legislation from the Senate that was brought forward dealing with the issue of citizenship. The Conservative Party at the time saw the merit of the legislation to the degree that it was prepared to bring the legislation through the House of Commons on behalf of the Senate. Things were going relatively well until it got to the committee stage. I was not at the committee, but I am told there were 29 or 30-plus hours, and I am not 100% sure, where the Conservatives filibustered the debate. The Conservative Party felt that the changes the opposition and government members were making to the legislation made it unacceptable, even though the Superior Court in the province of Ontario said that it was in violation of the Constitution. The bill passed at committee stage, and because it was a Conservative initiative, it means the Conservative Party has to allow it to come up for debate at report stage and at third reading here in the House of Commons. We all know there is a calendar that is set and that allows for private members' business. I am talking about Bill S-245 in particular. It would ultimately be guaranteed, virtually, because it was high enough in precedence to get that debate. Now, the Conservative Party has made the decision that it does not want that debate because when that debate starts, it is only for two hours, which includes at report stage. The brain thrust from the Conservative Party, the House leadership team that believes in things like using the notwithstanding clause to take away rights, is that it does not want to bring it forward, so it will defer it to another piece of legislation. I do not know how many times the Conservatives have done that. That now leaves the government in a very difficult position because that superior court decision actually allows us to make the changes. I believe it is until the end of the year, but do not quote me on it. We need to see the legislation get through. If it does not get through, that would cause some other issues. I am actually encouraged that an NDP member stood in her place and tried, through unanimous support, to get it through the House. That was not the first time. When we had the agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, there was an attempt to get it through virtually all steps, and I thought that was a good idea. Now we are saying, at the very least, let us get it to the committee. In fact, some Conservatives will say that it just needs some amendments, and maybe they could support it if there were some amendments. The problem is that the Conservative Party knows, and I know, the only way this legislation is going to get past second reading and get to committee stage, based on the discussions I have witnessed and the history of the Conservative Party playing a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons, is if the Bloc or the New Democrats decide to support a government initiative to time allocate the legislation. If that does not happen, I do not believe for a moment that the Conservatives are going to allow it to go to committee. They have already made the determination that this is bad legislation. The reason I used that example is so that people following the debate would have a better appreciation of why it is so important that the legislation actually pass. We are talking about real people not being recognized and given their Canadian citizenship. That is a very real issue. When this legislation passes and receives royal assent, people are going to be given their Canadian citizenship. We all know how important that is to Canadians. It has been pointed out that there are three ways in which one becomes a citizen of Canada. The easiest and most obvious way is via birth. Some families have been here for generations. My roots go back to the province of Quebec and then over to Manitoba. Some went into other prairie provinces. We have been here for generations. I am a citizen because I was born here. I often meet families, relatively young couples who might have two or three children. One of the children was actually born here in Canada, and some of them are still in the process of being recognized as permanent residents. That is something the Conservatives seem to have issues with. Some are going through the Manitoba nominee program, and will ultimately become citizens of Canada after going through a rigorous procedure. They have a sense of pride when they are able to say, “My child, this one here, was actually born here in Canada.” Whether it is that child who was born here or someone like myself, having been born here, we are all equal. That is the way I perceive it. People might want to try to distort that in different ways for different political purposes, but that is one way to become a citizen. Another way to become a citizen is through naturalization. Naturalization is through one of the many different streams of immigration. Some provinces, including mine, would have been challenged for many years, in terms of a growing population, if it was not for immigration and those individuals who ultimately become citizens of Canada, and most of them do. Every one of us is afforded the opportunity to go witness, first-hand, swearing-in ceremonies. If one has not taken that opportunity, I would highly encourage all members to participate in a citizenship court. There is a sense of pride when 50, 60 or 70 people are sitting in a room and have all met the requirements to become a Canadian citizen and then are sworn in as Canadian citizens. I have had the opportunity to speak at many of these over the years. I have had opportunities, as I would trust that most have, to extend personal congratulations and to witness tears in eyes because of that step. This is where I tend to differ. There was a Conservative member who talked about being Canadian. For immigrants coming to Canada, becoming permanent residents and then becoming citizens, the expectation is not that one forgets about one's homeland. Canada is the greatest country in the world to live in and to call home, but it does not mean that we have to forget about the home in which we were born. Ultimately, I would suggest that some of Canada's greatest assets are our diversity and our ability to build upon our world community and how we use that as a way to expand our economy and to showcase our diversity to the world, in terms of how people can get along. I like to think that we are not a giant melting pot, as some Conservatives might like to try to portray, but rather, take a look in terms of the values and the norms and mores of our society. That is the second way. The third way is by dealing with the whole idea of descendants and, specifically, the legislation recognizing what I made reference to at the beginning, and that was dealing with the first-generation issue established back in 2009. Some Conservatives will say that Liberals voted for it at that time. I have heard that on a number of occasions. I can assure the member that I personally did not vote for it at that time, but that does not really matter because I understand the context in which that vote took place. It has been explained here before. It was a holistic piece of legislation coming forward, and that was where the mistake was ultimately made. We had the prime minister of the day threatening to take away the legislation unless it ultimately was able to go through in a more timely fashion without, necessarily, amendments. We know that Stephen Harper was not fond of amendments. I know that first-hand, in many different ways. This legislation deals with that issue along with something the previous speaker recognizes, something he supports, and that is the issue of adoption. In the House, we often have discussions where we talk about adoptions. We try to give the impression, I would like to think, in a very honest and genuine way, that an adoption is just as important as a natural delivery or a biological child. The way we can enhance that through the Citizenship Act is a very strong positive. I would think that all members would support that. Taking a look at the legislation itself, and even taking a look at the background of the legislation, I would have thought, as some members have already pointed out, that there would not be an issue with it passing the House of Commons. Unfortunately, based on the debates that we are hearing from members of the official opposition today, they are more preoccupied with the Conservative Party of Canada and their leader than with Canadians as a whole. As a direct result, we find ourselves in a position where there are going to be many people in different regions who are not going to be able to get their citizenship. There is going to be another speaker after I sit down, and I believe it is going to be a Conservative member. I would like to think, at the very least, that the Conservative member could give a very clear indication that the Conservative Party is not going to require other opposition members and the government to bring in time allocation to see this legislation pass and at least allow it to go to committee. The Conservatives say that they have amendments or changes. When Senate Bill S-245 was at committee, there were changes that were made to it. The minister has been clear in being open-minded to possible changes. If the Conservative Party has changes, then let us get the bill to committee to allow us to see what the Conservative Party has in mind or what its plan actually is. We know that members of the Bloc and the New Democratic Party are supporting the legislation, and I appreciate that fact. However, we have a couple of days. Let us see what happens with the legislation. Maybe the Conservatives will have a conversion of sorts and see the value in passing this legislation on to committee.

