44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 17, 2024 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. I will be splitting my time with the most hon. member for Durham.
“Broken immigration policy, dangerous loopholes”: Somewhere between abject incompetence or willful malice, these five words summarize this reckless bill. It would tragically add to an already reckless NDP-Liberal immigration policy that destroys lives and breaks apart the cohesion of Canada. It proposes granting citizenship to individuals born abroad with at least one Canadian parent who has spent 1,095 days in Canada without requiring those days to be consecutive or ensuring basic criminal record checks. The Liberals have failed to disclose how many people would gain citizenship under the legislation or how they plan on tackling the existing immigration backlog with the extra pressure that Bill C-71 would create.
Under this Prime Minister, our immigration system has become a revolving door for exploitation. Criminals and con artists take advantage while hard-working Canadians and newcomers pay the price. Over these past nine years, it is remarkable how badly this Prime Minister has failed Canadians and newcomers.
How did we get here? The answer, regrettably, is ignorance. These NDP-Liberals have always believed they know best, arrogantly so, even when the facts tell a different story. To understand the damage, let us look at their inheritance in 2015. In 2015, we were the envy of the world: a balanced budget; a roaring economy; an expanding middle class; low crime; and the most successful immigration policy in the world. Housing was affordable. When our common-sense Conservative leader was Minister of Housing, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment was $1,172. Today that has doubled.
This was not by accident. It was intentional. It took hard work by a Conservative government that cared about the prosperity of all Canadians and that cared about ensuring that newcomers succeeded. Our immigration system was structured to ensure newcomers contributed to our economy and that by working hard and playing by the rules, the Canadian dream was theirs to realize. That promise is now broken.
NDP-Liberals ignored the principle of Chesterton's fence. That is, never tear down a fence until you understand why it was put up in the first place. Within 18 months, they tore down each fence put in place to protect our system. They increased the number of temporary foreign workers while scrapping measures to ensure Canadians had the first opportunity for jobs. They watered down language and citizenship knowledge requirements, exempting anyone under 18 and everyone over 54. They arbitrarily ramped up permanent resident targets to 300,000 a year without considering the impact on everyone's housing needs.
Today, housing prices have doubled; international students are packed into inhumane conditions, at times eight people to a small apartment, or worse, homeless under bridges; suicides are rampant; and housing builds have not kept pace with population growth. Last year alone, over 1.2 million people were added to the population, while Canada only built a third of the housing needed for those people to live.
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reports that we need 5.8 million new homes to restore affordability, but we are building fewer homes than we did in the 1970s, with housing starts on the decline. Nobody believes the government's so-called targets, and hundreds of thousands of human beings are paying the price. Instead of firing those responsible, the Prime Minister rewards them. The same person who lost track of one million people as Minister of Immigration is now in charge of fixing the housing hell he helped create.
The rule of law has been shattered. Since 2015, violent crime has surged by 50%, and reports this summer reveal that the NDP-Liberal government has granted both citizenship and student visas to known terrorists. Take Ahmed Eldidi, who slipped by two national security screenings before being rewarded citizenship in May. He appeared in an ISIS terror snuff video, cutting a victim into pieces in 2015. Only at the 11th hour, with allied intervention, was the RCMP tipped off to his attempt to conduct an ISIS terror attack on Canadian soil. What did our Minister of Public Safety have to say? He said that this is the way the investigative and national security system should work. No, it is not.
Then we learned that another terrorist, Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, was awarded a student visa. Khan was plotting what he called “the largest attack on U.S. soil since 9/11”, a large-scale attack on Jews in Brooklyn.
This is not just limited to two cases. Communities across our country are subject to attacks and crime in their places of worship, their schools, their businesses and their homes. Almost daily here at home, mobs are on the march, threatening individuals' dignity and freedom.
820 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret to interrupt. I miss the member being closer, but I am glad to see him and welcome him back.
This is a really important conversation on citizenship. I recognize the member wants to talk about immigration. I waited patiently with hope that he would come back to it. I really believe that we need to debate Bill C-71 and that we stay focused on the topic. Therefore, I would challenge him on relevance.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 1:35:39 p.m.
- Watch
Yes. I hear other members trying to speak over the hon. member who is speaking. I would ask them to hold off.
As the hon. member knows, there is some latitude when individuals are making speeches. The matter that is before the House does talk about immigration, but it is specific to a certain degree. I am sure the hon. member will bring it back to that.
The hon. member for Calgary Heritage.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 1:36:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the commercial break.
