44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 16, 2024 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking members in other parties, and in particular the Minister of Immigration for bringing Bill C-71 forward.
The hon. member for Vancouver East has been tireless, as have many citizen champions, including, as mentioned by the minister, Don Chapman. The work to restore the rights to lost Canadians is urgent.
With all due respect to the minister, I would like to repeat the question from the member for Vancouver East. When might we see this pass into law? It is obviously urgent that it be done as expeditiously as possible, through the House and the Senate.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, forgive me for the error of reading the Prime Minister's name into the record. Thank you for reproaching me for doing so.
I see that I have about six minutes left to address the backlog of applications at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. We always forget that it is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. These are two matters we are dealing with at the same time.
If we look at the backlog in the department, we see that it is over two million applications. At the same time, the minister insists that he knows what he is doing. He spends far too much time on Twitter, or X, fighting with anonymous users and others and taking cheap shots at other politicians who disagree with him. That is what he is doing instead of managing his department.
On the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, we often see a number of issues. There is a one-, two- or three-year backlog. Sometimes it could even take five, six or seven years. These applications should be easy to process in the allotted time.
Let us talk about the commission that is responsible for asylum claims. This is an excellent example of what happened in this country under this government and this minister in particular. Today, the department has a backlog of more than 220,000 asylum claims. More than 300,000 applications are on hold, and the waiting period is three and a half years before a file is reviewed and an answer is given. There is a backlog of 220,000 applications.
In 2016, an estimate published online indicated that there was a backlog of 17,000 applications. Under the Liberals, the backlog in the asylum management system went from 17,000 to 220,000, with more than 100,000 applications currently being processed. Some 220,000 people are waiting. These people came to Canada through another immigration program or crossed at Roxham Road. They applied for asylum, for refugee status. One would have thought that the government would have allocated enough resources to manage the number of people in the system in order to protect their rights. That is what the minister says.
Every year, the numbers grow. I have them here. In 2022, when the minister took office, there was a backlog of 70,223 applications. In 2023, the backlog was up to 156,023 applications. In July 2024, it was 218,593 applications. Today I received an answer to an access to information request, which I read very closely. It states that almost 18% of people who request an answer to their asylum claim are international students. Their applications are now part of the department's backlog.
When the minister is talking about not knowing the numbers so that he could not respond to the question, this is critical to how immigration and citizenship and refugee systems are managed in Canada. The minister does not know the impact of his own legislation. It greatly worries me that he is not aware of the details.
We Conservatives had a private member's bill, which was proposed from the Senate side, that offered to fix section 8 regarding lost Canadians. For those 50 months, we were on side. We proposed substantive amendments, once the scope of amendments was expanded, to the substantive connection test, and we proposed to introduce what I think was the most critical requirement, which was to have a police record check, to actually do a security record check. That was one amendment, I will say, that the Liberals voted against, with their allies in the NDP, at committee.
We have now seen, over the last six to 12 months, many security issues with different types of visa applicants who have been approved and who have come to Canada. I think the security of Canadians is incredibly important. The integrity of our citizenship system is critical. I do not trust the minister. I do not trust the Liberal Party. I do not trust its ally in the NDP, either, that it would be able to manage the new flow of applications because it just does not know how many people would be eligible, through Bill C-71, for citizenship by descent.
As the judge found in his own ruling, the reasons for charter non-compliance were not that there was an overall violation of it but that there was incompetence of the minister and the bureaucracy, which failed to provide accurate information. There were 50% errors in applications being processed: dates were wrong; names were wrong; and some even received a citizenship document for someone who was not even related to the same family. Those are serious errors in administration that the minister should have had fixed.
Therefore, we will be opposing this piece of legislation. We will then propose amendments. We are going to put forward amendments at committee to try to fix the legislation, and if we can fix it, then we will revise our position. I think that if we can fix it by providing the substantive connection test, the 1,095 or more consecutive days, we can come to some type of agreement on what Canadians expect. Also, a security record check is an absolute requirement.
