SoVote

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

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

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Sep/16/24 6:05:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to clarify or even qualify his thoughts. Earlier, in a question he asked the member for Winnipeg North, he said that, in his opinion, just because someone thinks they are Canadian does not mean they are truly Canadian. Defining oneself as a Canadian does not make one a Canadian. People often mistakenly think that sovereignists like me have a restrictive view of citizenship. I do not define myself as a Canadian or identify as such. My leader has often said that all people who live in Quebec and who define themselves as Quebeckers are de facto Quebeckers. I found it strange to hear my colleague say earlier that just because someone lives on the land and identifies as a Canadian, they are not necessarily a Canadian. I would like him to clarify his thoughts and tell us whether he has an inclusive interpretation of Canadian citizenship.

157 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Sep/16/24 6:06:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was responding to the member for Winnipeg North, who was speaking specifically about the individuals this bill pertains to, individuals who may be the grandchildren of Canadian citizens whose family has lived outside of the country for generations. The member for Winnipeg North said these are people who think of themselves as Canadians. My point in response to this would be that for a person thinking of themselves as Canadian, if they are not Canadian according to citizenship law, their own self-identification should not be the decisive matter. It should be the laws around citizenship that necessarily prescribe parameters. I might wish to identify as Swiss, but I am not Swiss. I do not live in Switzerland. I do not, as it happens, even have any Swiss ancestry. It would be unreasonable to try to advance the idea that my self-identification with the nationality was the decisive point, which was what the member for Winnipeg North implied. He said that these are people who think of themselves as Canadians, and I am simply saying that is not the point.

184 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Sep/16/24 6:08:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this morning when the minister rose to speak to this legislation, he did not give a number for how many potential new Canadians would be created through the legislation. When I asked him the question, he did not have a response; he dodged it. This was a question asked to government officials back when Bill S-245 was being debated at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The question was asked repeatedly and the government could not provide an answer. Is the member not concerned that there would be an administrative burden imposed upon the government? There could be thousands, tens of thousands or 100,000 new applicants requesting proof of citizenship documents and then passport documents, travel documents to Canada and other such services from the Government of Canada. We already have a backlog of over two million applications in different regular streams of immigration to Canada, but also for temporary visa streams to Canada. The minister was incapable of explaining. His words were that there were “logistical planning” issues. Does the member believe this would pose a greater burden on government services? There would be a greater cost associated with it. There is no definite number for how many Canadians would be impacted. Therefore, it would be irresponsible and reckless to vote for it.

221 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Sep/16/24 6:09:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize our shadow minister for immigration, who does excellent work in this place, in committee and everywhere else he goes. To his point about this imposing a huge burden, of course it would. Given the huge administrative burden that would be associated with this proposal, given that it is not something we have to do, the question then is why we would do this. Why would a government put forward legislation to allow citizenship to be infinitely passed from generation to generation among those who do not live in Canada? When we think about all of the other priorities and challenges that Canadian government resources could be invested in, the idea that we would go through this proposed process, that the government would put that forward, does not make a lot of sense to me and I think would not make a lot of sense to many other Canadians.

154 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

Sep/16/24 6:10:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-245, which was the original legislation, led to Bill C-71 partially because of the Ontario Superior Court decision. The Ontario Superior Court decision in Bjorkquist states specifically, in the 260 paragraph series, that one of the reasons the judge found the current legislation non-compliant was because of all the administrative burdens, delays and incompetence of government officials. In fact, in several cases, it was found that out of the sample that the judge took, 50% of the files had errors in them, including sending the wrong Canadian citizenship documents to the wrong family, errors in permanent residency and errors in when a person became a citizen of Canada. It goes on and on, and because of those errors, the judge considered it non-compliant. Therefore, one of the things we did at committee is introduce an amendment to the original legislation that is not in Bill C-71, which is to block a person from having their citizenship restored or gaining citizenship by descent if they are facing current criminal charges in another country. The Liberals, at the time, voted down that amendment. I thought it was a very reasonable amendment. It would make sure nobody facing criminal charges or who had been charged and convicted of a criminal offence would be able to get Canadian citizenship through this process. I wonder if the member could reflect on what has happened over the last six to 12 months with other temporary and permanent visa applications, where we have seen the government fail to do proper security screening.