2015 words

Harper

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Sep/16/24 5:33:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let us recall, when we talk about citizenship, that we have a Prime Minister who referred to Canada as a “postnational state”. That is, he does not believe in this concept of there being a particular Canadian identity, describing this as a postnational state. Then we have this member, who is saying that these people believe they are Canadians. First, the Liberals have no definition of what it means to be a Canadian, and then they would like to ensure that citizenship can be afforded to anyone on the basis of, it seems, their seeing themselves as being Canadian. I would say to the member that there is more to being Canadian than simply wishing to self-identify as a Canadian. Would the member acknowledge that there is a fundamental problem with his invocation of this argument that these are people who believe they are Canadians, therefore they are entitled to citizenship? Does he not acknowledge how flawed and dangerous that way of thinking is?

169 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Sep/16/24 5:34:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that there are individuals out there who can better explain to the member opposite than I could. There are individuals such as Don Chapman, who has been cited, and even glorified, by some. However, there are people out there who would be able to explain to the member opposite that, in fact, there are many people who should be considered citizens of Canada. I would like to think that, if that member met with and talked to some of those people, he might have a different opinion than he currently has. I can appreciate that the member has likely been instructed to come into the House and make an argument as to why Bill C-71 should not pass. I find that unfortunate. What is next? Is the Conservative Party going to say, “Well, we are going to put limits”? Will it say, “We are going to increase the number of days required to become a Canadian citizen from a permanent residency”? Can we anticipate that this would happen?

