SoVote

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

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

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Sep/17/24 4:50:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was quite clear. He did a good job explaining that the government wanted to correct an injustice by ensuring that people who have wrongly lost their citizenship could get it back. During the debates, at least yesterday's debate, the official opposition pointed out that this bill could have negative effects, specifically that it could create a birth tourism of sorts. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

80 words

Mr. Brendan Hanley

Sep/17/24 4:50:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, yes, I heard the same speech. That is simply not true. It is about helping those who lost their citizenship because of a decision made by the previous Conservative government. The bill simply seeks to correct an injustice that has been created. It does not open the door to other tourists. The government is really targeting certain people who have been forgotten and lost their citizenship because of that decision by the previous Conservative government.

78 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Sep/17/24 4:51:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for his speech. Obviously, the NDP agrees that this historic mistake needs to be corrected. In a democracy, there is nothing more precious than citizenship, which allows us to take part in the work of government. It is extremely serious that people could lose their citizenship because of a legislative error. However, we are a bit concerned that, in the current wording of the bill, there is no implementation deadline for the act to come into force. I would like my colleague to reassure us that, once this bill is passed, it will come into force as quickly as possible.

109 words

Mr. Brendan Hanley

Sep/17/24 4:52:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for his comments. I agree with him, and I, too, hope that this legislation will come into force as soon as possible.

29 words

Hope
Soon

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

Sep/17/24 4:53:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a question from my colleague from Calgary Centre to ask the member for Yukon. We know the legislation is unconstitutional and not in compliance with Canada's international obligations. Does the member think it is reasonable to expect the Canadian government to take a position where it could deny access to citizenship for at least another five years, hoping to get a different ruling, and spend perhaps millions of dollars in the process of doing that?

84 words

Mr. Brendan Hanley

Sep/17/24 4:53:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the question. I think it is really very precise in that, if we are to achieve correcting this injustice, then we can stand on firm ground to accept the Ontario court's decision and proceed accordingly.

41 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/17/24 4:54:06 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Finance.

62 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Sep/17/24 4:54:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-245 Bill C-71

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

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.)

Sep/17/24 5:10:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-71

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives claim to defend freedom, but when they amended the Citizenship Act, they deprived many Canadians of their rights and their identity as Canadians. I think that my colleague will agree with me that this is hardly surprising, coming from the Conservatives, and that Bill C-71 is a good way to correct such flaws, as he mentioned in his speech.

65 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

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

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Sep/17/24 5:11:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. This historical error caused people to lose their citizenship, their rights and access to services. They became second-class citizens. Children became stateless and were stuck in limbo, although limbo apparently no longer exists because the church officially abolished it. I would like to talk about the Conservatives' position. They talk about citizenship tourism and birth tourism. That makes me think of the years of darkness under the Stephen Harper government, when Jason Kenney eliminated health care for asylum seekers and refugees, claiming that these people were leaving their countries and their families to get health care here in Quebec and Canada. It seems like more of the same with the current batch of Conservatives.

123 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

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

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Sep/17/24 5:13:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment. I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I am a proud sovereignist and I am often asked whether my work in Ottawa is interesting. I say that it is, because when the Bloc Québécois takes a position, we do so as if we are defining the parameters of our future country. We just heard an eloquent speech that set out the Bloc Québécois's position on citizenship. Anyone who claims that asserting the right to be recognized and respected for our differences is xenophobic or racist is mistaken. That speech was a concrete demonstration of how we in the Bloc Québécois would one day like to have Quebec citizenship, but in a country that is inclusive.

139 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

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

Ms. Arielle Kayabaga (London West, Lib.)