263 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Sep/16/24 6:12:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right that we have seen, just in general, such incompetence from the government when it comes to immigration, or such abuse of process. I did some advocacy on a case. It was a particularly sad situation of international students who were basically victims of fraud. They were able to come into Canada because both they and the government were deceived by that fraud, and then the government proposed to deport them four or five years after the fact. I hope I get another question from the government, in particular from the former parliamentary secretary for immigration, who seemed to be reacting in various ways to my speech but has missed the opportunity to pose a question on this matter.

125 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Sep/16/24 6:13:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑71. I would like to sincerely thank those who spoke before me and defended the interests of Canadians who lost their citizenship due to the complexity and shortcomings of previous legislative amendments to the Citizenship Act. Today, we will take the next step toward fairness and inclusion. For me, being Canadian means taking steps to tackle inequality and injustice within our society. We do this not only through our words but also, and 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. In 2007, this place was studying the matter of lost Canadians and Canadian war brides. In March 2007, a witness testified at the CIMM committee and shared how it all started when her brother, by then retired from the Canadian navy, went to get a passport in 2004. That is when she and her brother learned that her family had been stripped of their Canadian citizenship. She thought she was alone, but she soon learned that there were many people like her. They had family members who were World War II veterans and war brides and had learned that they were no longer Canadian citizens. She shared how Melynda Jarratt of Fredericton, the founder of the Canadian War Brides website, put her in touch with Don Chapman and the lost Canadians. Don worked closely with a former member of Parliament, the Hon. Andrew Telegdi, which is how I learned so much about this file. Today I have listened to a mostly fruitful debate. We know where each party in this chamber stands; all agree that the bill needs to go to committee, but for that to happen, it needs to be called to a vote. Canadian citizenship should not be a partisan issue. I did not choose where I was born or whom I was born to, but I am proud that my grandfather chose to come to Canada and that I was born and raised in the Waterloo region. I could not imagine someone arbitrarily taking my citizenship. The CIMM committee witness also spoke about numerous people she met; they had in common that they were lost Canadians. She also shared some of the reasons Canadians lost their citizenship, including being born out of wedlock or being born on a Canadian Forces base overseas. We can let that register for a second: When a person serving in our Canadian Armed Forces had a baby born on a Canadian Forces base overseas, that child could be stripped of their Canadian citizenship. Bill C-71 proposes to restore citizenship to the remaining lost Canadians, the individuals who either could not become citizens or lost their citizenship because of outdated legislated provisions. While previous amendments helped many, a small cohort of lost Canadians remains, so lost Canadians and their families launched a constitutional challenge in court of the two-generation citizenship cut-off. In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that it is unconstitutional for Canada to deny automatic citizenship to children born abroad because their parents also happened to be born abroad. It gave the federal government six months to repeal the second-generation cut-off rule and amend the Citizenship Act. Several constituents within the riding of Waterloo questioned what this ruling meant. It means that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down Bill C-37, the old citizenship law of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government, which prevented parents born outside Canada from passing on their citizenship to children also born abroad. The court ruled that the Conservative bill, Bill C-37, violated these people's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely, their mobility rights and women's rights, or equality rights. Today, I hear Conservative members saying that the government should have appealed this ruling. To me, this is telling, and I hope Canadians are watching and seeing their position. The Conservative Party of Canada may have changed their leader several times, but they have not changed who they are or what they believe. They believe in two tiers of citizenship. They support people who agree with them; everyone else does not belong in their vision of Canada. This is appalling and should be very concerning. My Canada is an inclusive Canada. I respect and value the diversity of people, of perspectives, of experiences and so forth. However, I digress. In response to the courts, in May, our government introduced Bill C-71, which proposes changes to Canada's citizenship laws that would address the concerns of the court and the constitutionality of the Conservative bill, Bill C-37. As I mentioned earlier, a small cohort of lost Canadians remains. These lost Canadians launched a constitutional challenge in court of the two-generation citizenship cut-off, and they won. The legislative amendment outlined in Bill C-71 respects the court's decision; it would help lost Canadians and their descendants regain or obtain citizenship. As the independent courts have ruled, that is their right. It would also address the status of descendants affected by the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit. The revised law would establish clear guidelines for acquiring Canadian citizenship by descent. After enactment of the legislation, the harmful Conservative first-generation limit would no longer apply. Canadian citizens born abroad would be allowed to pass their citizenship to their children, provided they could demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. Within the legislation, a Canadian parent born outside the country would be able to transfer citizenship to their child if they 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 Harper Conservative government. What is more concerning is that, under its new leadership, the Conservative Party continues to support two-tier citizenship in Canada. It is appalling that Conservatives in this place refuse to respect the courts. They refuse to accept that the Conservatives do not get to choose who should or should not have Canadian citizenship. However, this mentality has existed before. It existed with the previous Conservative government, which introduced and passed Bill C-37. At that time, the point was raised that we could make the legislation better. However, the Conservatives refused; thus, the lost Canadians had to accept a small step. We know