178 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Sep/16/24 5:35:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back here this fall to take part in the dynamics of the House of Commons. It is going to be a very exciting season. Earlier, my colleague from Montcalm asked an excellent question to which he did not get an answer. I would like our colleague from Winnipeg North to tell us more about it. The member for Montcalm gave the example of a Canadian couple whose child moves abroad for work. That child lives in a foreign country and has children of their own. The question my colleague from Montcalm asked was very simple, but the Conservative member did not deign to answer it, perhaps out of ignorance or a lack of interest in the issue. I would like to hear what our colleague from Winnipeg North has to say about it. Should the child of this Canadian living abroad have to fight to have their Canadian citizenship recognized, or should they be granted citizenship from the start?

168 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Sep/16/24 5:36:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure, but from what I heard through translation, the type of child being referred to would be a citizen of Canada. It is as simple as that. We are talking about that second-generation individual, which is where it becomes somewhat problematic according to the Conservative formula. Someone can be a Canadian or a diplomat or whatever, and people move out of Canada for a wide spectrum of reasons, and when they are outside of Canada, they do have children. It is those children who could potentially be at risk. This is where, in good part, a lot of the concern arises. I would really encourage members of the Conservative Party in particular to become more familiar with the types of individuals we are talking about because hopefully it would change the members' attitudes.

140 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Sep/16/24 5:37:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my concern is that, for people listening to this debate, the image that the Conservatives are giving out is that, well, if someone just decides they are Canadian, then they can become a Canadian citizen. That is absolutely ridiculous. There is also the image that people are flying here, giving birth and then getting their grandchildren Canadian citizenship, which is also completely false. It is a dangerous game because we are seeing rising racist hate. We see what Trump is doing in Springfield, and no, people do not come here and eat dogs. However, it reminds me of when the Conservatives ran an election on a barbaric hotline, where people were supposed to be invited to call in on their neighbours and target them because they were Muslim or they were from other communities. Therefore, when the Conservatives say that it is not that easy and we can decide who is a Canadian, we know what that dog whistle is. It is a dog whistle to the racist base, just like Trump's racist dog whistle. It is just like in 2015 when they were saying to rat out our neighbours because those people do barbaric practices.

199 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Sep/16/24 5:39:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that there has to be some form of a significant connection to Canada, and that is something the minister himself highlighted in bringing forward the legislation. However, when I listen to Conservative after Conservative talking about the issue, I think there is a legitimate issue to raise and that is what the Conservative policy is regarding permanent residents. Will the Conservatives give a guarantee that they would not increase the number of days required for a permanent resident to ultimately apply for citizenship? Based on some of the Conservatives' comments on immigration we have heard today while talking now about citizenship, I am very suspicious of Conservative far right MAGA attitudes toward immigrants. We need to push the Conservatives to come out and tell us specifically what their plans are, whether they concern citizenship, permanent residents or any other public policies, such as the environment.

152 words

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

Sep/16/24 5:40:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member for Timmins—James Bay that Conservatives are playing games here. I would even go so far as to say they are using dog whistles. The reality is that we are seeing examples of real-life scenarios, and I gave one during my speech. A good friend of mine was born on a military base in Germany. That military base closed. Both of his parents were Canadian citizens born in Canada. His dad was posted to Germany at this base and later on, when he went to try to prove that he was a Canadian or prove his place of birth when he was getting a passport, he had a very difficult time doing that because this base no longer existed and he was unable to get that. What we are trying to do in this legislation is to close some of these loopholes that make it very difficult for people who rightfully should have that citizenship while the Conservatives want to suggest that there is something else going on, as though there is some kind of nefarious activity. That is what they do best. They do this all the time. I am curious as to whether the member can expand in his comments on that.

214 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Sep/16/24 5:41:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I tried to highlight in my comments where the Conservative Party really is with respect to the legislation. It has become abundantly clear that Conservatives do not support the legislation. The moment I sit down and the Conservatives stand up to speak on the legislation, it will be reaffirmed. This means that, in order for the government to ultimately pass it, we are going to have to look to the New Democrats and the Bloc and possibly at bringing in time allocation. I hope I am wrong. Maybe the next person speaking will reassure me not to worry, that two days of debate is plenty, and that we will see it go to committee, where the Conservatives can look at it, have experts in, maybe get some of those questions answered and listen to real people who are experiencing what my friend just talked about. That is why I say we should get the legislation to committee. It is the very least we can do. Often the Conservatives, including this morning, say that we should get legislation to committee so we can get public input on it. The same principle might apply here.