We already have chaos in the immigration system. The immigration minister and the government he is part of have destroyed the consensus in Canada that immigration is a great thing. I think it is a great thing, but I was sad to see so many Canadians come up to me during door knocking and at town halls to say that they do not agree with it anymore. Therefore, because we cannot trust the Liberals with something as important as our citizenship, we are going to vote against them.
966 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to continue what I was saying, when we had Bill C-37, the first-generation limit was introduced, and the Liberal Party of Canada voted in favour of those changes, twice. The Liberals cannot now claim that it is a charter violation and that they have changed their minds. They supported it then for the reasons they had, and I do not know exactly what those were, but they did, twice, so it was not a mistake.
I believe that with this legislation, the key is what the impact would be on our citizenship system and our immigration system, and how many people it would impact. The minister is incapable of answering, and I think it is a critical question that Canadians need to know the answer to.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 1:24:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard. We get along very well, he and I. We are able to work together. I think we are both able to set aside partisanship and work on improving bills sent to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, on which we sit.
I agree with some of the points my colleague made in his remarks, particularly when he said that the situation at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is chaotic. This department is probably the most dysfunctional of all the federal government apparatus. On that point, I think we see eye to eye. When he talks about politicians who should stop being aggressive and insulting people on X, I agree with him. I think this is the right way to view things. Here again, I agree with my colleague.
As for the bill itself, the only thing I have trouble understanding about the Conservative position, which I respect, by the way, is that my colleague plans to table amendments to improve the bill if and when it is sent to committee. My understanding is that we must solve this problem. We agree on the principle of the bill. Now, it is possible to improve the bill, so why would my colleague not vote in favour of sending it to committee? We will work on these amendments, and then we will vote yea or nay on the bill based on the amendments that will have been adopted.
248 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, his intelligent and constructive attitude and his open-mindedness.
Of course, he talked about the prospect of Quebec citizenship. We are currently talking about Bill C‑71, which solves some of the problems. Does the member not think that the entire immigration and citizenship process needs a solid overhaul and that we could commit to contributing to it in a constructive and intelligent way?
As he mentioned, it would be good practice for us for Quebec citizenship.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 3:47:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to re-enter into debate on Bill C-71.
What is this bill about? It is about a group of Canadians whose constitutional rights were stripped by the Conservatives 15 years ago. Bill C-37 was brought in by the Harper administration. Through that process, the government tried to fix some of the issues of lost Canadians, which Bill C-37 did in part.
However, in that process, the Conservatives also created a brand-new class of lost Canadians. That is, they brought in a provision that took away the rights of first-generation Canadians born abroad to pass on their citizenship to their children who are also born abroad. By doing that, the Conservatives essentially indicated that some Canadians are more equal than others. Second-generation Canadians born abroad did not have the right to become citizens.
This has caused untold harm, pain and suffering to Canadian families. I have met lost Canadian families whose children, as a result of this unconstitutional law, were born stateless. I have family members who have faced deportation as a result of this unconstitutional law. I have met families who were separated, the parent torn away from their children, as a result of this unconstitutional law. This law went on for 15 years.
I joined the House of Commons back in 2015. One of the first things I did was to draft a private member's bill in an attempt to fix this problem. The then minister John McCallum was a minister who, while in opposition, said this needed to be fixed. Successive Liberal ministers have failed to do so until now.
I will grant the minister some recognition for bringing this bill forward. It was not without a fight, because I do not think the government was going to do it. As the NDP critic for immigration, refugees and citizenship, I had to lobby, endlessly, successive Liberal ministers to get us where we are today.
There was an opening to get this dealt with when Senator Yonah Martin brought in a private member's bill, Bill S-245, in the Senate. The bill would fix only a very small portion of the lost Canadians issue, what they call the age 28 rule. I will not go into all of the details around that, because most people already know what it is. That bill, in my view, and I said this to the senator at the time, was deficient because it did not deal with a variety of other lost Canadians resulting from the Harper Conservatives' punitive bill, Bill C-37. I had every intention to move amendments to her private member's bill to fix it.
Most notably, I wanted it to ensure that the new class of lost Canadians the Conservatives created, the second-generation Canadians born abroad, would have the right to citizenship, albeit subject to a substantial connections test. They have the right to be recognized as Canadians and their children have that right. We went through this whole process at committee.