today that what was passed is unconstitutional legislation. Lost Canadians took this matter to court and won, and that is what brings us here today. The Conservative opposition repeats the same behaviours. Bill S-245 is sponsored by a Conservative member. This Senate public bill passed the Senate, completed first reading and second reading in this place, and completed consideration at committee on June 12, 2023. Although it should have been called for third reading debate, the Conservatives continue to trade it down so it cannot be called to a vote. Some people will ask why. To pass a bill while elected, especially as a private member, is a massive privilege. However, do members know what happened? The Conservatives did not get their way. At committee, a bill can be studied and scrutinized, witnesses and experts can testify, members can ask questions and amendments can be proposed. The majority of the members of that committee proposed and passed amendments. I believe all did so except for the Conservative members. However, because the Conservatives did not support them, they refused to see Bill S-245 be debated at third reading. To me, that is disgusting, as well as disrespectful of the work we do in this place. I am not surprised, as I have seen the Conservative Party in action for a long time. I know the Conservatives love to change their leader, but they refuse to change their ways. Let us remember what I mentioned earlier: Conservatives support two-tier citizenship, and they only support those who think as they do. That is not an inclusive Canada. I would also like to mention that Bill C-71 would continue to reduce the difference between children born abroad and adopted by Canadians and children born abroad to Canadian parents. It should be noted that 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. With the law in place, the same criteria would apply to children adopted by Canadian citizens abroad, meaning that, if the adopted parent born outside Canada could show a substantial connection to Canada, the adopted child would be eligible for Canadian citizenship. Bill C-71 would restore citizenship to those who have been wrongfully excluded and establish consistent rules for citizenship by descent going forward. Our citizenship process and rules should be fair, equal and transparent. Recently, it has become clear that the act must be amended to address the 2009 legislative amendments, which excluded individuals because of the first-generation limit. The Ontario Superior Court has been clear: The Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit is unconstitutional in terms of both mobility and equality rights. Bill C-71 introduces inclusive changes that would address the challenges raised by the courts on citizenship by descent. This applies in particular to those born overseas to a Canadian parent. For example, former senator and lieutenant-general Roméo Dallaire was born in the Netherlands to a Canadian father and a Dutch mother. He grew up in Montreal. When he was 24, he was a Canadian Army officer stationed overseas. Because of the rules in Canada's Citizenship Act, which have since been amended, he found out when he tried to apply for a passport that he was not actually a Canadian citizen. He was, in fact, a lost Canadian. Today we have a choice. We can commit to addressing past wrongs, take care of those among us who have faced injustice and inequality, be more inclusive and share 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, by choice or by descent, whether we were born in Canada or in another country, we are bound by our shared values, by our mutual respect for our country and for each other. This matter is very close to my heart. It is something that I have known for a really long time. We have the ability today to see legislation advance. It is okay for us to disagree. It is okay to propose amendments. This government, more than any government in our history, has accepted amendments at committee, on the floor of the House of Commons and from the Senate. That is important to do. Getting legislation right is important because we are here to serve Canadians. Today, we have the ability to actually see the legislation advance. Perhaps we need another day of debate. That is okay. I wanted to speak to the legislation as well, and it is important for people to discuss and raise points that will actually improve this legislation and raise any concerns. However, what is concerning is that the Conservatives today keep talking about how many Canadians will benefit from this. The reality is that these people are Canadian. The court is telling the government and every member here that these people are entitled to their Canadian citizenship. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects them. They should have the ability to be Canadian, and the courts are ruling on that. Therefore, the legislation is really about righting the wrongs of the past. We can move the legislation to committee and debate on amendments, but what will be clear is that something of a consensus is being achieved. I heard from the Bloc and the NDP. I heard from and have spoken with Green members. I have heard the points they are raising. I know where the Liberals stand. The Conservatives are actually not the majority of voices today. Just as they did for Bill S-245, they are making sure that we cannot call it to a vote. They will most likely slow it down in this place. They will read their scripted speeches. They will probably try to move some kind of tactic, or whatever else. Once it goes to committee, I am sure there will be a few tantrums thrown there as well. However, what is important is that we do this right. As I mentioned in my speech, Canadian citizenship should not be a partisan issue. We have a choice in our country. We can actually ensure that we are not following the lead of other countries. We can do democracy well. We can think about the people who fought in uniform for us to have our rights and freedoms. With rights and freedoms come responsibilities, and I hold those responsibilities very near and dear to my heart. When my grandfather immigrated, he would never have imagined that his granddaughter would put her name on a ballot, let alone be elected. To represent the good people of the riding of Waterloo is truly an honour and a privilege. To hear their voices and represent the diversity of their perspectives is something I take seriously day in, day out. I have been here since the day started and have been very impressed with a number of points raised in today's debate. I have really appreciated that even with differing views within our political parties, at the end of the day, we have all been talking about Canadian citizenship and the importance of respecting the independent judicial system. I believe we should have the question called sooner rather than later. I hope the committee is anticipating this legislation so we can hear from experts and witnesses who can help us ensure this legislation is right. It is the time to do it. I look forward to receiving some good questions and having the emergency debate that will take place after we adjourn for the day.

