SoVote

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

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

Mr. Serge Cormier (Acadie—Bathurst, Lib.)

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

moved that the bill be concurred in.

7 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Sep/17/24 6:19:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I ask that it be carried on division.

10 words

Mr. Serge Cormier

Sep/17/24 6:20:08 p.m.
Watch

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome all of my colleagues back to the House. I also want to thank my constituents in the riding of Acadie—Bathurst for their support over the past few years. I also want to acknowledge my parents, my family, my friends and my staff. I hope that Parliament's work will go well and that we will have good debates in the House. Today, I am pleased to resume debate, if I can put it that way, on my bill. My bill proposes a national framework to establish a school food program. A lot has happened since we last debated this bill in the House. In the last budget, the government invested $1 billion over the next five years to develop a school food program. In May, I had the pleasure and good fortune to welcome the Prime Minister, the Minister of Families and Children, the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche to my riding for a great announcement at my daughters' school, École Marguerite-Bourgeoys in Caraquet. That day, the Prime Minister announced the first phase of the school food program. It was a wonderful day, with a lot of dignitaries and groups that have been involved for many years in preparing breakfasts, lunches and snacks for schools in my region. I would especially like to acknowledge the Fondation des petits déjeuners de la Péninsule acadienne, which provides services to many schools in my riding. Its members go into schools to provide healthy breakfasts for students. I would also like to acknowledge Alexis Légère, a young vegetable farmer who grows food at Marguerite-Bourgeoys school. A few years ago, the school gave him a parcel of land. His vegetables are used to prepare meals in collaboration with students at the school. I will talk more about that a little later. Why is this bill important? We have talked about this many times already, but here are some examples. We know that there are a lot of children who go to school on an empty stomach. I do not think that, in 2024, it is acceptable for our children to go to school on an empty stomach. We have to do something about this situation. This is not new. In the 1980s, I was in grade 1. That was many years ago. I remember that some of my friends had nothing to eat in their lunch boxes. We have to address this problem. We have to help families and especially children by setting up a program like this so that they have healthy food in their lunch box every day. To continue in the same vein, nearly one in five children say that they go to school or to bed hungry. Those are not good numbers. We need to improve those statistics. That is why a school food program will be very beneficial for these children. We know that proper nutrition during childhood is very important for maintaining health and well-being and for achieving socio-economic success. If we want to give our children every opportunity to succeed at school, it starts with a healthy diet, with basic nutrition. If we do this, we will see that, in the years to come, the young people who have benefited from these programs will be successful on the job market. They will likely do better than many other young people who did not have access to such a program. Many studies have shown that school programs act as social equalizers. We know that, today, discrimination and bullying are unfortunately part of our society. Often, we hear about kids at school who make fun of other kids who have nothing in their lunch box. Putting an end to this bullying or stigmatization will go a long way in helping our children to cope with these situations. One final point is that Canada is one of the only member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that does not have a school food program in place. A big, beautiful country like Canada cannot go without such a program any longer. Once again, I want to acknowledge the efforts of our government, which provided the funds needed to launch a program of this kind in partnership with the provinces and territories. I hope that the provinces and territories will sign these bilateral agreements as soon as possible. A program like this has many benefits. I listed some of them earlier. These benefits are not limited to children. The program is good for families, for the parents of these children. Let me talk about some of the benefits for children. A program like this is sure to significantly improve nutrition. As we know, school meals ensure that children receive at least one balanced meal a day. This could be breakfast, lunch or a snack, and it can go a long way toward offsetting the nutritional deficit that some children experience at home for various reasons. Other benefits include better concentration at school. A child who is properly fed, whose needs are met and who shows up for school with a full belly has a much easier time getting through the day. Everyone here knows what long days are like. Even as adults, when we do not have time to eat properly, our concentration suffers. Imagine how hard it must be for a child in grade 1, 2, 4 or 5 who did not get anything to eat before school in the morning, or even during the day. How hard must it be for them to concentrate, to follow the teacher's instructions or even to keep up with their friends in the schoolyard at recess? A program like this one offers a lot of benefits. Promoting healthy eating habits is another benefit. School food programs teach children the importance of good nutrition. I said earlier that I would talk a bit more about why I decided to make this announcement at my daughters' and stepson's school, Marguerite-Bourgeoys school in Caraquet. A few years ago, a young vegetable farmer decided to approach the school and ask if they could provide him with a small parcel of land where he could grow vegetables. It was not necessarily to supply the school cafeteria, but rather to show students the importance of farming, how to grow one's own vegetables and fruits, and how to eat well. One thing led to another, and this program has grown so much that the partnership between the farmer, the school and the students now provides almost 80% of all the fruit and vegetables for the meals served at the school. This is being done with the students' participation. Every day, students take classes with the farmer. They grow tomatoes, cucumbers, blueberries and so on. They also help prepare the meals. What a wonderful idea to have a program like that in the school. Imagine how having an initiative like this in every school in Canada would help educate children about the benefits of good nutrition. At the same time, it would benefit local farmers. As we know, local produce is increasingly valued, especially in rural areas like mine. It would help a lot of local producers to be able to supply our schools by growing their fruit and vegetables as part of a program like this. Reduced absenteeism is another benefit, and this has been proven. Countless studies show it. This greatly reduces the absentee rate among students. If they are not lucky enough to have a meal at home, students will go to school knowing that they will have a snack to help them get through their day. Many studies show that this is highly beneficial. It is also about equality of opportunity. We know that all children, regardless of their parents' income or their family's income, should have the same chances. I think that in our society, the stigmatization of certain groups of people has to be eliminated, and we need to create equal chances for everyone. We need to have these types of programs. Sometimes families may have a good income, but when both parents work, there may not necessarily be time in the morning to prepare lunches, snacks and so on. Having access to snacks or breakfast at school will be a big help to families and students. For parents, too, this can have major benefits, such as reducing their financial burden. Free or subsidized meals can have a significant impact on family finances. We know that the cost of living is high right now and that some families are struggling. Having a little bit of help and not having to worry about providing meals or snacks for children will be extremely helpful for these families. As I said, it will save time for parents who sometimes do not have time to prepare meals. It will provide peace of mind too, as these examples show. It will encourage education when parents see their children doing well at school. Children get better marks at school. That goes a long way toward making children feel good about themselves, and it also helps parents when they see that they no longer have to worry about this burden or about struggling to feed their children. These programs not only have a positive impact on children's health and development, they improve family dynamics and society as a whole. Many studies have shown that programs like this can be extremely beneficial. They boost nutrition and academic performance and have an impact on the local economy and agriculture. They can also come with their share of challenges. For schools, obtaining healthy food can be a costly venture. We know that food costs have gone up. That is why the government presented a plan to provide $1 billion over the next five years. This assistance will help schools and various groups buy healthy food so they can provide students with meals. The quality of the meals is also important. The fact that so many schools in Canada are located in remote or rural areas also presents a logistical challenge. That is why agreements will be signed with Canada's provinces and territories to move forward and provide them with additional funding to help them develop programs. I am very pleased that the first province has already signed a bilateral agreement with our government, and that is the province of Newfoundland. We hope that other provinces will follow suit, like my home province of New Brunswick. I hope that we will have serious discussions about the benefits of having a program like this in our schools. This bill is close to my heart. It is important to me because I have in some way experienced some of these situations and challenges. I do not come from a wealthy family. We were lucky because we always had good meals. My parents always made meals and healthy eating a priority. However, over the course of my life, I have had friends who were not so lucky. Giving every child in Canada the opportunity to have access to a program like this, to not go to school hungry and to not have to worry that their parents or families lack the means to feed them properly is a good thing. I think this will do a world of good for all those people. Once again, Canada is one of the only countries that does not have a program like this. It is time to set one up. The government has made a great deal of effort so far and has put a lot of money on the table to develop the program, but we need a framework so we can do this properly and follow the steps and look at things that are not working and things that will work a bit better. I am sure we will be able to make a lot of progress. I am calling on my colleagues to please support my bill that will benefit every child in Canada.