Sep/17/24 5:15:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-71 Bill C-24

Mr. Speaker, I am so excited and happy to be back in the House of Commons to represent the good people of London West, and to also see my colleagues, who are energized and ready to serve Canadians. I will be sharing my time with my amazing colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C‑71, a bill that would amend the Citizenship Act to expand access to Canadian citizenship by affiliation beyond the first generation. I also want to thank my colleagues in the House who spoke before me and advocated on behalf of lost Canadians because of the complexity and shortcomings of previous legislative changes to the Citizenship Act under the Harper government. Bill C-71 proposes amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act in response to issues raised in both Parliament and the courts. These changes would restore citizenship to the remaining lost Canadians, the individuals who either could not become citizens or who lost their citizenship due to outdated legislative provisions. While previous amendments helped many, a small cohort of lost Canadians remain. The legislative amendments outlined in Bill C-71 would help lost Canadians and their descendants regain or obtain citizenship. They also address the status of descendants impacted by the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit. The revised law would establish clear guidelines for acquiring Canadian citizenship by descent. Once this legislation is enacted, the harmful first-generation limit would no longer apply. It would allow Canadian citizens born abroad to pass their citizenship to their children, provided they can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. Canadian parents born outside the country would be able to transfer citizenship to their child if they have lived in Canada for more than three years before the child's birth. These changes would result in a more inclusive and fair Citizenship Act and would right the wrongs of the previous Conservative government. Additionally, this new legislation would continue to reduce the differences between children born abroad and adopted by Canadians and those born abroad to Canadian parents. Any children adopted overseas by a Canadian parent before the law takes effect would be eligible for the current direct citizenship grant for adoptees, even if they were previously excluded by the first-generation limit. Once the new law is in place, the same criteria would apply to children adopted by Canadian citizens abroad. If the adoptive parent born outside of Canada can show a substantial connection to Canada, the adopted child would be eligible for citizenship as well. Basically, we are saying that Bill C-71 would restore citizenship to those who have been wrongfully excluded and would establish consistent rules of citizenship by descent moving forward. I would like to pause here to thank the many families who have worked alongside our committees and our staff, and the many people who have helped get us to this place where the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship has introduced this legislation. Not only do Conservatives not want this bill to pass, they spent the whole afternoon yesterday filibustering and trying to move motions that would delay its passing and delay the many Canadians who have been harmed in the process from receiving justice. It is important to note that this legislation would not only fix the mess the Harper government created, but would also respond to the reckless government the current Leader of the Opposition was a member of. In 2009, Harper and the Leader of the Opposition moved legislative amendments to the Citizenship Act to restrict citizenship by descent to the first generation born abroad. For many young Canadians who were perhaps too young to remember, the Leader of the Opposition was also part of the government that introduced Bill C-24. Not only did it seek to create second-class citizens, it also gave itself the power to revoke citizenship for dual citizens by targeting nearly one million Canadians. Therefore, it is not a surprise that Conservatives not only want to prevent Bill C-71, a bill that is in collaboration with all parties in the House to restore the Charter rights of Canadians, but also want to delay it even at committee. Being a Canadian citizen is a privilege we should never take for granted. In fact, we should all advocate as strongly for our rights to citizenship as the lost Canadians have done for themselves. Canadian citizenship represents more than just a legal status. It embodies the ongoing commitment and responsibility. What does it mean to be Canadian? There is no right answer to this question, and that is one of the great things about our country. Let us start with how our commitment defines us. One of those commitments is to understand ourselves and our history, as flawed as it is, and to work toward a better future for all. That is the oath that some of us took to become citizens, and that is the oath we should all continue to honour. Our country has a rich and complicated history, dating from before the founding of Canada. The indigenous people who have lived on these lands since time immemorial have stewarded the country we all love and call Canada today. Since Confederation, many diverse people have chosen Canada as their new home. Apart from indigenous people, every Canadian's history begins with the story of a migrant. Canada is known for its commitment to multiculturalism and inclusion. This commitment was made official in the 1988 Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which promotes the recognition and celebration of diversity. Canada's approach to multiculturalism emphasizes the active integration and celebration of its citizens' diverse cultural identities. This approach creates a society in which people from different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds can retain their identity, take pride in their roots and feel a sense of belonging in our country. Canada's communities, from coast to coast to coast, are a living example of multiculturalism. At the heart of Canadian identity lies our commitment to human rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the fundamental rights and freedoms of all citizens and residents, including freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of peaceful assembly, as well as the rights to equality and non-discrimination. Canada also demonstrates its commitment to human rights through its support for many international human rights initiatives. Over the years, Canada has defended the rights of women and marginalized groups, both nationally and internationally. Our citizenship provides security, rights and opportunities. It helps people to feel more included in Canadian society and gives them the opportunity to participate in it. It offers many benefits that improve the lives of individuals and communities. One of those advantages is the fundamental right to actively participate in the country's democratic process. This includes the right to vote in federal, provincial, territorial and municipal elections, which empowers citizens to have a direct impact on government policy. It is also important to note that only citizens can run for office, giving them the opportunity to represent their communities and contribute to the governance of Canada. All Canadian citizens also enjoy all the legal protections and rights set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This ensures that their civil liberties and rights as individuals are protected at the highest level, in addition to providing a solid framework for justice and equality. While we are on the subject of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I would like to remind members that the leader of the official opposition has hinted that he would use the notwithstanding clause if given the opportunity. Canadians should take note of this and of what the Conservatives have done in the past, in particular, as I mentioned earlier, what they did in 2009. Many Canadians who are around the same age as me maybe do not remember what happened, but in 2009, the Harper government took the right to interfere with Canadians' rights. They amended the Citizenship Act to limit citizenship by descent by introducing the first-generation limit. I would also like to remind the House that the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the first-generation limit imposed by the Harper government following legislative amendments in 2009 was unconstitutional in terms of both mobility rights and equality rights, and it is a clear example of how the Conservative Party continues to disenfranchise Canadians. Don Chapman is one of those people who were affected by this generational limit. He has dedicated his time, advocated for Bill C-71 and worked through different committees to amend it and get to the place where we are today. I just want to give him a shout-out because I know how hard he worked, how many phone calls he had to make and how many of my colleagues he called over a long period of time. Another important advantage of Canadian citizenship is access to the Canadian passport. This passport is recognized worldwide as one of the most valuable and offers visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to many countries.

