SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Sep/17/24 3:18:29 p.m.
Watch

The House will now proceed to tributes in memory of our former colleague, the late Hon. Chuck Strahl. Colleagues, it is an honour to rise to pay tribute to our former colleague, the Hon. Chuck Strahl. He was a force of nature. The historic 1993 election brought winds of change from Canada's west to this place, and with them came Chuck Strahl with his tall stature, his booming voice and his inimitable work ethic. He made friends everywhere he went and found common ground through intelligence, kindness and, of course, his trademark sense of humour.

97 words

The Speaker

Sep/17/24 3:19:10 p.m.
Watch

He was named Deputy Speaker of the House and Chair of Committees of the Whole in October 2004. In that role, he earned the respect of all parliamentary groups and the esteem of Speaker Milliken and all the table officers who had the privilege of working with him every day. As a member of Parliament, he served the people of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, and before that, Fraser Valley, for 18 years, through six consecutive elections. He was guided more by principles and by faith than by politics. Those qualities made him an extraordinary leader who never shied away from what he knew to be right, what he knew to be just. He served many years in cabinet and was notably Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians. He was by the side of the former prime minister, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, during the historic statement of apology to former students of Indian residential schools in the House of Commons on June 11, 2008. His love of Canada and his dedication to his constituents came second only to his devotion to his wife, Deb, and his children. He was also a man of deep faith who was always guided by his love and trust in God. He stayed so strong for so many years after being diagnosed with cancer. His determination and courage in the face of adversity says so much about his love of family, his devotion to Canada and his dedication to public service. A man like Chuck Strahl inspires, and we have only to see his legacy live on in his son, the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope, who serves so ably in this place. Chuck Strahl left us too soon, but he will always be remembered as an exemplary Canadian and a wonderful parliamentarian who had a lasting impact. I extend my deepest condolences to Mrs. Strahl, his wife of almost 50 years, our esteemed colleague from Chilliwack—Hope, his other children, grandchildren and his many friends.