2043 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Sep/17/24 6:35:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for introducing this bill, which we debated at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It is now before the House. My colleague spoke about the benefits of healthy school food. There is no doubt about this anymore; the studies prove it. It is so true that Quebec has a school food program. My colleague acknowledged in committee that education and school programs fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, but despite that, he also acknowledged that not enough was being done in his province. It seems that the federal government is deliberately interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces to make up for the fact that some provinces have decided not to invest in these programs. Is that true?

143 words

Mr. Serge Cormier

Sep/17/24 6:36:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for the helpful comments she made about the bill in committee. I have been clear. I do not necessarily always agree with the Bloc Québécois's positions, but I can say that I have always been impressed by the number of programs implemented by the Quebec government over the years. I am thinking in particular of its child care program or even its school food program, which has been developed so well. It is a good example to follow. As indicated in my bill, negotiations will take place with the provinces and territories. We are aware that the Quebec government wants to sit down at the table to discuss how these agreements will be developed. Our goal is to work with all the provinces and territories, including Quebec, to see how we can design an excellent program, a great school food program for all the provinces of Canada. We recognize that Quebec already has a program like this, but we will continue to work with the province to see if the program can be improved in any way.

192 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Sep/17/24 6:37:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can speak to this. During his entire speech, he did not reference any of the causes of food prices going up. For example, there is the inflationary deficit spending that caused inflation to increase for food in double digits. There are the tax increases caused when we tax the farmer who grows the food, those who transport the food, those who warehouse the food and those who retail the food; we actually tax the end user of the food. I am wondering if the Liberal member can speak to the actual causes behind why food prices have gone up so much.

109 words