SoVote

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

Sep/17/24 5:57:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is something I am not too familiar with, but does the member have an example we could discuss? I am on board with discussing this with him. Maybe there are many examples of situations to draw from. We could look at a certain situation, but here we are developing a policy for all immigrants in Canada. I would be happy to look at this with my friend.

70 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Sep/17/24 5:57:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it has been clear since day one, since June 2023, that the Conservatives do not want to rectify the unconstitutional second-generation cut-off rule for lost Canadians and their families. They voted against provisions that would have rectified the unconstitutional amendments. They filibustered the bill for 30 hours at committee, and they stalled reading debate for the bill eight times. One thing that I know is that actions speak louder than words, and their actions have been really clear. Why are the Conservatives misleading family members with their fake commitments?

93 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Sep/17/24 5:58:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that actions speak louder than words, so let us talk about actions here. Let us talk about how we are actually dealing with Canadians. Let us talk about the substantive test that made this ruling unconstitutional. That was the action of the Liberal government, which has been unable to deliver any efficiency in getting people through the immigration process. A 50% failure rate because of mistakes is what makes this unconstitutional. That should be fixed forthwith. That would address the ruling of unconstitutionality that came with this.

94 words

Mr. Branden Leslie

Sep/17/24 5:59:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned the difference in the tests of someone's connection to Canada. Could he offer a few comments on the value of citizenship—

29 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Sep/17/24 5:59:45 p.m.
Watch

I apologize. The hon. member is not sitting in his seat. The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

17 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Sep/17/24 5:59:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, sometimes it is hard to notice. Standing Order 16 was a great standing order when it was suspended temporarily, so we could sit at any place and actually speak. That way, we could represent our constituents from anywhere in here. I think benches were a great solution. The member for Calgary Centre heard, as I did during the debate on a previous private member's bill that dealt with the same question, when I was asked the following many times: How many Canadians would be affected by this? How many persons who are outside the country would be affected by it? We, on the Conservative side, obviously agree with the adoption provisions. We want adopted children to be treated exactly the same way as Canadians born or naturalized in Canada. Could the member tell me if he knows how many Canadians would be affected by it? The minister could not answer the question.

155 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Sep/17/24 6:00:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is exactly one of the concerns we have. How many people are we dealing with this actual opening up of the immigration system in Canada? We have asked the question of the minister. We have asked the question of the department. Nobody knows. So there is—

50 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Sep/17/24 6:00:54 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Thornhill.

7 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC)

Sep/17/24 6:00:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-71 Bill C-37