2385 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/16/24 6:30:09 p.m.
Watch

The House will now proceed to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the recent deaths of first nations people during police interventions.

39 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Sep/16/24 6:30:12 p.m.
Watch

moved: That this House do now adjourn. She said: Uqaqtittiji, I will be sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay. I sincerely thank the Speaker for seeing the urgency of this matter and agreeing that it required an emergency debate this evening. I especially thank my colleagues in the NDP for helping make sure that we raise the profile and importance of justice for indigenous peoples. Since even before Canada became a country, colonialism and genocidal policies have been very prominent, and they are not a part of history because they are still happening now. Those genocidal policies and the colonial attitudes we see are systemic. We see them throughout Canada. We see them in the education system, the health system and of course the criminal system. They resulted in the call for this emergency debate. I am very saddened to hear of the loss of six first nations people across Canada, and I would very much like to honour their families, who at this time are grieving and I am sure are very confused about what has happened recently. They are probably asking why their loved ones have been killed at the hands of law enforcement. It is not just the RCMP. Provincial law enforcement is part of the system helping to continue to oppress indigenous peoples in Canada. Consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments have made promises for decades, but those promises are not leading to action. As I mentioned in my motion seeking this emergency debate, there has been report after report and recommendation after recommendation. Despite all this great work to see law reform and enforcement reform, we are still not seeing an accountable system that ensures indigenous peoples are protected, that indigenous peoples live in safety and that indigenous peoples get to live in comfort. We are still discriminated against, and we need to do our part as parliamentarians. I very much hope that during this debate, we will not take a partisan approach to representing indigenous peoples in this House. Because Canada was founded and created on indigenous peoples' lands, I know that every one of us MPs in this House has constituents who are first nations, Métis or Inuit, all of whom have been impacted negatively by law enforcement. I want to mention briefly that what sparked this emergency debate was the killing of six first nations people from August 29 to September 8. In just 11 days, Canadian law enforcement killed six people. They were not just regular Canadian people; they were first nations, and that is why this matter is so important. We need to honour the families because of the way these individuals were killed. I should mention that there is going to be some graphic detail. I want to make sure that people are prepared to hear the difficult stories from those living in the communities, from loved ones who are left behind. Not only are they forced to grieve the loss of their loved ones, but for the rest of their lives, they will question whether they can feel safe with law enforcement. We need to do our job to make sure that first nations, Métis and Inuit children, women and other individuals know they will be protected, that they will feel safe when they ask for law enforcement. What we have heard from August 29 to September 8 will only cause more harm and more fear. It is a challenge to want to be Canadian, to want to be part of society. I know as an Inuk and I know from families what that fear can do. It can be paralyzing. It can be confusing. Without proper mental health supports and proper coping skills, isolation can lead to more social issues that will require the need for protection. For people to have to think about being paralyzed because there are gunshots next door or about whether they will be protected is a real fear. We need to do a better job of calling for accountability. As Canadians, we want to be protected. As Canadians, we want a sense of security and a sense of safety, but how can we have that when six individuals over 11 days were killed by law enforcement? We need to address the calls to action and the calls for justice. The TRC reports came out years ago, and we have not seen enough implementation of the recommendations shared by the voices of national organizations. They tell us what things need to happen to keep police accountable and to protect indigenous communities, and there is not enough going on to make sure that indigenous peoples are being protected. I mentioned the TRC. I mentioned MMIWG. I want to thank Senator Kim Pate, who reminded me today that there is also a great report out called “Injustices and Miscarriages of Justice Experienced by 12 Indigenous Women”. This is not just about first nations, Métis and Inuit people. It is specifically about indigenous women, and we need to make sure we are doing a better job of protecting them. I hope that through this debate, we will see some policy changes so that we can make steps toward addressing systemic racism and can see indigenous peoples celebrating their life while thriving and contributing to this great country that we call Canada.