Some 30 hours later, the vast majority of the NDP amendments I negotiated with the government were adopted. Where the government supported my amendments, they were passed. However, the Conservatives filibustered that committee for 30 hours over 12 committee meetings. I have to say that committee meetings are precious because we only get two a week. Sometimes we lose them, depending on the calendar day; it could be a stat holiday or whatever the case may be. It is precious time and an important time to get work done.
The Conservatives filibustered that bill for 30 hours. Even then, we persisted and managed to get it through. The amendments were adopted and the report was tabled in this House with a wrong recommendation. Then what happened? The sponsor of the bill from the House was a Conservative member, because Yonah Martin is a Conservative senator. The member for Calgary Forest Lawn was the sponsor of the private member's bill, Bill S-245, which was supposed to be brought back to the House of Commons for third reading debate more than a year ago.
Then what happened? The Conservatives traded the order of precedence for the bill to be brought back into this House eight times. They traded it over and over again to delay the bill from coming back to the House for third reading debate and a vote. To this day, it has not been debated. When I saw that indication, it was as clear as day that the Conservatives had zero intention of doing what is right, despite the court ruling, by the way, that the provision was unconstitutional. Even then, they would not do the right thing.
Then I approached the current Minister of Immigration to say that the government must bring forward a government bill because Bill S-245 would never come back to the House of Commons, as the Conservatives would continue to use delay tactics. After much discussion, the minister agreed and we worked together to bring Bill C-71 here. That is how we got here.
Just to be clear, what did the courts say? I want to put this on the public record. The court decision by the Ontario Superior Court, in a 55-page ruling, found that the second-generation cut-off rule violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it "treats Canadians who became Canadians at birth because they were born in Canada differently from those Canadians who obtained their citizenship by descent on their birth outside of Canada.” The ruling went on to say that “the latter group holds a lesser class of citizenship because, unlike Canadian-born citizens, they are unable to pass on Canadian citizenship by descent to their children born abroad.”
The second-generation cut-off rule denies the first generation born abroad the ability to automatically pass on citizenship to their children if they are also born outside of Canada. In her decision, the judge accepted claims that women are particularly impacted because the second-generation cut-off rule discriminates on the basis of gender, forcing women in their reproductive years to choose between travel, study and career opportunities abroad or passing citizenship to their children.
One family member, who was one of the appellants in the case, was actually told by officials that all she had to do was go back to Canada to give birth. That was during COVID, by the way, when travel was not safe, and she had no family doctor here to follow the pregnancy. She would have had no health insurance and, of course, no family support because her husband was abroad, continuing to work. That means she would have had to give birth by herself here. She would have had to seek an extended leave from work to facilitate that. It makes zero sense to even suggest such a thing, yet there we have it. Her child was born stateless.
That is the reality of what we are talking about. Those are the impacts, real impacts, on the lives of Canadian families. I am so happy the court made this ruling and made things clear. I urged the government at the time not to appeal the ruling, and I am also grateful the government did not.
We heard the Conservatives say earlier they would have appealed the court ruling. Of course they would have. They were the ones who brought in the unconstitutional law to begin with 15 years ago. We also heard from the Conservative member for Calgary Shepard, who said they would apply a criminality test to this issue. Are the Conservatives going to apply a criminality test to Canadians who are born here? It is absolutely absurd to make these suggestions and to hold true to the idea that some Canadians have more rights than others.
This has been struck down by the courts. It is time to do not only what is morally right but also what is legally required by the courts.
The amendments I put through in committee on Bill S-245 essentially call for a substantial connections test for parents who are the first generation born abroad to be in Canada for at least 1,095 days. That would mean the connections test would be extended to the second generation born abroad and subsequent generations.
My amendments also restored those impacted since the second-generation cut-off rule was enacted in 2009, and we would also apply the same amendment to adoptee families. It took some work, a lot of work, to negotiate and get to where we are today with this bill. It took at least 10 years of my time, but that is nothing in comparison with people like Don Chapman, who has dedicated his entire life to this. He was deemed a lost Canadian. He has fought for this and helped so many families regain their citizenship and other families who have suffered, those who have been lost because this law was never fixed.