348 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Sep/17/24 3:21:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative caucus, I would like to thank you for those very kind words and a fitting tribute to a man who held a position in the Speakership during part of his tenure here. This is a difficult task, to try to sum up in just a few minutes the impact that a man like Chuck Strahl had on Parliament, on politics and on not only the Conservative Party but the Conservative movement as a broader whole. However, it is truly an honour for me to do that, as imperfectly as I may. We all know Chuck's official biography, of course. He was first elected to Parliament in 1993 and re-elected another five times. Over his 18 years as an MP, he served as a third party critic, a whip, a House leader for the official opposition, a minister of the Crown and a Deputy Speaker. Chuck knew that if a position he filled was important, it was first and foremost a reflection of the awesome responsibility of the position. There is such a difference between a man of great integrity and others who view titles and positions as ways to aggrandize themselves and make it a reflection of the individual rather than the position. Chuck, despite the high offices, never lost touch with his roots. He was a logger from the B.C. interior. He brought a healthy dose of common sense to public life. Speaking of logging, Chuck was a builder. I would often look with great envy at the pictures the current member for Chilliwack—Hope would send me of the latest project he and his father were working on around the house. Being someone who was not gifted with those types of abilities, I would always feel great awe and admiration that Chuck was able to do that. However, he did not just build things out of wood and metal. He helped build a movement. Chuck was one of the major architects of the wonderful experience that was the Reform Party of Canada. Even though he was from B.C., he helped light that prairie fire that kept burning and spread eastward to help give Canadians hope that power in Canada could one day truly be restored to the people and out of the hands of the elites who had caused so much damage at the time. We think today, in our modern lives as members of Parliament, about what that was like back then. We all know how hard it is sometimes to organize events, but we have wonderful tools like texting and social media. We can post things on a website. Chuck and the Reform Party team were able to pack church basements, town halls and legions with hundreds and hundreds of people just by using the telephone, maybe some radio messages and those famous newsletters we all got through fax machines. It was incredible. It speaks perhaps not so much to their technological prowess, or the organizational abilities of people like Chuck, but of the message they were carrying and the hope they were giving to Canadians in every corner of the country. Chuck was a strong family man, a gifted communicator and a natural-born leader who projected honour, integrity and faithfulness in all that he did. We could chat with Chuck for hours and he would rarely brag about any of his political achievements or the offices that he filled. Instead, he was most likely to brag about his province, his community or, most often, his family. We could tell what motivated Chuck just by talking to him for a few minutes. Chuck inspired so many young members of our movement to take up the fight. He was a happy warrior. It was easy to follow someone like Chuck because he did it with a smile on his face, motivated more by hope and what was possible than by what riled him up. However, if we ever did rile him up, we would know about it. During my first Parliament, Chuck was the Deputy Speaker. I was a new MP at the age of 25. Let me say that Chuck's deep, baritone voice would leave us in no doubt if we ever found ourselves on the wrong side of the chair. It was wonderful to work with him in his next role, as minister of agriculture, as he started the process to give western Canadian farmers the freedom to market their own agricultural products. For those of us who may have come to politics a little later, it is sometimes hard to imagine that for decades, western Canadian farmers had no control of the product of their summers' worth of labour. Instead, they had to trust the government to do that for them. However, Chuck, as was long a part of his mandate, helped lay the groundwork for what would eventually be the successful abolition of the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. Chuck played a pivotal role as minister of Indian affairs, as it was called then, building the path for Stephen Harper's momentous 2008 apology to former students of Indian residential schools. While there has been the outpouring of messages of support and condolences that we would expect from many people in politics, the tributes from first nations communities across the country are, I know, also very meaningful to the Strahl family, as a reflection of the sincere and deep relationship that Chuck made with the people with whom he worked so hard to address their issues. As minister of transport and infrastructure, Chuck played the role of builder once again, as he was instrumental in delivering much of Canada's economic action plan. A lot of Canada's recent infrastructure may well have a link back to Chuck the road builder. He leaves behind Deb, his loving wife of almost 50 years, and four children, Karina, Loni, Kyla and the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope, someone who, as all of us know, has inherited that deep baritone voice. When we talk about integrity, I think it is important to think about what that meant for Chuck. Chuck would often say that sometimes politics can get complicated because we make it overly complicated, and often what we need to do is just take a step back and think about our first principles: why we got into it in the first place or what we told our constituents at the first meeting, maybe when we were running for the nomination, or on our first election night. Ottawa can twist and turn things. The bubble is real, and it can affect how we look at things. Chuck would always be able to slice through all that, simplify the complicated and bring it right back to what it would mean for the Canadian people. That shone through every single thing Chuck did. I know we are all going to miss him, those of us who were wise enough to seek his counsel. Having Chuck on speed dial or as a contact was a smart thing to do for anybody in a leadership position. Chuck was very kind to chair my campaign when I was running for the leadership of the party. I would often call him for advice or wisdom or to run things by him. There was great comfort in knowing that I had someone like that in my life, almost that I could offload some of the stress or overthinking on various issues. Once again, my deepest sympathies and condolences go to Deb, Karina, Loni, and Kyla. I am going to break protocol here; Mark, I give our very deepest condolences and best wishes to your family as you recover from this tremendous loss.

1295 words

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.)

Sep/17/24 3:31:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to pay tribute to my old colleague the hon. Chuck Strahl. I am deeply saddened by his passing. Although I sat across the aisle from him for 18 years, I always had a deep respect and admiration for him. That is really the beauty of this place. There is a time for lively debate and different opinions, but we are all here to represent our constituents back home, and Chuck understood that as well as anyone else. In addition to serving as a member of Parliament from 1993 to 2011, he also served as minister of agriculture, minister of Indian and northern development and minister of transport. These jobs can often be challenging, but he stepped up in service to his country, and I thank him so much for that. Being Minister of Agriculture myself, I know full well what the job entails. Serving our farmers, producers and ranchers has been one of the greatest honours of my life, and I am sure Chuck felt the same way. I probably should not say this, but I think Chuck would understand and maybe chuckle a bit. Back in 2010, Chuck was serving as minister of transport, and as other previous and probably current ministers of transport know, I was a bit of a thorn in his side. I was grilling him one day in the House in question period about the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry service, which is vitally important to my riding. Eventually he said, “I know the member has asked this question every year for about 10 or 12 years now”, which was certainly true. Even though Chuck was from far on the other side of the country, and the ferry on the eastern end of Prince Edward Island was probably not one of his top priorities, he always showed a willingness to work with me on that issue and many other issues. He showed me and my constituents a great deal of respect, and I am deeply grateful for that. We were from different parties, but Chuck always had time for my concerns, and I truly believe that is how ministers and members of Parliament should act. We all want what is best for our constituents and Canadians. We may disagree on how we deliver that, but the country is best served when we all communicate and work together on things. I cannot help but look across the aisle and see Chuck's son, the member for Chilliwack—Hope. I have been in this place for quite a while, and it is quite something to be able to say that I have served with him and with Chuck. I am sure that Chuck was so deeply proud of his son, my hon. colleague, for being his successor. What a great honour the member has brought to his father. I might just break the rules here a little bit, but to the member for Chilliwack—Hope, Mark, I want to offer my sincerest condolences. It is very difficult. Chuck's wife, Deb; his other children, Karina, Loni and Kyla; and the rest of his family and friends are all in our thoughts. Losing a loved one is never easy, but I hope that Mark's faith, which I am sure was inherited from his father, brings him comfort in the days ahead. I truly appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House to honour my old friend Chuck Strahl. His tremendous service to his constituents, province and country will never be forgotten.