195 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Sep/16/24 5:43:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House among friends of all colours. Before I speak to the bill before the House, if the House will indulge me, I would like to make a few brief comments about a constituency matter. I would like to recognize the immense contributions of Dr. Ryan Topping during his period of service at Newman Theological College in Edmonton. The college is not in my riding, but Dr. Topping is a constituent and the college is very important to the Edmonton Catholic community. All of us are, therefore, deeply invested in the institution's success, its fidelity to its mission and its decisions around ensuring ongoing, strong Catholic leadership. Dr. Topping played a central role in significantly developing and building up this institution. He was central in the design and accreditation of a new B.A. program and a significant expansion of the student body in bringing new programs to the college, establishing fruitful partnerships and bringing in significant new funding. Since Dr. Topping's announced departure, I have heard from many students and community members who are immensely grateful to Dr. Topping for his contributions and are sorry to see him go. I want to add my voice, and will continue to add my voice, to those recognizing Dr. Topping's noble, selfless and effective service. The act to amend the Citizenship Act introduced by the Liberal-NDP government threatens the integrity and security of Canadian citizenship. In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the first-generation cut-off rule was unconstitutional. The court stated that there was a 50% error rate in citizenship-related services managed by the Liberals, along with abnormally long delays. The Liberal-NDP government responded by introducing Bill C‑71, which grants citizenship to children born abroad to a parent with Canadian citizenship who has spent at least 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada. I should also point out that Bill C‑71 does not require a strict criminal background check. Bill C‑71 is irresponsible, since it will bring in tens of thousands of new Canadians with no plan to integrate them. If this bill becomes law, the government will have no idea how many people could be automatically granted Canadian citizenship. Registration, eligibility checks and resolution of legal disputes require considerable resources that could better be spent in other areas. They could be spent on housing, our health care systems or our defence, but, unfortunately, these are not priorities for the Liberal-NDP government. Its priority is creating thousands of new citizens without verifying who they are or how they will contribute to Canadian society. Apart from its economic costs, Bill C‑71 could compromise Canada's national identity. Citizenship represents more than just legal status. It represents a shared acceptance of national values, culture and responsibilities. A sudden increase in citizens with no real connection to Canada could weaken the country's identity and undermine its social cohesion. Once the Conservatives are back in government, we will stabilize and fix our broken immigration system, which the Liberals and the NDP neglected. We will set a more responsible bar for obtaining Canadian citizenship. We will reduce, if not eliminate, the error rate in citizenship-related services and end the unjust delays in our immigration system. After nine years, this Prime Minister is not worth the chaos or the incompetence. Only the common-sense Conservatives will stop this government's reckless mismanagement and fix our broken immigration and citizenship system. We are debating Bill C-71, a bill that would make a number of significant changes with respect to citizenship in Canada. I want to say a few words about citizenship before I delve into the specific components of the legislation. I think it is important to understand and reaffirm that citizenship is a profound compact between a group of people, a people who take on membership in a shared community, who commit to working to advance a shared common good, who commit themselves to being invested in the common good of a people in a particular place, and to understand the common good in terms of, generally, particular virtues, particular practices and reverence for a particular history. It is not the process merely of claiming certain rights or entitlements. Of course, there are rights that flow from citizenship, but citizenship is not merely a collection of rights. Citizenship is a moral commitment that we make to each other as part of a common community. I am very glad that in Canada, citizenship is not defined by ethnicity, by religion, by race or by a single language, and that Canadian citizenship is understood in terms that are accessible to anyone, regardless of their background. However, that does not mean that anybody who wants to become a Canadian citizen necessarily can, nor that anyone who asserts that they are or should be a Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen. Our citizenship is not constrained or defined by a particular ethnic identity. Our citizenship is defined by certain shared civic values, by a place and by the commitments we make to each other in that place. Citizenship ceremonies, the times at which people who were not Canadian citizens become Canadian citizens, are therefore profound and monumental moments, comparable in many respects to a wedding. We have seen under the government, I think, a declining appreciation for the power and moral significance of citizenship, expressed in the declining reverence for citizenship ceremonies. Imagine if we or someone in our life were getting married and needed to get a justice of the peace to perform that ceremony. They called and were told that their only option would be a virtual marriage. That is all that would be available now as there are no in-person weddings anymore. People have to go on Zoom calls and take their vows that way. That is all that is available. That would be, obviously, outrageous. However, the message, for a long time in some cases, for people seeking to go through the process of becoming new citizens was a virtual citizenship ceremony. Still, I think, in many cases, people are pushed or encouraged toward that option. I think that is unacceptable. We should recognize and appreciate the profound significance of citizenship and citizenship ceremonies. I encountered another problem this summer. I think it is important to bring it to the attention of the House. There are instances where public servants, representing the executive branch of the government, are demanding the right to vet and approve the remarks of members of Parliament being given at citizenship ceremonies. I experienced this. I was invited to participate in a citizenship ceremony that served people in my own constituency. I was excited to be there. A very good personal friend of mine was receiving her citizenship at that time, as were many other new Canadians. I was told that I had to send my remarks to public servants in advance, who would then review and approve those remarks or not. The parliamentary secretary is shaking her head. I welcome her comments on this, because I think it is a serious matter that should concern all members in all parties. As happens from time to time in this country when there are changes in government, I