Almost daily here at home, mobs are on the march, threatening individuals' dignity and freedom. How are Canadians supposed to trust the NDP-Liberals with our safety and national security? How are newcomers, who want to work hard and raise a family here, supposed to have faith in the incompetent government's immigration policy? The Canadian dream is broken.
Skilled immigrants who came here in search of a better life are stuck in low-wage jobs, unable to work in their trained professions because of bureaucratic red tape. If one wants a doctor they must call an Uber. Medical professionals are being denied from serving backed-up patients. There are 10 million Canadians who will soon be without access to primary care and the caregivers they need are ironically a two-minute wait away. StatsCan recently found that 15% of immigrants leave Canada within 20 years of arrival, many because they cannot find jobs in their trained professions. International students are exploited by diploma-mill colleges and sold fake degrees and false promises of employment, residency and citizenship.
Desperate people turn to fraudulent claims of refuge, knowing the NDP-Liberals have loosened the very restrictions that protect Canadians. For what? How many destroyed lives need to be sacrificed at the altar of this horrific incompetence or actual malice? In some ways, they know exactly what they are doing. They have used the chaos of their own broken immigration system to their partisan advantage, turning a blind eye to the international students who were bussed in to vote in Liberal nominations, like they did in Don Valley North. When criticized, they clutch their pearls and decry racism. Shame on them. What is racist is pitting refugee against refugee, pitting one group against another, shilling up desperate people for cheap jobs to kowtow to corporate interests, pandering to mobs that do not share universal values and obsessively trafficking in racial identity rather than individual dignity.
Canadians at home are not surprised by the broken state of our immigration system under the NDP-Liberals. They are devastated by the division they now bear witness to after nine years of this abuse. After nine long years of this nonsense, every Canadian knows the reality. Housing is broken. The rule of law is broken. Citizenship is broken. The Canadian dream is broken. Canadians who have worked hard their entire lives are watching their country be torn apart while new Canadians who came here with hope are discovering the dream they were promised has gone up in smoke. Families are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. Newcomers are denied their potential, while terrorists are given the welcome mat. It was not like this before the nine years of the current Prime Minister, and it will not be like this after he is gone.
Canada is one of the oldest democracies on planet Earth. We are not some postnational project; we are a promise, and ours is a promise to keep amid the gathering darkness of broken immigration, broken dreams of common citizenship, crime, chaos, drugs and disorder that roam across our streets. We will restore the promise. We will be the light. Ours is a country where it does not matter what one's name is or where one comes from, but what one can do. It is a land where if one works hard and plays by the rules, one could earn a good living, raise a family and own a home. With freedom comes a responsibility to uphold those freedoms for all. Our freedom finds expression through the rule of law and a democracy that is to shape those very laws. Ours is a promise to keep for Canadians and newcomers alike that we will never give in, never back down and never surrender to the forces that would break us.
648 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 1:42:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my understanding is that this was a debate that was unanimously agreed to in this chamber.
Our issue is with the performative announcements that the NDP-Liberals make when it comes to our immigration plans. Without ever having a plan to deal with an overburdened immigration system, they once again present performative ideas as to how they are going to meet their targets.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 1:44:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the inheritance that these NDP-Liberals had when they arrived in office was an envy of the world. Across the left and the right, our immigration policy was the envy of the world. Around the world, people looked at how Canada had managed its immigration levels, its housing, its health and its economy. This is an issue in which the NDP-Liberals, over nine years, have sown wanton division across our country and irresponsible government, which is a mixture of absolute ignorance or willful malice. I think it is somewhere between both.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to oppose Bill C-71. I do so wanting to recognize the context that our country finds itself in right now.
Immigration levels are too high. We are now approaching an average of 1.5 million people coming into the country per year. The reason we know that is too high is because population growth is now outpacing the job market. It is outpacing the housing market. It is also outpacing investment in social services like hospitals, schools and child care facilities. The quality of life for the average Canadian is in decline because of the stress being placed on our local economies and on public services. This is a sentiment held not just by people who may have been in Canada for many generations, but also by people who are immigrants themselves, children of immigrants and grandchildren of immigrants.
When we review Bill C-71, the ultimate question we need to ask ourselves is if this is a logical, reasonable, common-sense approach to citizenship and immigration, or is this is a continuation of an approach that has been in place for years now that is actually harming the quality of life for all people in the country, regardless of their backgrounds.
To advance a common-sense approach to immigration, I would put forward a three-part standard that we can evaluate Bill C-71 against.
