44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 17, 2024 10:00AM
- Sep/17/24 1:10:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Centre always adopts the right tone in addressing these issues, which need to be raised. They are the result of this government being worn out and the culture of cronyism that is too often part of the Liberal brand. Once again, the country will go further into debt, and this will have a very negative impact on Canadians and their trust in their government. This explains why Quebeckers want to separate from this country and go their own way.
Having said that, I would like to ask my hon. colleague the following. How can we ensure this never happens again? Could the government, possibly a Conservative government, commit to maintaining and increasing the Auditor General's funding to ensure that these scandals can be exposed?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 1:21:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we agree that the current bill comes in response to an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling that struck down provisions in the act and put pressure on the federal government.
However, the discussion here concerns a citizenship issue debated in the House over 15 years ago. It affects the lives of Canadians who arrived here after the war, and who could well be over 80 by now. Why was it necessary to wait for the court's ruling? Why did the Liberal government not show some leadership during its nine years in power while this issue was being addressed?
Instead of the current Prime Minister's mandate, we could just as easily say the Harper mandate, or the mandates of previous governments. We have been talking about this issue for decades. Why wait for a court ruling?
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 4:37:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is rather fascinating that the Liberal government is so slow to deal with this bill. Let us be clear, there are some very historic issues in this debate. People who lived through the war ended up in a situation where they had no citizenship. Some situations had to be straightened out even after death.
Why did it take a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court for the Liberals to finally take action?
The debate was held in the House in 2007. There have been successive governments since then, both Conservative and Liberal. Why did we have to wait so long to see some leadership to address normal situations for different Canadians?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in the debate on Bill C‑71, which would correct injustices and the institutional nature of the Citizenship Act. I am happy because, ironically, the Bloc Québécois set out to do just that in 2007 and worked incredibly hard on it. I am choosing my words carefully.
I would therefore like to acknowledge the work of the former member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Meili Faille, who took stock and made a list. I know her a bit, so I can imagine how she weighed and re-weighed every detail. She compiled an exhaustive list of problems relating to citizenship. I feel that she must have assessed the individual situation of every Canadian and every Quebecker. Under her leadership, the top experts across Canada worked on two studies, which many of us have quoted in the House. What makes this speech a bit special, if not fantastic, is that it is a privilege for me to talk about the work of Ms. Faille, given that she is now my assistant here in Parliament, and that of her friend Don Chapman, from the Lost Canadians society. Right now, he is a lost Canadian who might be on the high seas or on another continent. I do not know where he is watching from, but I salute him.
I realize that this bill represents an important moment for the families caught up in this circus. It is high time that this citizenship bill made its way through the House. Citizenship is not a privilege; it is a fundamental right rooted in our collective identity.
In Quebec, this concept obviously has a particular resonance. Citizenship is also a reflection of our pride and our desire to build a fair, inclusive society that brings us together and reflects who we are. Obviously, I dream of Quebec citizenship. However, before that, there are steps to be taken. It is unfathomable to ignore the critical importance of this right to full participation in our society, regardless of political stripe.
There are different ways we can become citizens. Some of us were fortunate enough to be born in Canada. Others are newcomers who chose Canada, settled in our communities and obtained their citizenship. They are sometimes called naturalized citizens. There is also citizenship by descent. We are talking about people who were born outside the country to a parent who is a Canadian citizen.
Today, we must address a crucial aspect of the Citizenship Act that concerns the fairness and inclusiveness of the system. It is well established in Canada that, with very few exceptions, citizenship is automatically granted to anyone born on Canadian soil. However, there are significant challenges when it comes to citizenship by descent for those born outside Canada. These are challenges that we absolutely must resolve.
The Citizenship Act currently imposes a significant restriction. Citizenship by descent is limited to the first generation. In other words, children born abroad to Canadian citizens can only obtain Canadian citizenship if the parent was born in Canada or acquired Canadian citizenship by naturalization before their birth. This restriction excludes those who, due to personal or professional circumstances, have had children born abroad. These days, this is something that can happen to anyone. What's more, it also prevents Canadians born or naturalized in Canada from applying for citizenship for children adopted internationally. This creates inequality and frustration for many individuals who, despite their deep connection to Canada, find themselves unfairly deprived of the rights and privileges of citizenship.
Furthermore, the previous legislation, prior to the amendments made from 2009 to 2015, led to even more complex situations for some, including lost Canadians. These are individuals who lost their Canadian citizenship at the age of 28 if they were born abroad to Canadian parents during a specific period of time, between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, before the law limited the transmission of citizenship to the first generation in 2009. Why keep it simple when it can be complicated?