599 words

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Montarville, BQ)

Sep/17/24 3:36:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, who among us can claim to have run against the devil himself? This was one of the exploits of the Hon. Chuck Strahl, a former Conservative cabinet minister who died of cancer on August 13 at just 67 years of age. In the 1997 election, Chuck really did face off with a man by the name of Sa Tan. He had a gift for telling this anecdote in a humorous way, although it did make him wonder whether it was possible to run for office in Canada under a pseudonym. Chuck Strahl proudly represented Chilliwack and the Fraser Valley region in the House for nearly two decades, from his first election in 1993 until 2011. After starting his career in forestry and business, he made his mark in politics. He served in various capacities in the House before becoming a minister, taking on the agriculture, indigenous affairs and transport portfolios. He was, without a doubt, one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's most trusted advisers. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to thank Chuck Strahl for his years of public service. I want to offer my deepest condolences to the woman with whom he shared his life for almost 50 years, as well as to his three daughters and 13 grandchildren. It is with the utmost empathy that I also extend my condolences to his worthy successor in the riding of Chilliwack—Hope, his favourite MP, his son Mark, who helps to keep the memory of his wonderful father alive through his presence in the House. Although he decided not to run for office again in 2011, Chuck Strahl never really left politics. People continued to turn to him for advice. In an open letter to The Globe and Mail in 2011, he shared his advice with his son and successor. Although this public message was meant to be personal, every man and woman working in politics would be well advised to learn from it. In that letter, he emphasized the importance of keeping one's word and listening to one's voters, to local residents. He believed that our constituents are always our best advisers. He also advocated solidarity. Even when debates become heated and potentially divide political families, it is essential that colleagues know they can always count on each other. Above all, he stressed the importance of family, because outside the political arena, family is our main anchor. Though the brouhaha of politics all too often requires us to live at a frantic pace, it is important that we not forget ourselves and, above all, that we never forget our loved ones. This is sound advice that is still as relevant today as it was then, and it speaks volumes about Chuck Strahl as a politician and as a family man, as well as the values that he cherished and that live on today in people like his son in the House and his family outside the House. I recognize the man I worked closely with and had the great pleasure of working with when we both served as chief whip of our respective political parties. I will always remember him as an affable, funny, reliable and efficient man, a man who fought tooth and nail for the values he held dear and the ideas he put forward, but always in a respectful manner. When he left politics for health reasons, I admit that I was worried about him. Then, as time passed and I saw him make occasional public appearances, I came to believe—wrongly, obviously—that he was doing quite well. His passing came as a shock to me and to many of his former colleagues and constituents. I cannot imagine how tough it must have been for his loved ones, for whom I have enormous sympathy. I would like to think that Chuck will continue to look down on us and inspire us with his wise counsel. I am positive he is up there now, and for good reason, because did he not beat the devil himself in an election? Thank you for everything, Chuck, my dear friend. Now try to get some rest, because you have earned it.

717 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Sep/17/24 3:41:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my New Democratic colleagues to remember the late Chuck Strahl, whom I served with for several years. Let me begin by extending my deepest condolences to the member for Chilliwack—Hope and also to the family and friends of Chuck Strahl. We thank them for sharing him with this place, with our Canada. We are better for it. Mr. Strahl's legacy is well known. First elected as a member of the Reform Party, Mr. Strahl was also a member of the Canadian Alliance. He was also leader of the Democratic Representative Caucus and then a cabinet minister in the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. Mr. Strahl also served as deputy speaker and chair of the committee of the whole. That is quite a record for political parties. The fact that Mr. Strahl was elected and served under all these political affiliations is a real testament to his effectiveness as a member of Parliament and as a person who made contributions in the chamber every single day. I also wish to point out that during his time as minister of Indian affairs and northern development, he helped negotiate the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement among the first nations, Canada and B.C., which outlines the nation's jurisdiction, doing something that had not been done before. It is important to note that Mr. Strahl served in various cabinet portfolios after he was diagnosed with lung cancer as a result of his exposure to asbestos many years prior. Upon announcing his diagnosis, Mr. Strahl said, “Cancer is a serious disease, but those of us diagnosed with cancer don't want to be rushed off the playing field and sidelined any too soon”, and he did that every day as he worked here. Sadly, he lost his fight with cancer last month, but he is respected in the chamber to this day by all political opponents. He was actually appointed as a Trudeau mentor in 2012 and joined the Trudeau Foundation board of directors in 2014, until stepping down in November of 2016. Let me end by quoting a cabinet colleague of his, someone I also served with, John Baird, who said Strahl was “among the most honourable, decent (and) respectable people I have ever met,” and that his “good nature” and “infectious humour” would be missed. I could not agree more. I thank the Strahl family very much for sharing Chuck with all of us for Canada.