We have to do what is right, and I hope Conservative members will not filibuster. They said to the family members that they will support this provision, but actions speak louder than words, and all of the actions to date indicate otherwise. I am going to give them another chance now to do what is right, because we have to get this passed. We have to make this law, according to the courts, and because it is the morally right thing to do.
At this juncture, I ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
I am asking for this because it would expedite the bill, get it to committee so we can hear witnesses, make this law and do what is necessary and what is right for the people of Canada.
1680 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 4:03:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the heart of the question is this. Bill C-71 would effectively make Canada's immigration law, particularly for the class of what we call lost Canadians, charter-compliant. It would mean that family members who have not been able to pass their citizenship to their children because their children were second generation and born abroad would have those rights restored.
These are not new rights. These are citizens who should never have lost those rights, per the Superior Court of Ontario. We are not creating a new class of citizens. We are restoring this class of citizens, who were unjustly and unconstitutionally penalized. It would mean that children would not be born stateless. It would mean that families would not be separated. It would mean that people would not face deportation because of this unconstitutional law.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 4:04:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, desperate NDP members have been supporting the government for the last two years and are making a disaster out of immigration in Canada. How can they sit here and talk about better immigration when they made a mess out of immigration law in Canada? The results are showing for every Canadian.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 4:20:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a level of desperation in the NDP members and the Liberals that is continuing to take place. Why would the hon. member not tell Canadians about the mess that he and the government have made out of the immigration law in Canada? Why would he not tell Canadians the sad stories about how the mismanagement of immigration has caused Canadians a lot of suffering at all levels, including cost of living, housing and everything else? He should tell Canadians that story.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 4:21:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I gave a speech on the subject of immigration, citizenship specifically, and how to better protect the citizenship of people who rightfully deserve it. The member chose to go off topic to talk about what Conservatives always want to talk about, which is basically anything but the content before the House. I will refrain from engaging with him on that because there will be another time for that subject.
I want to highlight that, although I was born in Canada, neither of my parents were. My mother immigrated from Italy; my father immigrated from Holland. When they came to Canada, their parents brought them here because they shared the Canadian dream. They saw an opportunity to raise their children after leaving war-torn countries after World War II. I am a product of that. I am here. I was born in Canada, and I had opportunities because they chose to do that.
We need to make sure we preserve those opportunities for future Canadians, in particular for those who rightfully deserve that citizenship. That is what this piece of legislation would do. It would correct the mistakes, in particular the mistakes of Stephen Harper and that member's government from 2009, so that those people could properly get the citizenship they deserve.
214 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 4:38:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, besides ballooning the size of the immigration department with negative results and making a mess out of the department itself, what would the hon. member propose? How much stress would Bill C-71 put on the department in addition to the stress that it has right now?
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 4:38:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is good to see the member for Edmonton Manning. I know he and his family were newcomers to Canada. He has two wonderful sons who have bright futures in this country. I know they have had a great education, are working and are doing very well. That is what Canada is about, so let us give it a thumbs-up.
In terms of the immigration department, we know the hard-working people at IRCC are processing millions of visas, millions of applications, because people want to move to this country. People love this country. They know that this country, despite the challenges that we face globally, is the best country in the world to come to and to establish a family. We have gone through some hard times. We have gone through global inflation. We went through COVID. There are wars that we have not seen for 80 years happening in the world.
However, I never bet against Canada. The official opposition may, but I will never do that. Canada is the best country in the world.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 4:39:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have been listening to my Conservative colleague's questions for a while now. I get the impression that he wants to use all of our time or impose time for debate to discuss all the problems that exist with the management of immigration, when this is really about one case of injustice that is simple to resolve.
However, he opposes a motion that would speed things up. He is putting on his dog-and-pony show because, according to him, we absolutely must talk about everything that has been done on immigration. We in the Bloc Québécois have also criticized how the immigration file has been handled. We have asked many questions in question period.