Madam Speaker, “broken, broken, broken” has been the refrain this summer, a summer that showed Canadians once again that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government are just not worth the cost. I suspect that was the refrain the Liberals felt last night after a brutal loss in a safe riding in Montreal, where Canadians sent the Prime Minister yet another message to say that his plan is not working. Nowhere is that truer than in our immigration system and citizenship system. Let us go back to 2015, the last time the Conservative government was in charge. We had a consensus in this country, and it was a multi-generational consensus that existed long before 2015. It was a system that worked for our economy, with inflation low and home prices half of what they are today, and a system that kept our nation safe from terrorist attacks and multinational criminals. It was a system that was truly the envy of the world, through which a person could come to this country, welcomed with open arms, in an effort to build a life better than the one they left behind. However, in just nine short years, none of that is true today. Housing prices keep going up, reaching record highs in cities small and large everywhere. International students are living seven, 10 or 15 to a basement, or even resorting to homeless shelters and food banks. Opportunity keeps slipping away in the face of higher taxes, more expensive groceries and, yes, more and more people in the way. People who came here after being promised a new beginning are instead finding that their hard work does not pay off, and shockingly, they do not want to stay. In fact, they want to leave. It is all made worse by a government that cannot seem to exhibit a single ounce of competence and organization in immigration. That is why the consensus is broken. The Liberals lost a million people and still cannot tell Canadians where they are. The Minister of Public Safety, just a couple of weeks ago, insisted that the system is working when a terrorist was given citizenship. The member for Kingston and the Islands, who I missed very much over the summer, claims that the Liberals are delivering results for Canadians. However, Canadians keep sending them the same message that this is simply not the case, because nobody with an ounce of common sense can step back and say that things in Canada are working as they should right now. If this is what the Liberals consider delivering results, then I would hate to see what not delivering results looks like. Even when they do not know where people are, the system still does not work and incompetence still reigns supreme. The government gave citizenship to a terrorist who appeared in an ISIS snuff video and who somehow passed six security checks while plotting an attack in the country's biggest city. It gave a student visa to a guy planning a massacre of Jews on the anniversary of October 7, all while being exposed for not even checking his criminal record, the record check we do for any temporary resident. This was just in the past month. With each successive blow, the confidence among Canadians and our peers abroad in the integrity of our immigration system, in who we grant citizenship to and in the basic ability of government to get anything done is certainly in question. No one of us should relish the fact that the Canadian immigration system seems to be falling apart right in front of us. I am a child of immigrants. There are many children of immigrants. There are many immigrants among us, many of our colleagues and constituents. We can testify to the power of a necessary immigration system, but a system that lacks integrity just does not work, and Canadians will not trust it. If not for immigration, my family would have never been able to experience the freedom of opportunity that this country gave us. If not for immigration, our communities would never benefit from the skills and expertise of countless doctors, nurses, engineers, tradespeople and the many people who built this country. If not for immigration, our country would never be strengthened by the values and pluralism of our newcomers, who are rooted in their culture, and what that provides for us. What happened in less than a decade is nothing less than a tragedy, which is why it is even more disappointing to see the Liberal government plowing head-first into more misguided policies like this one rather than taking the time to fix what is wrong, further extending the reach of Canadian citizenship in the same ham-fisted and incompetent way that we have come to expect. The Liberals cannot even tell us how many people will be eligible under this piece of legislation. Surely, they can come up with a model. The government cannot possibly believe it still has the confidence of anyone in this country when it simply says, “Trust us. We got this.” This bill threatens the integrity and security of the citizenship system. In December 2023, as we have said here in the House, the Ontario Superior Court declared that the first-generation cut-off rule for the Canadian Citizenship Act was unconstitutional. The Ontario Superior Court itself found a 50% error rate in the Liberal-run citizenship department, with abnormally long processing times and malpractice. The NDP-Liberals took six months to respond to Bill C-71, showing a blatant lack of urgency, which they claim to have found today. This bill proposes to grant citizenship to individuals born abroad to at least one Canadian parent who has spent 1,095 days in Canada. We know that. This is without requiring that these days are consecutive and without provisions for checks in the Criminal Code. We know that other countries require more time and certainly more consecutive time. I do not think it is out of line to ask for a security check given what we have seen in just the last month in this country, with a public safety minister who says that the system is working as it should. We see in this debate that the Liberal Party voted in favour of Bill C-37. That is the bill that was here prior to this one, which the Liberals seem to have conveniently forgotten about entirely today and certainly have forgotten that they supported not once, but twice. It was passed at first reading and second reading and there was unanimous consent to pass it. The Liberals voted in favour of the very ideas they are attacking in this bill today. This further erodes the lack of consensus I spoke about that exists in our system. The Liberals are doubling down on citizenship by Zoom and pushing forward with the present path, even as evidence shows that we are not building enough homes, that we are not credentialing those who should be able to work here in their professions and that we are not doing our due diligence. That is clear. That is a message they should have heard over the summer and is a message they probably heard at the doors in Montreal last night. Perhaps most egregious is giving people who created this mess even more responsibility in running the government. The guy who used to be the immigration minister, the guy responsible for losing those million people, is now being promoted to the guy who is supposed to build houses in this country. This is a guy who ignored advice from his own ministry and instead chose to pursue a blind political agenda. What happened? He was given a promotion. It is the guy under whose nose blossomed a corrupt and phony international student program alongside a foreign worker program called a “breeding ground” for modern-day slavery. This is the guy who is in large part responsible for the debate we are having today, as the Ontario Superior Court cited bureaucratic incompetence at the IRCC as a major reason for its decision. Spoiler alert, that minister could not run the system, and he cannot build homes either. That should not surprise anyone. We need to fix this broken system. We need to fix it for those who want to come here and create a better life, for the promise of Canada, for the promise that if they come here and work hard, they can buy a home in a safe neighbourhood. They should be able to work in their profession to the scope of its practice and to the scope of their education, and they should know that when they come here. What we have right now is a broken consensus in the public because the system does not work. That is because people who come here cannot achieve the dream that we have promised and cannot achieve the dream that so many of us and our constituents have benefited from. That is a shame.

1516 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Sep/17/24 6:10:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberals seem to be implying that there is a rush to get this legislation passed. The ruling by the judge was at the end of December, and the government took until May 23 to table the bill. There were 19 sitting days before the June break and this bill never came up. In fact, we are only on the second day of debate. I would like to hear from the member why there is a sudden need to rush this and why there is a sudden interest in it. It is as if because the government has suffered election loss after election loss, it is embarrassed by its own record.

113 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Sep/17/24 6:10:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect there is a little of that. I suspect there is a bit of chaos on the other side after losing two stronghold seats. The Liberals' record is being repudiated not only on immigration but on housing and everything else. They have probably heard about it.