423 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Sep/17/24 3:44:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for all the tributes that have already been made. Your own words were profoundly moving. It is in this place, in moments like these, that we are united with exactly the same sense of shared humanity in paying tribute to someone we universally loved and admired. I know Chuck Strahl to have been, throughout his life, an honest man, doing an honest day's work every single day. His life is a profile in faith and courage. I will never forget how young he was. I think of it now and just checked the dates; he was only 48 years old when he told the world he had mesothelioma, as the hon. member for Windsor West just mentioned, because of an exposure to asbestos. People did not think about its being in the brake lines of the vehicles when he was doing honest work in the forest industry. All those years later, he would be given a sentence from his doctor that would have stopped many people. It did not stop him. He was told at only 48 years old that he had a lung cancer that would kill him. He did not stop. He did not feel sorry for himself. He ran again. He got re-elected in 2006. We have heard from so many members about his achievements in cabinet and his hard work, that I will not repeat them. However, we know that by 2011, he announced he would not run again. That is when I was elected, after he was not here anymore, but we had become friends before that happened. Whenever I would run into him, as we do, those of us who live in B.C. and travel to Ottawa, I would always tell him that he must be so proud of the member for Chilliwack—Hope, and he would always burst with pride. He was so proud. I know how much he loved all of his kids. He always spoke also of Karina, Loni, Kyla and his grandchildren. I thank God he defied the odds to live to the age of 67 to see so many of them. The thing is that I am still angry. I am still angry that this country produced a product that was the single biggest occupational killer, killing hundreds of thousands of people around the world, and this year taking Chuck Strahl from us. I want to salute his profile and courage, because it took courage. He resigned from Parliament. He did not have to put himself out there. He went on national television to say that it was time to say that chrysotile asbestos kills, time to say it out loud and time for Canada to do the right thing. With that, even as Chuck Strahl left politics, he saved lives around the world by speaking truth to power. God bless him. We know he is with a heavenly host. We know that the Lord he loved has welcomed him home. As one of his many colleagues who admired him, I just want to offer my deep thanks. It is people like Chuck who make this place decent. I thank him, and I thank all his family with much love and deepest sympathy.

543 words

Mr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope, CPC)