Why confuse the debates? Why not focus on the substance of the current bill?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 4:42:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.
Like many members of this House and millions of other Canadians, I was born in another country. Canada is very much a nation of immigrants, and I am proud to be one of them. I came to this country as a young man, leaving behind a civil war that had been raging for much of my life. I came here seeking peace, stability and opportunity.
I will admit I did not know that much about Canada before moving here. It did not seem necessary to learn more about what I already knew, that Canada is a cold country with warm people, a place where newcomers are readily accepted regardless of nation of origin, race, colour or creed. What more did I need to know?
I was welcomed here with open arms. It did not take long for me to realize that Canada was a place I would be proud to call home. I found a job, got married, started a family and realized just how much this country means to me. I knew I wanted to be part of it and that my future and my family's future was here. I became a Canadian citizen in 1994. I started a business, got involved in community organizations and, eventually, was asked by the people of Edmonton Manning if I would represent them in this House. It has been an honour and a privilege to serve my country in this way.
One of the delights of being a member of Parliament is that I have been able to hear so many stories from my fellow Canadians, especially those, like myself, who came to this country to make it home. I have heard hundreds of times how people came to this country and why they chose Canada. Pledging allegiance to this nation is a serious business. In becoming a Canadian, you are saying that you want to be part of the greatest family in the world. Like marriage, becoming a citizen is a serious commitment. It is not something that should be entered into lightly for convenience sake.
As Canadians, we are all very aware of our rights. We even have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What we do not talk often about is our responsibilities as citizens. It is not only about what Canada can do for us, it is also about what we will do for Canada. Being a Canadian should mean something more than having a passport accepted everywhere in the world. Being a Canadian is a state of mind, of a joining together of different people for a common cause.
Because I know what it means to be a Canadian, I cannot support Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, 2024. To me, this legislation devalues the idea of citizenship. It is as if the Liberals want to grant citizenship to tourists. I can see the advertising slogan now, “Come spend your summers in Canada, and after 10 years we will throw in citizenship as an added bonus.” Why are those who wish to become Canadian citizens no longer expected to live here and become part of our country and society? Where is the commitment on their part to become part of the community? Does being Canadian not matter anymore?
In 2006, the Canadian government spent $94 million evacuating 15,000 Canadians from a conflict in Lebanon, my home country. Many of those were people who had the benefit of Canadian citizenship with minimal connection to Canada. Once things died down, they went right back to the country that they thought of as their first home. They were “Canadians of convenience”. That is why the Harper government amended the Citizenship Act to restrict the transmission of Canadian citizenship to only one generation born outside of Canada. It does not seem right to me or to most Canadians that citizenship should be granted to generations of people with no ties to Canada.
Perhaps it is time to tighten our citizenship rules, not weaken them. We do not need more Canadians of convenience, people who hold Canadian citizenship but live abroad and do not participate in Canadian society.
The legislation is intended to address concerns raised by the Ontario Superior Court, which ruled that the first-generation cut-off rule in the Citizenship Act was unconstitutional. However, Bill C-71 is a hastily written, ill-conceived proposal that needs a lot of work to make it acceptable to Canadians. Instead of fixing the problem, the bill would weaken the rules. Under this act, the bill introduces a substantial connection test; for parents to pass on citizenship to children born abroad, the parents must demonstrate that they were physically present in Canada for 1,095 cumulative days at any point in their lives. This rule applies to those who are Canadian-born, those who are naturalized Canadians and those who were born abroad.
I do not know what members think of as “substantial”, but being present in Canada for a thousand or so cumulative days does not seem to me to be much of a connection. If people live elsewhere but spend summer vacations in Canada, it would not take that long to reach the required number of days. I can see that this could be a part of a new tourist industry. Maybe I am biased, but I think that experiencing a couple of Edmonton winters should be a requirement for anyone wishing to become a Canadian citizen. After all, one of the things that bind us together as Canadians is the shared experience of cold weather. Certainly, without amendment, the bill would increase the stress on the civil service. Somehow, someone will be tasked with checking that the citizenship applicant has really spent 1,095 cumulative days in Canada. What burden of proof would be required?