The first question that any person would ask is how many people would be entering the country under Bill C-71. It is a very reasonable question, one that I imagine any Canadian would ask. It would be imperative for the government advancing this legislation to have an answer to. Unfortunately, we have tried our best to get specific numbers from the Liberal government on this legislation, and we have not gotten that number. We do not know how many more people would be entering the country under Bill C-71. Given the existing constraints we have, that is a very important question for the people of Canada to have an answer to.
The second part of this test, as my colleague, the member for Calgary Heritage mentioned, would be criminal background checks. Any Canadian, whether he or she just got here or has been here for a long time, would say it is common sense to do criminal background checks on who enters the country. It should be a no-brainer for anyone to agree to, yet, we have been advocating for the provision of mandatory criminal background checks in Bill C-71 without the support from the Liberal government or their allies in the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.
We are asking very clearly why proper vetting is not done before granting citizenship to people who do not live in our country and are only being granted citizenship through a weak and watered-down substantial connection test. The question becomes, why would anyone be surprised by this? We have seen example after example of the Liberal government not prioritizing criminal background checks in existing immigration policy.
We have seen examples just this summer of the Liberal government admitting into the country someone who is an alleged ISIS terrorist, granting that person citizenship while he plotted a terrorist attack on Toronto, the biggest city in the country. We have seen an example of the Liberal government granting a student visa in another incident to someone who planned a terrorist attack on New York City. It is on brand for the Liberal government to not be concerned about criminal background checks, and this is yet another instance of where Bill C-71 fails to meet a common-sense standard for appropriate immigration and citizenship policy.
The last point I will make in terms of this standard is about its economic impact. We have asked for a mandatory comprehensive economic impact assessment so that the Liberal government would share with the people of Canada what the impact would be of admitting even more people, adding to population growth, into the country. What would the impact be through Bill C-71 on our hospitals, on our schools, on our child care facilities? What would the impact be on young Canadians who aspire to own a home and are pessimistic about whether that dream will ever come true because we are not building enough houses but we are adding more people?
What would happen to the job market, where we are seeing increases in employment, especially youth employment? Would contributing more people to the country have a negative effect on our young people's ability to get a job and start their careers?
This is what a common-sense approach to immigration and citizenship would be seeking to answer and yet with Bill C-71 we are very far from getting answers to these questions.
Many people hearing my words today may have some questions of their own. How did we get to this point? How did we get to a point where a Liberal government can advance legislation that so clearly does not respond to the context that our country is living in? How did we get to a point where we can walk into the House of Commons and have legislation put in front of us that does not address the specific concerns that many Canadians of all backgrounds have about our current immigration levels?
That is fundamentally the result of what has been a concerted effort to stifle debate and criticism of immigration policy in the country. For a long time now, daring to ask a question about how immigration policy affects Canada, daring to criticize the Liberal status quo on immigration has gotten us smeared, labelled, name-called, fingers pointed in our face, people questioning whether we have compassion or concern for people of all sorts of different backgrounds and cultures. The reality is that they can finger-point all they want. They can do all the name-calling they want. They can do all the smearing they like. The reality is that we have a very specific purpose when we enter the House of Commons, which is to ask the fundamental question of what is best for Canada.
In order to apply that lens to Bill C-71, we would need those three critical pieces of information. Number one, how many people are entering the country? Number two, are there appropriate vetting mechanisms in place and background checks? Number three, what is the impact that increasing the population even further will have on our economy?
By not answering these questions, I have a very hard time understanding how any member in the House can say that this legislation is complete and deserving of a vote. In my view, this has failed every single measure of a logical, reasonable, common-sense immigration and citizenship standard, and that is why we must oppose it.
Last, I will say is this. Whether it is immigration policy, housing, citizenship, whatever it might be, it is imperative that we put the Canadian people first, and I do believe that this is a window into how that is not being met. Every time we vote in here, every time we come in here and debate a matter of legislation or policy, we should have at the top of mind the Canadian taxpayer, the Canadian who voted for us to be here to represent our local communities and represent our interests. The immigration status quo in our country is not doing what is best for Canada. With this legislation we are seeing a very clear example of that.
1272 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 1:53:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this will be the second consecutive Conservative that has spoken in regard to the immigration system as a whole and has tried to give glorification to Stephen Harper, who was a disaster on immigration. What those members are glorifying is the fact that Stephen Harper, for example, cancelled the sponsoring of parents and grandparents. They literally deleted hundreds of thousands of people who were under the process of becoming permanent residents.