Sep/17/24 3:49:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my mom, my sisters and our entire family, I want to thank the members of the House of Commons for the opportunity to pay tribute to our dad, Chuck Strahl, a man who held this place in such high regard. These words have honoured him, and we will treasure them forever. It is an odd thing to have to grieve in public, and our family wrestled with how to best honour Dad while protecting some privacy during this most difficult time for us, but we have been overwhelmed by the love and support that we have received from so many people from right across the country, the people Dad was able to connect with because of his decision to be a servant leader in this place. We received calls and notes from former prime ministers, the current Prime Minister and the future prime minister, all of whom were generous and kind in their comments about our dad. We were touched by the public tributes from his former colleagues, staff and public servants. I thank them all. At Dad's funeral, we focused on the things that were most important to him in his life, which were his personal Christian faith, his family and his many meaningful friendships. I do want to focus on his impact in politics in my brief remarks here today. Dad was first elected in 1993 at 36 years old, after a successful career in the logging industry. Eighteen years and six elections later, he left as a respected minister of the Crown, having served as minister of agriculture, of Indian and northern affairs, and of transport. I am not sure how many loggers have served in the House or served in the cabinet, but whether it was in the boardroom or in the bush, Dad was respected for doing the job that needed to be done while respecting those he worked with along the way. He was a movement Conservative, a proud Reformer, who demanded better than the status quo from the old-line parties that had taken the west for granted. He was a builder who took difficult but principled stands and who risked his own career for the good of the movement and the country. He paved the way for Stephen Harper to become the leader of the Canadian Alliance and played a key role in bringing the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative parties back together to form the new Conservative Party of Canada, a party that would go on to form a new government just a few years later. Appointed to cabinet in 2006, his leadership was critical in laying the groundwork to deliver marketing choice for prairie grain farmers. In 2008, his work with indigenous leaders and communities helped to bring forward the statement of apology to former students of Indian residential schools here in the House of Commons and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that was created afterward. He participated in many sharing circles during that time and was profoundly moved by that experience. These are just a couple of highlights among many that have been shared in the days since his passing. While many politicians operate in a transactional way, Dad believed in the power of relationships. He created, nurtured and protected them in his personal and professional life. As his cousin said in the days following his death, if one did not like Chuck Strahl, that meant one did not know Chuck Strahl. That was true. He was liked by political friends and foes alike, and he never took himself too seriously. He had a way of connecting with people that should be the envy of politicians everywhere. People felt like they knew Dad, even if they had only had one chance encounter or read his regular newspaper columns, where he always told a personal story and related it back to what was happening here in Ottawa. Even after he became a minister, he never forgot that his primary job was to be his riding's voice in Ottawa, not the other way around. He brought the common sense of the common people to the House of Commons. His constituents loved him for it and he loved them back. He loved his country, and he wore that love on his sleeve. Dad came to Ottawa with a vow that no matter how long his political career was, his family, his faith and his friendships would remain intact. He left Ottawa with a stronger family and a stronger faith. He had not only maintained his existing friendships but also created many new ones during his time here. We should all be so lucky to be able to say the same thing. Our dad was a man of honour, integrity and principle. Canada is better for his service and is diminished by his loss. On behalf of my family, I thank my colleagues for honouring him here today. God bless them all, and God bless Canada.

831 words

The Speaker

Sep/17/24 3:55:28 p.m.
Watch

It being 3:55, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Call in the members.

39 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/17/24 4:24:12 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried. I wish to inform the House that because of tributes and the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 48 minutes. As mentioned in the Speaker's statement of Monday, September 16, the volume of earpieces will now be reset. Members using their earpiece at this time will have to adjust the volume. I thank them for paying particular attention to the sound level.

71 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.)

Sep/17/24 4:25:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-71 Bill C-37 Bill C-24