The amendments proposed in Bill C-71 represent a significant step forward in resolving these long-standing injustices. They seek to expand opportunities to hand down citizenship rights beyond the first generation, which would enable Canadians who are born abroad to hand down their citizenship to their own children, even if those children are born outside Canada. These changes also address situations that were left unresolved by previous reforms and they provide a solution for Canadians who were unfairly deprived of their citizenship under the old legal framework.
By supporting these reforms, we are affirming that our commitment to a citizenship policy that reflects the principles of fairness and justice is essential and that we want to ensure that every citizen, regardless of their place of birth or place of residence, can have their rights fully recognized and protected. By making these changes, we are taking an important step toward fairer, more inclusive legislation that guarantees that our citizenship system is fair for everyone. Since the Citizenship Act was passed in 1977, we have seen that many Canadians, including many Quebeckers, are being deprived of this essential right because of legal shortcomings. Not only does this situation create obstacles in their daily lives, but it also affects their dignity and sense of belonging.
In Quebec, we have always valued justice and equality. It is imperative for these values to be reflected in how we treat citizenship. The proposed changes have to go well beyond superficial adjustments. They have to ensure that this inalienable right is respected and protected for everyone, including those in Quebec who are fighting to have their status recognized.
Yesterday I was explaining to students from Noranda School in Rouyn‑Noranda, who were here visiting Parliament Hill, why our work in committee is fundamental and just as important as our contributions to the debates here in the House. We have here a fine example of how much time it takes and how much work is required in committee. I commend the work of exceptional organizations and people like Don Chapman, who I was talking about earlier. These people work tirelessly for the cause of lost Canadians. I can attest to the contribution of the Chapman family, Brenda and Don, and all they have done for everyone who has asked them for help. I thank the Chapmans on their behalf. Many interventions have been made in committee.
I listened carefully to yesterday's debate on this bill. It is true that the Conservatives put members in a very delicate position in 2008. In response to the parliamentary work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, they implemented the vast majority of the corrective actions recommended in the report entitled “Reclaiming Citizenship for Canadians: A Report on the Loss of Canadian Citizenship”. While that legislation did fix some aspects, it also contained a controversial provision that limited citizenship to the first generation only, excluding the second generation born abroad. This provision was an integral part of Bill C‑37.
Those who followed the debates at the time will recall that the Harper government clearly stipulated that Bill C‑37 would be repealed if it was not passed in its entirety. If that vote had not taken place, thousands of Second World War veterans, as well as tens of thousands of their wives and children, would have lost their rights in their own country. How appalling, considering the important contribution that veterans have made to the quality of life and freedom of people in this country.
A war bride who was 20 years old in 1946 would now be 98. Many of those veterans and their wives have passed away. If MPs back then had rejected the first‑generation limit imposed by Bill C‑37, those people would have died without citizenship, all because of the attitude of the Harper government at the time.
I have been closely following the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's study on Bill S-245 and the enormous amount of work that has been done to try to fix the problematic situations. However, this bill does not actually include the changes that the lost Canadians wanted to see. It is also important to remember that, while all this was happening, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto was hearing a case on the constitutionality of certain aspects of the Citizenship Act. The Liberal government waited until it received an ultimatum before taking action.
The bill responds to an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling which declared that the first generation limit on citizenship applicable to the children of Canadians born abroad is unconstitutional.
On December 19, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down section 3(3)(a) of the Citizenship Act on the ground that it violated mobility rights under section 6(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada”, and section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, entitled “Equality rights”, which states that every individual is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.
The Government of Canada chose not to appeal this decision and has finally acknowledged the inequity of this restriction. The government has until December 19, 2024, to pass Bill C-71. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill because the Bloc Québécois believes that it rectifies historical injustices.
In his decision, the judge accepted the argument that women are particularly affected because the second-generation cut-off discriminates against them based on their sex, forcing women of child-bearing age to choose between travelling, studying or having a career abroad and returning to Canada in order to maintain their right to pass on citizenship to their children. There is something rather absurd about that. The Bloc Québécois supports any legislation that puts an end to discrimination against women.
As the Bloc Québécois critic for sport, I also want to commend Erin Brooks, a very talented surfer with roots in Quebec who grew up in Tofino, British Columbia. We heard from her at committee. Unfortunately, her dream of representing us in Paris at the 2024 Olympic Games did not come to pass. After spending more than three years in administrative limbo thanks to the Conservatives, she was unable to straighten out her citizenship issues in time to qualify. The Citizenship Act needs to be overhauled to end this kind of nonsense. We are proud of Erin and we wish her a successful career in sport representing us, Quebec and Canada.
