Bill C-71 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen;
(b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation, on or after the coming into force of this enactment, to a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s birth;
(c) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen;
(d) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to persons born outside Canada who are adopted on or after the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s adoption;
(e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not make an application to retain it under the former section 8 of that Act or because they made an application under that section that was not approved; and
(f) allow certain persons who become citizens as a result of the coming into force of this enactment to access a simplified process to renounce their citizenship.

Canadian Citizenship

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-71, a vital piece of legislation that would address the long-standing injustice faced by lost Canadians, individuals who, due to the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit, have been unfairly excluded from Canadian citizenship. These individuals have lived in, worked in and contributed to Canada. Bill C-71 would grant citizenship to those people who were unfairly impacted by the previous Conservative government, while establishing a substantial connection-to-Canada test moving forward.

I look forward to working with parliamentarians from all parties to get the work done. It is time to right this historical wrong and ensure that all who should rightfully be Canadians are recognized as such.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that was cute, and I saw that the Conservative House leader was having a hard time not laughing at how ridiculous his statement was.

As the fourth week of fall in the House of Commons approaches, we have made good progress. For one thing, we passed Bill C‑76 to give Jasper the tools it needs to rebuild.

We also debated bills that are important to Canadians, such as Bill C‑71, which extends citizenship by descent beyond the first generation in an inclusive way, protects the value of Canadian citizenship and restores citizenship to Canadians who lost or never acquired it because of outdated provisions under a previous citizenship act.

We debated Bill C‑66, which recognizes that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are always there to protect Canada's security and that we have a duty to protect them from harassment and inappropriate behaviour. This landmark legislation would transform military justice in Canada and respond to outside recommendations by former justices Arbour and Fish of the Supreme Court of Canada.

We also debated Bill C‑63 on online harms, which seeks to provide stronger protection to children online and better protect Canadians from online hate and other types of harmful content.

I would like to thank members of Parliament who have been working constructively to advance these bills. The Conservatives, on the other hand, continue to do everything they can to block the important work of the House and prevent debate on legislation that will help Canadians. They have offered nothing constructive and instead have focused on cheap political stunts and obstruction for the sake of obstruction. They have lost two confidence votes already and continue to paralyze the business of the House.

The government supports debates on the privilege motions concluding quickly so that we can get back to the important work of the House. I extend my hand to any party that wants to work constructively to advance legislation that will help Canadians. Once debate has concluded on both privilege motions, our priority will be resuming debate on the bills I have listed.

Finance

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on that point, I can recall, shortly after my daughter was elected back in 2015 or 2016, being out on Keewatin Street, taking signs out and having a wonderful story about pharmacare. I was a health critic for a couple of years when I was in the Manitoba legislature. Pharmacare is something that I believe should be there, and I am glad that we were able to work together to ensure that we have programs like pharmacare moving forward.

In regard to Bill C-71, I know that one of the member's colleagues has been a very strong advocate for it. The NDP has attempted to get Bill C-71 through the House, and last fall I think it was all the way through, recognizing the importance of the bill. We appreciate the support that we receive from opposition members, because we need that kind of support to get things passed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

One of them is saying, “Hear, hear!”

Madam Speaker, now the Conservatives are saying that they do not want to be accountable through media like the CTVs or the CBCs of Canada because they do not have confidence in those national news broadcasters. It is because they do not want to answer the questions that are being posed to them. Instead, they want to rely on social media.

There is a reference to the leader of the Conservative Party being very similar to Trump. That might be a bit of a disservice to Donald Trump. Quite frankly, I am very disappointed in the direction the far-right Conservative Party is going today. There is also no sign of its members changing their attitudes. Look at the attitude of hate that Conservatives are promoting and the information they are providing to people.

Today, Conservatives brought forward a motion, and that motion is in keeping with their slogans. I will give them that much. Darn, they are good at slogans. They have slogans; they have bumper stickers. They are ready and itching to get them out there. The problem is that everything is based on a foundation of sand. At the end of the day, there is nothing to it but slogans and bumper stickers, which are supported by misinformation.