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for London West. It is a pleasure to rise for the first time in this House after the summer recess to represent the good people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. It is especially important today because we are debating Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. It is very important that we start our session with this legislation because it strikes right at the core of what it means to be Canadian or, rather, how. What do Mary Pickford, Leslie Nielsen, Ricky Gervais, Jimi Hendrix, Glenn Ford and Roméo Dallaire all have in common? These folks are well known as eminent Canadians, but they are also what are known as lost Canadians. Lost Canadians are individuals who were born in Canada or believed they were Canadian citizens but who lost or never acquired citizenship due to certain provisions in our outdated and confusing citizenship legislation. For instance, first-generation Canadians born abroad are unable to confer citizenship to their children, and those born to a first-generation Canadian abroad automatically lose their citizenship at the age of 28 due to a cruel and unconstitutional law passed by the Harper Conservative government. The legislation we are debating today would fix these issues by amending the Citizenship Act to extend access to citizenship to descent beyond the first generation. Once passed, Bill C-71 will automatically confer citizenship by descent to all those born abroad to Canadian parents before the coming-into-force date of the legislation. For those born after the coming-into-force date, there would be a new framework governing citizenship where citizenship by descent can be passed on beyond the first generation if a Canadian parent is present in Canada for 195 days straight, in what is being called the substantial connection test. Bill C-71 would also allow people born abroad and adopted by a Canadian citizen who was born abroad to have a pathway to citizenship by way of a grant of citizenship. This different process is required because to comply with the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which seeks to protect the child's best interest and prevent abuses such as the abduction, sale and trafficking of children, an assessment is necessary to ensure that an adoption complies with international adoption requirements. Many of those currently affected by this issue are, in fact, children who are unable to access Canadian citizenship and the benefits that we so often take for granted, such as access to universal health care and education. The consequences these children face as a result of this outdated legislation are unacceptable. Take, for instance, the story of 12-year-old Zach Hirschfeld. He was born in Mexico to his Canadian father Bert, who was born in the United States and later naturalized to become a Canadian citizen. At the time, Zach's Canadian grandmother could not confer citizenship to Zach's father due to the discrimination against women that remains embedded in the Citizenship Act, which I will get to later in my speech. Last year, Zach applied for proof of citizenship and was denied. As a naturalized Canadian, Bert was deemed to be born in Canada and thus could confer citizenship to his son, but this was later rescinded by Conservative Bill C-37 when it became law. Under Bill C-37, Conservatives took away the right for Canadians born abroad to pass on citizenship to their children. This law not only separated families, but created an undemocratic tiered system of citizenship and a new class of Canadians. Today, Zach does not have citizenship in Mexico or Canada, and there is a legitimate question of him being stateless. Zach's father tragically died during COVID and his family in Vancouver wants him to live with them. The problem is that Zach has no legal status in Canada and thus cannot enrol in school, get medical coverage or get a social insurance number. To access these things, he needs to become a Canadian citizen. Under Bill C-71, he would. To be clear, this is not an issue of immigration, as some members of the opposition claim. This is an issue of citizenship. As we can see from Zach's story, it is also an issue of equality and women's rights. Prior to 1977, women could not confer citizenship on their children. Instead, children were seen as property of the father if they were born in wedlock, and property of the mother if born out of wedlock. This inequality has lasting impacts on new generations of Canadians born abroad. Bill C-71 would correct this by acknowledging the rights of second-generation Canadians born abroad to obtain citizenship, including descendants of women who previously could not confer citizenship due to these inequalities. This is not only the right thing to do; it is also necessary in order to make sure the legislation is compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-71 would also bring our laws into compliance with international standards set by the United Nations. Currently our legislation violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that all children have a right to education. It violates the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, which outlines the measures countries must take to provide a nationality to those who are stateless. It also violates the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. While the bill is a step in the right direction, there is more work that needs to be done to ensure that citizenship remains protected. However, we know that not all parties in the House share this view. With the passage of Bill C-37 in 2009, the Conservatives demonstrated their willingness to strip Canadians of their rights and identity. In 2014, the Conservatives also passed Bill C-24, which allowed them to revoke the citizenship of dual citizens. This created an entire category of second-class citizens whose status as Canadians is insecure. Further, we know that the Leader of the Opposition's flagship bill as the minister of democratic reform was to make it harder for indigenous people, youth and less affluent people to vote. We already know that the Conservatives would not care about being out of compliance with international law, because they have openly committed to withdrawing from the United Nations. Even more concerning is that the leader of the Conservative Party has committed to ignoring charter-protected rights and freedoms by invoking the notwithstanding clause. We would not be able to rely on the courts to protect us from the Conservatives' revoking citizenship, which can be changed on a whim. Let us think of what those whims may be, because we know the tried-and-true playbook that the Conservatives use to ostracize minority groups to create fear in the population of people they do not know, to rally support. We know this is an effective method, but that is why we should be concerned to see the Conservative leader cozying up to white national groups, and it even filters into the anti-trans policy. The complete and utter silence of the Conservatives on the plight of Palestinians over the last year has been deafening. How safe would someone feel in protesting in support of the Palestinian cause under a Conservative government? We already saw the Conservatives label environmentalists as a violent threat to Canada's security, pass legislation to spy on environmental NGOs and weaponize the Canada Revenue Agency to silence awareness that these groups were raising about the impact of fossil fuels. How safe would someone feel speaking out about the impacts of climate change? How safe would someone feel about their Canadian citizenship? The answer is that they would probably feel a lot safer in an insurrection to overthrow the government because they might get brought coffee and donuts. Therefore, I believe that citizenship should be enshrined as a right rather than a revocable privilege, so that we can protect all Canadians, whether dual citizen or not, born in or out of wedlock, adopted or not, from the Conservatives or any future government, from manipulating citizenship laws to exclude those they do not agree with. This risks eroding our democratic principles and turning citizenship into a privilege rather than a fundamental human right. There also remain questions regarding when citizenship in Canada began. For many, it is assumed it began with the introduction of the Citizenship Act in 1947. However, that would mean that thousands of Canadian servicemen and women who died in the First World War and the Second World War would not be technically considered Canadian citizens. This ambiguity goes beyond just legal definitions; it influences how we remember our history and those who contributed to it. Citizenship provides us with a sense of duty and belonging to the country we all are proud to call home. With the passage of Bill C-71, the Citizenship Act would have laws that are equally enforced and consistent with international human rights principles for the first time in Canadian history. It would grant citizenship to individuals like Zach, for whom there is genuine fear they may become stateless. It is an opportunity for us to modernize our citizenship legislation to ensure that those who rightfully deserve to be Canadian citizens do not get left behind. I hope all members of the House will support the legislation. I want to give a special shout-out to Don Chapman, a constituent of mine in Gibsons who has worked so hard to move the legislation forward through the courts, and today through legislation we are debating.