897 words

Hon. Gary Anandasangaree (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.)

Sep/16/24 6:39:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the member for Nunavut and the member for Timmins—James Bay for bringing this very important debate forward. Let me also express my deepest condolences to those who have been impacted. We have been struggling with the notion of systemic racism in law enforcement for many years and across different jurisdictions. In this particular case, it was in different areas and involved different police services. What would accountability and truth look like in these cases? I know there cannot be one particular answer because they are all different, but I would like to get a sense from the member of what she feels justice would be.

115 words

Ms. Lori Idlout

Sep/16/24 6:40:36 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, that is an important question. The response is a complex one, but some of what needs to happen is a true implementation of the MMIWG and TRC reports. They have made great recommendations to make sure that we do see changes in systemic racism. We need to make sure there is indigenous oversight of law enforcement. That is another recommendation that has been made for years. Right now, with the current staffing of the RCMP, most of its members have always been people I can describe as having come from privileged white communities that have not been given the history and experiences of indigenous peoples. Part of the reason systemic racism still exists is that there is still too much ignorance. There is still too much denialism about residential schools, for example. We need to make sure we are opening the eyes of Canada.

145 words

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC)

Sep/16/24 6:41:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very sincerely for bringing this forward. I agree with her wholeheartedly that in any solutions and in any work that the government is doing to support first nations, first nations, Inuit and Métis need to be equal partners at the table and the work needs to be guided by lived experience by first nations, Inuit and Métis people. I very much appreciate the member for putting that on the record and for sharing her story. I would appreciate her perspective as well on first nations and Inuit policing. We know the Liberal government promised to legislate this as an essential service in 2020, and then again in 2022. To my knowledge, no legislation has been brought forward, despite the former minister of public safety's stating on the record that he was working around the clock. That was in 2022. Clearly there has been a failure to deliver on these promises.

161 words

Ms. Lori Idlout

Sep/16/24 6:42:51 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, that is a great question. What I think is that when there is proper representation in law enforcement, in the health care system, in the education system and even in Parliament, and I really hope that we have more first nations, Métis and Inuit run for Parliament, there can be major improvements. I do agree that Inuit, first nations and Métis law enforcement needs to be better supported. When it does exist, it needs to be given better resources. I remember working with the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, the Deputy Speaker, last year because the federal government was not negotiating with law enforcement in her first nations riding. It was not being given equal treatment. When it does happen, we need to make sure that it is equal, but that its members are given equal resources to exercise their knowledge and their expertise in their first nations, Métis and Inuit communities.

161 words