When I became a Canadian, I did so knowing that I would give my all to this country. I understood that Canadian citizenship was a privilege, not a right, and that it was something offered to those who understood what it meant to be Canadian, who accepted Canadian values and who wanted to work together with other Canadians to make our society even greater. Canada is not my backup plan; it is my only plan. I know how important Canadian citizenship is. However, I do not see that importance reflected in Bill C-71.
Both the Liberal Party and the NDP want to play a game. All of a sudden, after they made such a mess of the immigration rules and laws in Canada, they are starting another chapter to make a bigger mess, adding more stress to a failing department and a failing immigration system. Bill C-71 would not respond to that; it would add to the disaster. I will not vote for it.
1162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 4:53:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to come back to the last comment that my Conservative colleague made about how Canada's immigration system is a mess and how it is failing in so many ways. I completely agree with him on that. However, Bill C-71 does not deal with the entire immigration system. That is not what we have here. The bill seeks to correct an injustice, which affects women and people who work abroad for the government in particular. That is what Bill C‑71 seeks to correct.
The Conservatives are filibustering. They did the same thing with the Senate bill on this topic. They are filibustering to prevent Bill C‑71 from being passed immediately.
Is the fact that the bill targets legislation that was passed under Stephen Harper's Conservative government the real reason the Conservatives are against it?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 4:55:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for one thing, I deal with my community and I have the backing of my community. I do not need the NDP to go and knock on my doors to tell me what to do. Their time would be better spent elsewhere.
The other thing is that I am not the one who is trying to impose anything on Canadians. If anybody is doing that, it is the Liberal and NDP members; throughout the last two years, they have made a disaster of immigration law in Canada. They should be ashamed. They should know what to ask people before they even make such suggestions.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 4:57:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, Bill C-71, seeks to amend the Citizenship Act to do three things. First, for children not born in Canada but adopted by Canadian parents, it would ensure that they are treated as Canadian-born citizens for the purposes of passing on citizenship if they have children abroad in the future. This is something I support. Second, it would restore citizenship for individuals who lost it due to non-application for retention or rejection under section 8 of the former Citizenship Act. Again, this is something I support. Third, and most important, the bill would abolish the first-generation limit for Canadian citizenship by descent, established in 2009, and replace it with a substantial connection requirement that would allow a foreign-born Canadian citizen to pass down their citizenship to their children and grandchildren born abroad as long as they have spent at least 1,095 days in Canada cumulatively. I have concerns with this portion of the bill that I will outline here today.
The first issue relates to birth tourism, a hot-button issue in British Columbia for many years. Birth tourism has long been an issue in Canada, and the bill would leave the door open to the practice's continuing long into the future. In fact, it would encourage it. For those who do not know, birth tourism is the practice of travelling to another country for the purpose of giving birth there. This is generally done to obtain citizenship for the child, taking advantage of birthright citizenship laws.
In Canada, there are three pathways to citizenship. The first is jus sanguinis, or “right of blood”; in other words, it is being born to a Canadian parent. The second is naturalization, which is the process of immigrating and obtaining permanent residency and eventually citizenship, as my colleague alluded to previously. The third is jus soli, or “right of soil”; in other words, it is being born on Canadian soil.
A 2023 article in the National Post discussed jus soli, highlighting how a single hospital in Richmond, B.C., had 502 non-resident births in 2019. Across Canada, 4,400 non-resident births took place in 2019, which is more than triple the number from 2010. In 2023, the first baby born in Vancouver was born to a birth tourist. The mother even told local reporters that she had made her first-ever trip to Canada specifically to secure a Canadian passport for her daughter. A 2020 CBC article titled “‘All about the money’: How women travelling to Canada to give birth could strain the health-care system” highlighted that Canada is in a small minority of fewer than three dozen countries that grant citizenship based on a baby's birthplace, regardless of the parents' nationality or status. The article noted that a high concentration of non-resident patients giving birth in Canada “has led to compromised care for local mothers-to-be and struggles for nursing staff”.