1636 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Sep/17/24 4:35:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-37

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

Mr. Patrick Weiler

Sep/17/24 4:36:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Canada being in compliance with international law and we are talking about the rights of people who deserve to be Canadian. Whether people are born abroad first generation or second generation, if they have a substantial connection to Canada they should be Canadian citizens. The legislation that would have been debated back in 2009 far precedes my time in the House, but I mention it was legislation brought forward by the Conservatives that was done as an all-or-nothing measure. Today we are correcting the major damage the Conservatives did to our citizenship legislation, and that is what is important.

108 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

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

Citizenship

Mr. Patrick Weiler

Sep/17/24 4:38:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a good answer as to why it took an Ontario Superior Court decision. However, I do know that it is high time these things were done. The act is discriminatory, and the bill we are debating today will help improve the situation. We need to do more. I hope that next time something needs to change, we will not wait to go to court and for judges to tell us to take action. We have to do the right thing, and we can do it here, as parliamentarians.

94 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Sep/17/24 4:39:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-37

Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate the shout-out that was given to Don Chapman. As I mentioned today and yesterday, I came to know Don Chapman when I worked for Andrew Telegdi, the former member of Parliament for Waterloo. I also really appreciated the member's insights at countering this false narrative by the Conservatives regarding Bill C-37, who then are intentionally choosing to forget that former prime minister Stephen Harper basically gave an ultimatum to members to either take this step that lost Canadians were fighting for or none of it would happen. People like Don Chapman were leading the charge to ask for this step to at least be taken, because we were never going to get the Conservatives to truly be inclusive. They are the most uninclusive party possible. My question to the member is in regard to the Ontario court ruling and the fact that this legislation would make Canadian citizenship more equal, especially when it comes to kids being adopted or who are born abroad. I would like to hear what the member thinks the benefits are of having legislation that would be constitutional. What kind of value does that have when it comes to Canadians and the pride we share?

208 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler

Sep/17/24 4:40:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one thing Canadians are very proud of is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is something that we hold up. Any law that we pass that is unconstitutional I think is a strike right at the core of what it means to be Canadian. Part of that as well is being inclusive: respecting people, being a welcoming society. I think that is what this legislation helps move us closer toward. The reason we are here is because so many people have fought for decades and hundreds of years to bring us here, so I want to salute all the hard work by folks who have done that.

110 words

Mr. Brendan Hanley (Yukon, Lib.)

Sep/17/24 4:41:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-245 Bill C-71