49 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Sep/17/24 6:11:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is some unease in the House about the court's ruling. That is because the current Citizenship Act is unconstitutional. I would therefore like to ask my colleague the following question. How do the Conservatives intend to reform the act if they keep opposing it and dragging out the proceedings? Why not go ahead and pass the amendments instead? We can all agree that this does not exactly affect hundreds of millions of people, but rather a handful of people whose rights have been violated over the years. These are historic mistakes that can be corrected.

99 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Sep/17/24 6:11:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have no idea how many people this would affect, and that is the question we still have. Is it 1,000? Is it 10,000? Is it 100,000? Surely the government, which still has not been able to answer this very basic question about how many people we are talking about, can come up with a model based on how many people it knows are outside of the country and how many kids it thinks they have. How many people would be affected by this? That is the question. Security checks are certainly a question too, and there, the government does not have two legs to stand on right now.

114 words

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

Sep/17/24 6:12:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found that the question from my Bloc Québécois colleague made a lot of sense, unlike the Conservatives' comments. However, I would like to ask my colleague the following question. If the Citizenship Act is unconstitutional, if the act allows people to lose their citizenship by accident or administrative error, if children are born stateless, why do the Conservatives want to drag their feet and not ensure that this problem is resolved quickly?

80 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Sep/17/24 6:12:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we tried to make very reasonable amendments at committee, even supporting the reasonable amendments from the Liberals, but at every turn, those proposals were voted down. At every single turn, the government has failed to answer questions about how many people this bill would affect and whether there would be security clearance. There is a provision the minister has in the law right now to make exceptions and grant citizenship in some cases, as he sees fit, and until those questions can be answered, the minister can use that provision rather than bring this bill to the House of Commons without answers.

104 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Sep/17/24 6:13:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it fascinating that this is only the second day the bill has been debated. It was introduced just before Parliament rose for the summer. As my colleague mentioned, it was in response to a court decision a number of months prior to that. The Liberals talk about not wanting a debate on this issue and accuse Conservatives of delaying it. What are her thoughts on that, when they have shown that they truly did not prioritize this in their overall legislative agenda?

86 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Sep/17/24 6:14:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I cannot answer questions on behalf of their legislative agenda, because I have failed to understand it from the very beginning. The questions that we have asked, though, are real questions that would lead us to making better decisions about laws in this country. As a baseline, I think Canadians at home watching this right now would want to know exactly how many people this bill would affect. The Liberals do not have a good record on our immigration system. They do not have a good record on security checks, certainly not with what has been found out in the last couple of weeks. I think Canadians ought to know those answers before they blindly support legislation.

119 words

Immigration

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

Sep/17/24 6:15:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to start this short speech by taking a look at some important events that took place yesterday and by congratulating my new colleague, Leila Dance, who won in Winnipeg and held on to a seat for the NDP. She showed that we are capable of beating the Conservatives. I would congratulate Mr. Sauvé as well, who won in LaSalle-Émard-Verdun. I would also like to talk about another Mr. Sauvé, Craig Sauvé, who was the NDP candidate. Unfortunately, he came in third in an extremely close race. I still want to congratulate him on his campaign and to congratulate the whole team of volunteers and activists who worked so hard on the ground. That being said, today we are debating a very important subject, a bill that seeks to right a wrong. I apologize for the expression, but there are people who are falling through the cracks. This has very serious consequences because it means that they can lose their citizenship. Some may even lose their citizenship without even realizing it. This has a whole range of repercussions, including impacts on their ability to work, to get public services, to enrol their children in school, and so on. I admit, I was surprised that it is possible to lose citizenship. Then there is the whole issue of being able to pass on citizenship to second-generation children born abroad to parents who are Canadian citizens. I think it is a very serious problem if our laws allow children to come into the world stateless. Let me remind the House that even the United Nations, in 2007, identified Canada as one of the countries that was refusing to take steps to avoid making people stateless. According to Refugee Listed Canada, we were operating slightly outside the law. I think that this bill makes some important corrections. Loss of citizenship has major repercussions on people who work abroad and have to travel, as well as on their children. If we can all steer clear of petty politics, finger pointing and scare tactics, we could solve a problem affecting hundreds of people and avoid problems that throw the lives of many of the people we represent into turmoil. I encourage everyone to make an effort so that we can pass this bill quickly and solve a problem that should have been fixed a long time ago, a problem created by the Conservatives when they were in power.

415 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Sep/17/24 6:18:33 p.m.
Watch

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

31 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Sep/17/24 6:19:05 p.m.
Watch

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

45 words