Bill C‑71 corrects the situation for the remaining categories of people who have been left out despite successive reforms to the Citizenship Act. It is imperative that we tackle the challenges and injustices in our citizenship legislation with determination and compassion. The amendments proposed in Bill C‑71 provide a valuable opportunity to address persistent gaps and expand access to citizenship for everyone who is entitled to it.
By extending the opportunity to pass on citizenship beyond the first generation and by resolving the outstanding issues left unresolved by previous reforms, we are strengthening our commitment to fairness and inclusiveness. Every individual deserves to have their rights fully recognized, regardless of where they were born or where they live.
In supporting these reforms, we are not only advancing our legislative agenda, but also affirming our commitment to building a fairer citizenship system that respects the fundamental principles of equality. It is time to ensure that our citizenship policy truly reflects the values of justice and inclusiveness to which we aspire. Through these actions, we are demonstrating our commitment to a future where all citizens, regardless of their background, find their place and have their rights fully respected.
In closing, I want to highlight two things. It seems rather ironic to talk about Canadian citizenship and the laws of this Parliament. Back in 1995, I remember when Canada gave thousands of people the right to vote by granting citizenship to newcomers who did not have the background or family ties that come to mind when we think of the lost Canadians. I find it extremely offensive when political issues are used to promote or defend what people call “Canadian unity”. We saw a government illegally fast-track the citizenship process. Then there are the people who contributed and paid their taxes their entire lives who may not even have realized they never had citizenship and who were marginalized and denied certain rights.
Something is wrong there.
Take, for example, Roméo Dallaire, an outstanding citizen. He did not have Canadian citizenship when he did the work in Rwanda that made him so famous and that made us so proud of him and his integrity. These are very real situations that lost citizens encounter and that we must put an end to today in the interest of justice and fairness.
I have a little time left. I would like to use it to congratulate my friend, Louis‑Philippe Sauvé, who was elected in the riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. I met him about 15 or 20 years ago in the youth wings of the Bloc Québécois and the Parti Québécois. He is a hard-working activist, and he has proven that over the past few weeks by earning the trust of the people of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. I look forward to welcoming him to the Bloc Québécois benches.
2323 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 5:11:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think that partisanship will always have its place in debates on certain issues. However, on other issues, dignity must come first in the House. In that regard, the government is indeed going to support this motion. I invite members to show respect to these people who are in a delicate situation by fast-tracking this bill, which has an expiry date, I should point out, and respecting the court's ruling.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 5:12:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Richard Desjardins painted a picture that I always liked when he said that limbo must be somewhere in northern Ontario. In this instance, that is more or less the case for people who do not have their citizenship. In this context, it is definitely a matter of dignity. It is time to stop seeing problems where there are none. It is time to stop seeing conspiracy theories where there are none. It is time to show courage, dignity and respect toward those individuals.
Yes, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. I thank the NDP and my Liberal colleagues for doing the same.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 5:14:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague from Montcalm.
The topic under discussion today is not a political issue. I especially want to make sure that the former member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Meilidreuil-Soulanges, Meili Failles, hears these words of gratitude. I am sure that she is listening to us with some emotion right now, because this battle has been a long one. It led her to forge great friendships, especially with Don Chapman and many others.
However, some issues are raising concerns. People have suffered because of this situation. With them in mind, the Bloc Québécois is supporting this bill to correct the situation. Sometimes, playing politics is okay, I do it, but other times, we have to put the greater good of people and citizenship first.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 5:28:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that, like me, you noticed that the member for London West was going to talk about Don Chapman in her speech, but she did not have enough time to finish.
I am particularly interested in what she had to say about Mr. Chapman. I would like to give her a minute or two, at your discretion, so that we can hear her thoughts about him.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 5:44:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about children born abroad and adopted, whose parent passed away, and who were denied citizenship.
Why do the Conservatives think that these children, who have already gone through the pain of losing a parent and being born into difficult conditions, should be excluded from the citizenship process?
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 5:56:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, obviously this is not about creating revolving doors in this context, but about righting historic wrongs. I would like to know what my colleague from Calgary Centre would say to Canadian women who married a non-Canadian before 1947, who are nearly 100 years old now and who, because of the Conservatives' filibustering, may never see their most basic rights upheld before they die.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 6:11:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is some unease in the House about the court's ruling. That is because the current Citizenship Act is unconstitutional. I would therefore like to ask my colleague the following question.
How do the Conservatives intend to reform the act if they keep opposing it and dragging out the proceedings? Why not go ahead and pass the amendments instead?
We can all agree that this does not exactly affect hundreds of millions of people, but rather a handful of people whose rights have been violated over the years. These are historic mistakes that can be corrected.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