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to rise and speak to Bill C-71. This bill proposes to amend Canada's Citizenship Act and restore citizenship to those individuals who lost it due to previous unconstitutional legislative amendments. I was compelled to participate in this debate after hearing from some of my constituents on this matter. However, I was struck by recent comments made by the Conservative member for Edmonton Manning. The member mentioned knocking on doors and talking to Canadians, saying that the changes put forward by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship today, changes that the courts have clearly indicated are needed, are just making more Canadians of convenience and that this would grant citizenship to tourists. I can tell members that I have heard the contrary from constituents. It was just a few months ago while I was door-knocking in one of our growing neighbourhoods in Whitehorse, Whistle Bend, that I had a great conversation with a woman who had lived in Canada for years. Whitehorse is her home, and Canada is her home. However, she is one of our lost Canadians, and not having citizenship for her country matters greatly to her. She was glad to hear that this bill we are considering today is in the House and that it would bring her a step closer to being a citizen in a country that she had lived in for so long, that she loves and where she will spend the remainder of her days. I want to thank this constituent for sharing her story with me. She pressed us to help neighbours, colleagues and families who are lost Canadians. I thank her. I will do my part to support this bill, which will help lost Canadians. I also thank her for introducing me to her very cute dog, Pete. Another constituent of mine has shared with me about a family member of theirs. This family member was born outside of Canada while their parents lived abroad working for a non-profit organization. Their dedication to service obviously ran in the family. This individual who was born abroad chose, as an adult decades later, to go into much similar work and now lives abroad working for a Canadian registered not-for-profit organization. This individual now has children while working abroad. A few years after that first child was born, they applied for their child's citizenship and passport, but they were denied based on the young child being from the second generation born outside of Canada. My constituent's cousin asked why his children being punished with refusal of citizenship due to the service of their parents and grandparents in a not-for-profit organization. There are special considerations for members of the Canadian military but not for citizens in other areas of service. Here is what I heard: “Not only does it hurt to know that my kids are not citizens, but it also calls into question how I end up feeling about my own Canadian citizenship. I feel very much like a second-class citizen as a result. Although I do not live in Canada, I do feel very much Canadian. I would love to be able to give that gift to my children.” Families like those of my constituent, and the constituent I spoke with directly a while ago who is personally one of those lost Canadians, have been put into very difficult situations following the 2009 law passed by the last Conservative government. While the Conservative opposition filibustered a bill for 30 hours, a bill put forward by one of their Conservative senators, it is my hope that this new bill can bring some relief and justice to these families placed in such awkward and hurtful situations. Many people around the world seek to come to Canada and become Canadian citizens. In my opinion, Canada is the best country in the world, and it is clear that it is the top choice for newcomers to begin the next chapter of their lives. Canada is a country that is welcoming, diverse and inclusive. I think I can speak for all of us when I say that we are proud to be Canadians, whether we were born here and raised here or came to this country, like me, going through the process of making it our home. In 2009, Canada's Citizenship Act was amended to resolve this issue and simplify the rules around citizenship. The 2009 amendments repealed the requirement to act in order to retain citizenship, but at the same time, the Harper Conservatives fundamentally changed citizenship by descent by introducing a harmful and unconstitutional first-generation limit. Individuals born outside of Canada in the second generation or a subsequent generation were no longer able to inherit citizenship and could only become Canadians through the naturalization process, which is by applying and coming to Canada, becoming a permanent resident and passing our citizenship test. It is deeply offensive to be asking someone who is rightfully Canadian to immigrate to their own country. The 2009 changes also ensured that anyone who was born after the 1977 legislation but who had not yet turned 28 when these changes took place was allowed to maintain their status and remain Canadian. At the same time, in 2009 and then again in 2015, the government introduced amendments to the Citizenship Act to restore citizenship to groups of people who lost citizenship or who never became citizens in the first place because of rules in the first Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, which we now recognize as outdated. The vast majority of lost Canadians were remedied by legislative amendments in 2009 and 2015. Since 2009, nearly 20,000 individuals have come forward and been issued proof of Canadian citizenship related to these amendments to the Act. In December 2023, a court decision required that the Citizenship Act be revisited once more. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined that the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit on citizenship by descent was unconstitutional on both equality and mobility rights. It was clear during the study at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill S-245 that there is still a cohort of people remaining who refer to themselves as lost Canadians. These are people, of course, who were born outside Canada in the second or subsequent generations and who lost their citizenship before 2009 because of the now repealed rules that required them to take steps to retain their Canadian citizenship before their 28th birthday. This cohort of lost Canadians is limited to a group of people who were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent between February 1977 and April 1981, did not take steps to retain their citizenship before turning 28, and were the second or later generation born outside the country. Since Bill S-245 went through a number of changes and improvements using feedback from experts and those affected, it made sense to incorporate some of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's suggested changes into the new legislation. Today's legislation builds and improves on the work done in Bill S-245. It would restore and provide citizenship for groups impacted up to the date of the legislation coming into the force of law. It would also create new rules for citizenship by descent from the legislation's start date, ensuring a fair and inclusive Citizenship Act going forward. This legislation offers the best solution for a welcoming and inclusive future. It would restore citizenship to those who might otherwise have lost it, and it would address the concerns from Parliament and the Ontario Superior Court with the Harper Conservatives' exclusionary legislative amendments from 2009. I hope we can all continue to work together to quickly pass the legislation and provide a better regime for future generations of Canadians.

1314 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Sep/17/24 4:48:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague about the actual unconstitutionality of the bill. The bill came from a ruling of unconstitutionality from the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, which is a lower court in Ontario. Six months ago, it did not advance to the Court of Appeal in Ontario. Some judges may actually have some other, perhaps more experienced views on what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional that could come out before the bill lands on the floor of the House of Commons. Does the member think it is the government's job to take a lower court decision and bring it all the way to the House of Commons before it actually appeals that decision?

121 words

Mr. Brendan Hanley

Sep/17/24 4:49:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, of course, the judgment of a court can be considered at any level. In this case, a solid, thorough decision made by the Ontario court was accepted and agreed to by the government. That gives reasonable grounds to proceed with what is really correcting an injustice that dates back to the previous Conservative government.

56 words