One of the examples I could give is related to what Conservative members have been talking a lot about already today. If someone were to do a Hansard search, how many Conservative members of Parliament would we find who have actually said anything about cutting the carbon rebates? I suspect we would not find any. How many have said, “cut the carbon tax”? I suspect, on average, each one has said it 10 times. Some have said it a couple hundred times, and others have not said it because they have not spoken.

I can suggest to members that, when Conservatives go to Canadians and say that they are going to save Canadians money, as they have said inside the chamber, by cutting the carbon tax, that is not true. More than 80% of the constituents that I represent get a carbon rebate. That rebate amount is more than the carbon tax that they pay. That means that their net income, their disposable income, is increased. That is the reality. Members do not have to believe me. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is independent, will tell us that.

Conservatives will spread misinformation because it sounds good. Some provinces do not even have the carbon tax, yet they will go to those provinces and say that they are going to cut the carbon tax, giving a false impression. The other day in debate, there was one member in the Conservative Party who stood up and said that a 34% cost increase on food is a direct result of the carbon tax. What a bunch of garbage. That is absolutely ridiculous. I challenged the member on that statement, and then I challenged a couple of other members on the statement this particular member made. They do not change their opinions on it, even if they are confronted with facts.

They do not change their opinions because they are so focused on that thirst for power. At the end of the day, they are not concerned about what is happening for Canadians, the day-to-day living that Canadians have to put up with, let alone the important issues that the House of Commons deals with on a daily basis.

Today, we were supposed to debate Bill C-71. Bill C-71 is a bill to ensure that individuals who should have never lost their citizenship will be given their Canadian citizenship. Every political party, except for the Conservatives, supports that legislation. Conservatives do not even want to debate it now. They will not allow it to be debated. They do not want it to go to committee.

Members will say that the Conservatives do not support that one, but they do support Bill C-66. They say that they support it. That bill takes sexual harassment and rape victims who are going through military courts and transfers them into civil courts. Every member of the House of Commons, the Conservatives, the Bloc, New Democrats, Greens and, of course, Liberals, supports that legislation. Members would think that the Conservatives would allow that bill to go to committee, but no. Instead, they want to filibuster. They brought forward another concurrence report.

They say that they are concerned about the economy. Members can take a look at Bill C-33, which we were supposed to be debating last week, to enhance our trading opportunities. What did the Conservative members do? They did not want to debate that either, so they brought in another concurrence report, which prevented the government from being able to debate that legislation.

The members opposite, in criticizing the government today, were talking about issues of crime. They say that this is what they want to talk about. I will remind them of Bill C-63, the online harms act. That is to protect children being extorted, being bullied. The whole issue of exploitation of our young children, we were supposed to debate that last week, but no, the Conservatives said no to that too, and they brought forward a concurrence report. The Conservative Party is going out of its way to prevent any legislation from going to committee.

Prior to getting up, I had a member of one of the opposition parties approach me, asking why we do not just move to orders of the day. I think there was a great deal of effort and thought to move towards orders of the day because then maybe we could get on with actually providing movement on some of this legislation. The problem is that we are a minority government. In a minority government, we cannot go to orders of the day unless we get an opposition party that says it will support the government moving to orders of the day so that we can get rid of the games that the Conservative party has been playing.

Let there be no doubt that, no matter how critical the Conservative Party is, how much of a roadblock the Conservatives want to present or how much of a character assassination that they are after for those in the government, the Prime Minister and the government will continue to be focused on the interests of Canadians in all regions of our country. That is something we will continue to focus on day in and day out. That means that, whether the Conservatives want it or not, we will continue to develop policy ideas that will transform into budgetary measures and legislative measures. There will come a time when Canadians will, in fact, evaluate and take a look at what the Conservative Party has been doing between now and whenever the next election is, and what other political entities have done.

