SoVote

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

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the remaining lost Canadians, the individuals who either could not become citizens or who lost their citizenship due to outdated legislative provisions.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

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

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

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

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or believed they were Canadian citizens but who lost or never acquired citizenship due to certain provisions in our outdated and confusing citizenship legislation.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

1636 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)

May/23/24 11:24:40 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-54 Bill C-36 Bill C-24 Bill C-16

Before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Carleton. What I say in the next few minutes is not intended as a personal attack on the Bloc Québécois or its members. There are a lot of very good people in the Bloc. I want to talk about the Bloc today in more general terms. First off, we fully agree with today's motion. That is how the Conservatives have always done things: We have always respected the provinces' areas of jurisdiction. It is part of our DNA, and we have no objections. However, we do have questions about the contradictions in the Bloc Québécois's behaviour and actions. First, it is important to understand that the Bloc's primary motivation is separation, or Quebec sovereignty. It is in their policy platform, and they make no secret of it. Everyone knows that the Bloc wants Quebec to leave Canada. It is also important to understand that the Bloc members were elected by about 30% of the population of Quebec. The other 70%, including my colleagues and myself, are just as much Quebeckers as the members of the Bloc. The 70% of Quebeckers who did not vote for the Bloc also have hopes and dreams for the Quebec nation, just like the Bloc does. It is time to stop playing around and always saying that the Bloc members are real Quebeckers, while members from the other parties are not. That is the message we keep getting here in Parliament. There is another contradiction. According to the Bloc, and as the Bloc candidate who ran against me in 2021 said publicly, when a member of the Bloc gets elected, they are sitting in a foreign country's Parliament. A Bloc candidate runs for office, gets elected by maybe 30% or 40% of the people in their riding, and tells Quebeckers that they are going to represent them in a foreign country's Parliament. That is always how it has been, and it has been the same story for 30 years. Now let me get to the most serious contradiction. The leader of the Bloc has repeated, as his own slogan, that if something is good for Quebec, the Bloc will vote for it, and if it is not good for Quebec, the Bloc will vote against it. That is what the leader of the Bloc Québécois says publicly. As a Quebecker, I can say that that is not necessarily a bad thing. It is truly an approach focused on Quebec's main interests, on co-operation with the Canadian federation. We cannot be against that. However, we have seen the concrete actions the Bloc has taken when voting on budgets, which are contradictory. The Bloc Québécois publicly says that it votes against all the budgets because they are no good, which is true. The Bloc members vote this way for various reasons, saying that they are against them, so people think that the Bloc Québécois votes against the Liberal government's budgets. However, there is the important matter of budgetary appropriations. The Bloc Québécois has voted in favour of all the supplementary appropriations, totalling $500 billion, but that is something it does not boast about. I heard the leader of the Bloc answer a question from my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent on this very topic this morning. He answered that they would not do like in the U.S. and start shutting down the government. That is how he justified approving $500 billion in additional spending. These appropriations added 109,000 public servants to the government apparatus. Among other things, these appropriations were used to give millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars, for ArriveCAN. When a scandal breaks out, the Bloc members are suddenly astonished to discover that they voted in favour of granting the money. In a public exchange, reporters asked the Bloc Québécois House leader a question, and he answered by asking whether they thought that the Bloc members had the time to study every single budget item. Is that not their job? There are 32 of them, and they have their own research teams and staff. What do they do all day? In our party, we scrutinize every budget item. That is why we vote against them most of the time, because they make no sense. The Bloc says publicly that it votes against the budgets when, in fact, it votes in favour of all the appropriations, while claiming that it has no time to study them. What is the primary responsibility of an elected official? It is to know what they are voting for and to vote against it when it is something that makes no sense. The leader of the Bloc Québécois often says that the Bloc members are the adults in the room, that they are the best and that they truly work for Quebeckers, yet they voted in favour of $500 billion in additional spending by this government, which, by the way, is the worst government in the history of Canada. This government has doubled our country's debt, which means that Quebeckers' living conditions are appalling nowadays and everything is much more expensive. Inflation and the increase in interest rates and the cost of living in general, particularly the cost of housing, have skyrocketed, in large part because of this government's mismanagement. The Bloc Québécois approved this reckless spending. As an organization, the Bloc Québécois is a left-wing, socialist party. We know that. Members of the Bloc have admitted it, have said it. How can they reconcile fiscal responsibilities with always wanting to support socialist, left-wing measures and exponential spending? They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they are the responsible adults in the room and then vote with their eyes closed. As the leader of the Bloc Québécois said, the Bloc members do not have time to look at that. It is difficult to vote with one's eyes closed, to vote for spending that just creates problems for Canadians today. In the House, we have done nothing to help anyone over the past nine years. No one has been helped. We just have more problems now than we did in 2015. Take, for example, the supply vote. Since the new Bloc Québécois leader arrived in 2019, 219 votes have been considered confidence votes, such as votes on budgetary allocations or on motions similar to the one that the Conservative Party moved a month ago. The Bloc Québécois had 219 opportunities to vote against this government that it is criticizing, and we agree with those criticisms. However, instead, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of appropriations 200 times. They did not support the non-confidence motion and they supported the government. They could have said that they had had enough, but 92% of the time they did not. They chose instead to continue to support this government's out-of-control spending. I will give an example of this spending so that it appears in the public record. Let us take Bill C-36, appropriation act No. 4, 2022-23. The tenor of the bill is not obvious from the title. If we do not take the time to look into it, we really have no way of knowing what it is about. By way of information, it represents $20.7 billion in spending. Here is another example: Bill C-16, appropriation act No. 1, 2022-23. Our viewers will not know what I am talking about. I am talking about more than $75.483 trillion in spending. There are a lot of things in this bill, like pipelines. The Bloc Québécois voted for pipelines in the north. The Bloc supported the bill, despite the fact that the member for Jonquière rails against the oil and gas industry every day in the House. The Bloc voted for it. They did not know that the bill contained anything about pipelines, because they did not read it. Here is another example: Bill C-24, appropriation act No. 2, 2022-23. It represents $115.056 trillion and change. By “change”, I mean a few hundred thousand dollars. Bill C-54, appropriation act No. 2, 2023-24, represents $108,700,157,669. These are only four examples from a long list of spending supported by the Bloc Québécois. They can say what they want. They will do a lot of things here and there and say that they are the adults and the responsible ones, but, in reality, they have supported this spendthrift government whose spending is out of control. Today we have problems, and these problems were supported by the Bloc Québécois. Why did the Bloc Québécois support this government when the Liberals have an agreement with the NDP, which is always there to support the government, no matter what? The Bloc Québécois could have done the same thing the Conservative Party did: vote against the Liberals' nonsense and ensure that the country is truly managed effectively. The fact is that their objective is to get Quebec to separate. The Bloc's actions are meant to give them reasons to say that things are not going well in the other camp.

1631 words

Context: House Hansard - 206 - Jun/5/23

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C‑47. Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation. I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi. Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times. Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf‑sur‑Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished. Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed. I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C‑2, C‑3, C‑4, C‑5, C‑6, C‑8 and C‑10, as well as Bill C‑11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians. We also passed bills C‑12, C‑14, C‑15, C‑16, C‑19, C‑24, C‑25, C‑28, C‑30, C‑31, C‑32, C‑36 and C‑39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C‑43, C‑44 and C‑46. We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C‑9. Bill C‑22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit. We are also examining Bill C‑13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C‑18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C‑21, C‑29 and C‑45. I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House. I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard. We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed. I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C‑47 in time for the summer break. What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

888 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Bill