suspect that Liberal members in opposition would have the same feelings that I do if public servants told them they had to have their remarks reviewed and vetted in advance. These are the kinds of things we see from the government around citizenship ceremonies: a push to virtual and to more executive control of what is said, and I think that is unacceptable. Citizenship ceremonies are profound and important moments because they are the moments at which people are entering into the Canadian family. I sent in ChatGPT-generated remarks for review by officials at a citizenship ceremony this summer. I did not deliver those remarks. I delivered different remarks in which I emphasized the importance of freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, indeed freedom as an essential part of the core of Canadian identity, and I was very pleased by some of the feedback I received from new citizens who were welcomed into the Canadian family on that day. We were talking about citizenship, but now let us talk about rights. A right is something that is due in virtue of justice. Justice obliges that certain things be given to certain people in particular situations. A right is what is due, generally speaking, to a person in virtue of justice. When we talk about human rights, we are talking about rights that are due to all people in virtue of their humanity. There is a certain category of rights there, and then there are other rights that are not due to all humans, but that are due in particular contexts. For instance, a worker has a right to wages in virtue of justice, because they have done work and are therefore entitled to receive their wages. There are certain rights that flow from citizenship, rights that are due in virtue of justice to an individual who has made the commitments associated with being a citizen. The right to vote in a Canadian election is not something due to all human beings because they are human beings; rather, it is a right due to all citizens because they are citizens. A right flows from justice, but justice provides for certain entitlements in certain contexts, which may not exist in other contexts. Therefore citizenship entails certain rights that come from the moral commitment that is citizenship. This is the sort of philosophical framework I bring to the discussion of the bill, so let us talk about what the provisions of the bill are. There are a number of provisions that Conservatives agree with. I may have a chance to touch on the ones we agree with, but I will not spend a lot of time on those because I think it makes more sense to spend time talking about the areas that are contentious. The point of contention in the bill, and the reason we are concerned about the bill, is that the bill would change the rules for how citizenship is passed on through multiple generations to people who are living outside the country. Right now the rule is that if my wife and I are abroad at a time when we have another child, let us say in two and a half years we have a seventh child, hypothetically, which is not implausible, that child would be a Canadian citizen. However, if that child is then abroad when they have a child, that next generation, not my child in this hypothetical, but my grandchild, would not be a citizen. The principle behind the present legal reality is that if a family relocates and lives outside of Canada generation after generation, and is engaging with that particular community, then over time there is necessarily a kind of diminishment of connection to Canada. We are not talking about someone who has gone to work for a couple of years and then come back. We are talking about generation after generation. Again, it is not the children of a Canadian born abroad; it is when the child of a Canadian born abroad then has a child also born abroad. That is the present law. The Liberals are proposing, with Bill C-71, to change that law to allow, without limit, Canadian citizenship to be passed to generation after generation. It would mean that if one of my children moved out of the country, married someone there and had children, and their children had children, for an unlimited number of generations, provided that they visited Canada at certain points in their life, they could retain that citizenship. It seems unreasonable, to me and to us in the Conservative Party, that people should be retaining Canadian citizenship for dozens of generations living away from this place. It does not seem obvious to me that someone who is not living here, whose family has not lived here in generations, should have access to the rights that flow from citizenship, because their lives involve engagement with and moral commitments to communities that are elsewhere. Obviously there is nothing wrong with a person making that choice, for whatever reasons, to live somewhere, but at some point they recognize the reality that they are not connected to this place in the same way as someone who is living here, working here, paying taxes here and volunteering in a community here. Many Canadian citizens choose to live abroad for periods of time, of course, but it is reasonable to establish some kind of parameters around how long a series of generations would be abroad before we might say, okay, it seems like there has been an opting out of being Canadian and an opting into being somewhere else. Conservatives are opposed to this proposal from the government for a dramatic expansion of citizenship, such that citizenship would be passed on by those living outside of Canada for an infinite number of generations. In defence of this bill, the member for Winnipeg North talked about how these are people who believe that they are Canadians. Of course we understand that the way the law works is that people are not Canadians just because they believe they are Canadians. There are certain criteria that we establish in a democratic way. What we are proposing on this side of the House is that it is reasonable to establish those parameters in the way they presently are defined and not to further expand them in this unpredictable way. The government cannot answer how many people are affected by this. I do want to briefly touch on the absurd nonsense from the member for Timmins—James Bay, which is rarely worth dignifying with a response. However, it is important to point out that citizenship is important. It is not something that everybody is entitled to. We should agree that it is legitimate for a people to democratically set parameters around what it means to be a citizen. The member for Timmins—James Bay would have us believe that even trying to have that conversation about what those parameters are is necessarily bigoted. I would say that that kind of rhetoric is very dangerous. It delegitimizes legitimate and serious conversations about immigration. We can have legitimate, serious, substantive conversations about immigration and citizenship that recognize resource challenges, that recognize the need for reasonable parameters and that also recognize universal human dignity. We need to have those conversations. If legitimate conversations about immigration are shut down by this constant and malicious, unsubstantiated charge of bigotry, then we are not going to be able to talk about what reasonable, just and fair rules are. That kind of extremism from the NDP really undermines our ability to have substantive, thoughtful conversations that advance the common good.