1525 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Sep/17/24 5:25:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-37

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask a question about numbers, but I just want to preface by saying to the member that Bill C-37, when it was passed in 2009 and introduced the first-generation limit, was actually supported by all parties in the House twice, on February 8 and on February 15, with unanimous consent votes. With respect to numbers, I looked at Statistics Canada, and in 2016, a study done by Bérard-Chagnon and Canon said there were four million Canadians living abroad, which was a 36% increase since 1990. According to the study it was using for the United Nations, dating back to a 2017 study showing the progression, the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada found, in its estimate, that there could be as many as 2.7 million Canadians living abroad. An updated estimate in 2016 said there could be between three million and 5.6 million. Regarding the last breakdown, I will put the question to the member. They did a breakdown, thanks to the United Nations, the World Bank and the OECD, and they found the following: 51% are citizens by descent; 33% are Canadians by birth; and 15% are naturalized Canadians, like I am. I am going to put to the member the same question I put to the minister the other day. How many persons living abroad will therefore be eligible to apply to the department for a proof of citizenship document and thereafter a Canadian passport?

249 words

Ms. Arielle Kayabaga

Sep/17/24 5:27:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague opposite, who also sits on the same committee as me and has had the opportunity to meet with the families and to hear from them. We have done this study. Maybe he should not have filibustered yesterday when we were trying to pass the motion on lost Canadians. I mentioned earlier that there are still a small number of Canadians who are still left behind among the lost Canadians, who are waiting to get their citizenship approved, whether their parents gave birth outside of Canada or adopted their children. Some of these families were at our committee, so perhaps the member opposite should pay attention to some of the visitors we have to our committee when we are doing really important work for Canadians.

133 words