If we want to talk about cold immigration policies, we should go back to the Conservative years. What is important is the mixture of immigrants who are coming for permanent residence. We have annual targets that are set. That annual target is going to be coming out again. We will find that there is a great benefit through immigration to Canada. The Conservatives of late are trying to give the impression that it is us versus them. We should be proud of the diversity. Look at the immigration programs—
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is exactly what I am talking about. We have Canadians of all backgrounds concerned about the high immigration levels, the fact that population growth has outpaced jobs, housing and social services. Once again, the Liberals go back to their old and tired playbook, of trying to point fingers, smear and accuse us of not caring about people. I hear from my constituents all the time, constituents from all different racial, cultural and religious backgrounds. They are concerned about the strain that population growth is having on our quality of life. That is why it is important that we ask serious questions about Bill C-71.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to recognize that the NDP-Liberals are advancing a watered-down and weak substantial connection test in Bill C-71. That is how they are rationalizing the continued population growth in our country, despite the fact that Canadians of all backgrounds believe that immigration levels are too high, that the influx of people coming into Canada is too high and that it is putting a constraint on our economy and our social services. Why will they not do what is best for Canada and stop being obsessed with making life harder for everyone in our country?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship introduced Bill C-71. As Canadians, we can never take our rights for granted. We must remain vigilant, especially when the Leader of the Opposition suggests he would use the notwithstanding clause if given the chance. Like the first generation limit introduced by the Conservatives, it is a concrete example of them taking away the rights of Canadians.
Could the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship explain to the House the importance of Bill C-71?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure the member understands the 1977 Citizenship Act was amended in 2009. Actually, those portions would not be amended here; that was done way before.
In 2009, Bill C-37 introduced the first-generation limits. It was supported by all parties. It was supported twice by the Liberal Party of Canada, by the NDP and by the Bloc, and yes, it was a Conservative bill.
It is interesting that the member introduces a novel argument that we would violate international treaty commitments, because that was not an argument made at any point by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.
If it is the case that it would be a violation, why are the first-generation limits in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom not violations of their international treaty commitments?
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad to be here to speak to Bill C-71. We have worked on this issue at many meetings of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I hope we can move the agenda forward and get the legislation passed so we can bring lost Canadians home.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in the House, the day after by-elections in two provinces in Canada. There are some commonalities in these two outcomes. In both ridings, the Conservative vote went up by 50% from the last general election. In addition, as in the election in June, when a Conservative was elected in Toronto—St. Paul's, another safe Liberal riding turned out to be not so safe at the end of the day. Something has to happen for people to start listening to what Canadians are thinking. For those across the aisle who are still pretending there is not a problem, that Canadians do not see a problem in the way the country is being run, I ask them to start paying attention and change their direction.
Canadians see clearly how badly government is being run and how they are being marginalized and divided; they are demanding change as soon as possible. One indication of the pure government incompetence is the way the Liberals have managed immigration. One year ago, I was directed to serve on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It is not a strength I had before, but my office in Calgary Centre has an immigration caseload that is quite large.
Let me take a moment here to thank my staff in Calgary, Shaney Pap and Laura Wlodarczyk, because they do a fantastic job for Canadians, new Canadians, visitors and families that are navigating the maze of Canada's immigration process. It is a complex enough program, and it has been grossly mismanaged over the past four years.
How do we deal with a backlog of 2.6 million files? We should expedite 1.2 million files per year for two years in a system that previously managed about 320,000 files per year. They increased the workforce by 50%, from 9,200 employees in 2020 to 13,685 in 2023. It was a big increase in government, but corners were cut; we see the consequences of that with the recent arrests that are happening in Canada.
Why is the legislation before us? In December 2023, Ontario's Superior Court declared the first-generation cut-off rule in the Citizenship Act unconstitutional. That ruling was a damning indictment of the Liberal-run citizenship department. The court found a staggering 50% error rate in the processing of citizenship applications. This means that half of all applicants were mishandled, leading to abnormally long processing times and widespread malpractice. Such a high error rate is unacceptable and speaks volumes about incompetence and mismanagement in the current administration. That is the rationale for finding the previous law unconstitutional.
I might suggest that fixing the problem would make the whole issue less unconstitutional, but Bill C-71 proposes to grant citizenship to individuals born abroad with at least one Canadian parent having spent 1,095 days in Canada, the equivalent of three years. At the same time, it fails to require these days to be consecutive and lacks provisions for criminal record checks. This approach is deeply flawed and undermines the very essence of what it means to be a Canadian citizen.