Another article from 2023 noted that, while air travel restrictions during the pandemic slowed down the trend, numbers have now started to increase again. It highlighted that, of 102 non-resident women who were surveyed after giving birth in Canada between July 2019 and November 2020, 77% cited birthright citizenship as their primary reason for giving birth in Canada. It is very clear that this pathway to citizenship is being abused; this program will only see the numbers increase as the Liberals reduce security checks for visitor visas as well. Thousands of children each year are born in Canada and leave with the full rights and privileges granted to any other Canadian; should they choose to come back to Canada at any time in the future, they will have access to Canada's health care and generous social security benefits without being required to pay any taxes before they arrive.
Right now, Canadians are paying more taxes while getting less. How is it fair to Canadian taxpayers? Even Liberals have recognized that this is a big issue and called for change. In 2018, the former Liberal MP for Steveston—Richmond East, Joe Peschisolido, presented petition e-1527, which called on the government to address birth tourism, citing its exploitation of Canada's generous public health care and social security system and violation of Canada's sense of fairness.
I would be remiss if I did not note that, in 2019, when the first-generation limit was brought in, Liberals even voted in favour of it at third reading in the House of Commons.
How is it just that a birth tourism baby would be able to pass citizenship on to their grandchildren under the proposed law? That is the big question today. Citizenship would be passed on to the grandchildren of Canadians born here solely for the purposes of obtaining citizenship. For my constituents, that is not just.
The second issue I have to raise respecting the bill is the obvious ramifications of eliminating the first-generation limit, namely the capacity of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to meet its current obligations on top of the additional files the law would inevitably create if it is passed.
Earlier today in the minister's remarks and in response to questions from the member for Calgary Shepard, the minister was not able to say the number of people who would be impacted by the law. That is irresponsible. The proposed legislation could lead to tens of thousands of additional files to process, leading to even more backlogs in our strained immigration department.
In the Ontario superior court ruling that led to the legislation proposed here today, the court cited a 50% error rate even among the samples that were cited during the court proceedings. We already have seen the effects of an overcrowded immigration system. In fact, we are living them today. Checks are being missed, and dangerous people have been allowed into our country due to a lack of due diligence and effectiveness by officials.
Just over a year ago, Hardeep Singh Nijjar was murdered outside a gurdwara in Surrey. It was revealed that his alleged murderers were in Canada on student visas. In just the last months, the RCMP has foiled multiple terror plots by people who had recently come to Canada. In the spring, RCMP officers foiled a plot by a 62-year-old Canadian citizen who had been filmed taking part in a beheading on behalf of ISIS in 2015, which was not found before he was granted citizenship. Then, over the summer, we learned of the arrest of a 20-year-old Pakistani citizen who obtained residency in Canada and who was planning to commit a massive attack in New York around the anniversary of Hamas's barbaric attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. His plan was to kill as many Jews as possible.
With IRCC already failing to ensure that dangerous people are not granted visas, PR or citizenship, how can we trust it will be able to effectively track the three-year significant connection clause for potentially tens of thousands of new applicants on top of our already overburdened system?
Additionally, the bill would not require individuals granted citizenship to undergo criminal background checks, which would pose even more security risks and undermines Canada's standards for who can become a Canadian citizen.
The third issue I would like to raise today relates to the Supreme Court and the lower court in Ontario. When it comes to something as important as the granting of Canadian citizenship, I believe this decision should have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada and not a provincial court judge in Ontario.
If I had more time today, I would also raise points on the financial implications of the bill and the effects it could have on our democracy and voters abroad in future elections. Finally, on the financial implications as well, the government has not been able to provide any estimates in respect to the costs the bill would have on Canadians.
As was referenced in the House already multiple times today, the former Conservative government brought forward a first-generation limit in response to the crisis in Lebanon in 2006. It cost Canadian taxpayers over $94 million. As my colleague from Edmonton outlined, many of those people left Canada after they used our consular services and generous supports that Canada used to protect them.
The question before us today is whether we really want to create a new wave of Canadians of convenience.
In closing, I do not believe it is a good idea to extend citizenship to the second generation, born abroad, for the reasons I have been able to briefly outline.
1465 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