2512 words

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

Sep/16/24 6:03:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member, and to be completely honest, it was one of the few times today that I heard a reason for not supporting the legislation. The member did not actually say he is not completely supporting it. He said he had concerns with some parts of it. My question to him is this: Why not let this go to committee where he can raise those concerns and Conservative members can raise those concerns? We can have a discussion about it and then if it comes back to the House and he still does not like it, he can vote against it. Instead, what is going to happen, and it is pretty clear and obvious to everybody else in the room, is that Conservatives will just drag this on and on, preventing even that opportunity for him to raise his concerns, which he legitimately laid out on the floor here, in committee. Why not have those discussions in committee where he can try to get his concerns addressed? Is it the case that perhaps there is more to it than what he is telling us and there are other reasons he would be against this?

199 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Sep/16/24 6:04:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely wish I could repay some of the kind words the member said, but I do not really understand the argument he is making. We are debating this bill on the first day. My understanding is that this is the first day the bill is being debated. I am using my rights as a member, the rights that flow from my status as a member of Parliament, to make arguments about the bill, to highlight that the central change proposed by the bill is not one I agree with and to state the reasons why. He asks why I do not just vote for it then. No. If I have made arguments that he has acknowledged are substantive and serious arguments about why the bill has significant problems, it would be fairly natural that I would vote against it. In terms of the timing of the debate, I do not know how many members want to speak. I wanted to speak. There may be others. As he may be hinting at, yes, there are some provisions of this bill that I agree with. I agree with the adoption provisions, for example, which I would be happy to speak about more if there is an opportunity. However, the issue of the unlimited passing of citizenship on from generation to generation for people living outside of Canada is, I think, problematic.

232 words