Citizenship is not just a legal status. It is a commitment to our values, our laws and our way of life. By lowering the standards for obtaining citizenship, the NDP-Liberals are devaluing this precious status and putting our national security at risk. The world looks at a Canadian passport as being a very important document.
I forgot to mention at the beginning of my speech that I am splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Thornhill.
Let us compare Canada's rules with rules around the world. The requirement is three years in Canada, according to the proposed bill, and five years in most other democracies. This would be five years of real connection, not just 1,095 days sporadically spread out over a quarter century of a person's life. Bill C-71 would remove the 2009 limit that only allows citizenship for the first generation born abroad.
Under the bill, children born abroad to a Canadian parent, even if the parent was also born abroad, can gain citizenship as long as the parent meets a weak substantial connection test. The parent only needs to show 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada at any point in their life. Since the days do not need to be consecutive, people from multiple generations living abroad, with limited and sporadic ties to Canada, can still claim citizenship for their children. This weakens the substantial connection requirement and risks creating a class of citizens with minimal ties to this country.
Moreover, the government has not provided any analysis of how many new Canadians will be created by Bill C-71. Despite the potential for tens of thousands of new applicants, especially with the removal of the first-generation limit, the Liberals have failed to disclose how many people will gain citizenship through the legislation. This lack of transparency, a common thread, is concerning and prevents us from fully understanding the impact of the proposed bill. Bill C-71 would add thousands of new applications to an already overburdened system.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is already struggling with delays and errors in processing citizenship applications. Adding a significant volume of new applications from abroad would overwhelm the department, exacerbating the existing backlogs. This would lead to an even longer processing time and further erode trust in our citizenship process. The bill does not require individuals granted citizenship to undergo criminal background checks. This poses a potential security risk and undermines Canada's standards of who can become a citizen. Ensuring that new citizens are of good character and pose no threat to our society is a common-sense measure that should not be overlooked.
We do support parts of the bill. While we have significant concerns, there are aspects that we support. Conservatives support the restoration of citizenship to individuals who lost it because of non-application or rejected applications under section 8 of the former Citizenship Act . This primarily includes people born between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, who were affected by the old rule that required them to apply to retain their citizenship before turning 28 years old. This was part of the original content of Senator Yonah Martin's Senate public bill, Bill S-245, which aimed to address these issues more directly.
We also support the extension of equal treatment to adopted children born abroad. Under the proposed changes, adopted children would be treated the same as biological children of Canadian citizens for the purposes of passing on citizenship. This was supported by Conservative members during the Bill S-245 clause-by-clause committee review, and it is consistent with our party's long-standing position on equal treatment for adopted children.
Conservatives are committed to fixing the broken citizenship system that the Liberals have neglected. We will enforce a more robust substantial connection requirement, streamline processes and address backlogs to ensure timely handling of citizenship applications.
Our approach will restore integrity and trust in the system, ensuring that Canadian citizenship remains a privilege earned through genuine connection and commitment to our great nation. After nine years under the government, Canadians have endured enough chaos and incompetence. It is time for a change. Only common-sense Conservatives will put an end to the Prime Minister's reckless mismanagement and fix our broken immigration and citizenship process. We will restore integrity, trust and efficiency to it, ensuring that Canadian citizenship remains a privilege earned through genuine connection and commitment to this great nation.
1283 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 5:58:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that actions speak louder than words, so let us talk about actions here. Let us talk about how we are actually dealing with Canadians. Let us talk about the substantive test that made this ruling unconstitutional. That was the action of the Liberal government, which has been unable to deliver any efficiency in getting people through the immigration process.
A 50% failure rate because of mistakes is what makes this unconstitutional. That should be fixed forthwith. That would address the ruling of unconstitutionality that came with this.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 6:00:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is exactly one of the concerns we have. How many people are we dealing with this actual opening up of the immigration system in Canada? We have asked the question of the minister. We have asked the question of the department. Nobody knows. So there is—
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 6:10:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect there is a little of that. I suspect there is a bit of chaos on the other side after losing two stronghold seats. The Liberals' record is being repudiated not only on immigration but on housing and everything else. They have probably heard about it.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/17/24 6:14:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I cannot answer questions on behalf of their legislative agenda, because I have failed to understand it from the very beginning. The questions that we have asked, though, are real questions that would lead us to making better decisions about laws in this country.
As a baseline, I think Canadians at home watching this right now would want to know exactly how many people this bill would affect. The Liberals do not have a good record on our immigration system. They do not have a good record on security checks, certainly not with what has been found out in the last couple of weeks. I think Canadians ought to know those answers before they blindly support legislation.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