I think there is a sense of responsibility for all of us to be able to accomplish good things for Canadians. That is what I liked about the agreement that was achieved between the Liberals and the New Democrats. I have always been a big fan of the pharmacare plan. I have always been a very strong advocate for a national health care system that supports our provinces, which administer health care. For over 30 years as a parliamentarian, those are the types of issues that have been important for me. As a government, those issues have been important for us.

We were able to get support from the New Democrats to advance a number of wonderful health care initiatives. That is what it means to put people first, putting the constituents of Canada ahead of partisan politics. By doing that, the government has invested $198 billion over 10 years in health care. That is for future generations. We have developed a dental care program. To date, over 700,000 people have had access to it. Members can think of diabetes, or of contraceptives, and how, as a government working with an opposition party, we are, in fact, making a difference. In fact, I have suggested that one of the other things we should possibly be looking at is shingles and how pharmacare might be able to deal with that particular issue.

These are the types of ideas that we are talking about within the Liberal Party to build a stronger, healthier health care system, while the Conservative Party wants to tear it down. That is a part of the Conservative far-right hidden agenda. People need to be aware of that. By the time we get to the election, I believe that throughout that election, we will see the Conservative sand fade away. There is no foundation to what they are saying. It is just bumper stickers and slogans. That is all they have. We can contrast that to the many progressive measures we have taken as a government, in good part because of the cooperation of opposition parties.

I ask the Conservatives to stop playing the games, stop bringing in Conservative motions of concurrence and allow debate on government legislation. A responsible Conservative opposition could still bring in the motions it wants, while at least allowing debates to occur on legislation. Allow these important pieces of legislation to go to committee where they can be studied, where they can come back and where they can provide hope for many. That is the very least that Conservatives can do: put Canadians ahead of their own political party.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, as we are listening, the Conservatives never miss the opportunity to not work for Canadians. We were supposed to be discussing Bill C-71 tonight, which is about lost Canadians. When the Conservatives were in power, they actually stripped the ability of Canadians to retain or gain their citizenship. I wanted to debate the bill tonight because it would affect my daughter, who was born abroad but has lived here all of her life; it might actually ensure that her children have Canadian citizenship.

I would ask the member this: Why is it that we have to hear the same slogans over and over again rather than do the work we are doing on this side of the House for Canadians?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to be here today to speak on behalf of the people who sent me to represent them in the House of Commons, the people of London West.

This morning, the leader of the official opposition said that if the Conservatives formed government, they would run things the way they did before, specifically referring to when Harper's Conservatives were in power. That is a big shame. After all, this Conservative Party has promised to create barbaric cultural practices such as hotlines that encourage Canadians to spy on one another. It was this Conservative Party that kept families apart through limited family reunification targets, only because it did not want to let many seniors into this country.

Yesterday, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn spent time filibustering a bill that was first moved by the member for Brandon—Souris, who was the sponsor of the bill. He said the Conservatives would make sure they did not oppose the motion, yet they spent three hours filibustering it, misleading Canadians and not following the promises they made.

It was this Conservative Party that introduced significant cuts to the interim federal health program in 2012, which provided health care to refugees and asylum seekers. These cuts led to limited access to central health services for many refugees, including children and pregnant women. The Federal Court eventually ruled that these cuts were cruel and unusual.

It was this Conservative Party that voted against funding the interim housing assistance program ahead of the cold winter months, playing political games, as they have done since we came back to Parliament, with the lives of vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers, again misleading Canadians that they are here to serve. They are here to cut programs that are vital and essential to Canadians.

It was this Conservative Party that shut down the family reunification program for two years, separating families. In fact, a statement made by the former immigration minister under the Harper Conservatives said, “If you think your parents may need to go on welfare in Canada, please don't sponsor them.” This was from a minister in Harper's government. It was the same Conservative Party that accused vulnerable asylum seekers and refugees of abusing Canada's generosity.

The Conservatives are doing what they know best, and that is dividing and misleading Canadians. Shame on them. We will not stand for it, nor will we dignify their shameful tactics to divide Canadians.

Let us talk about what the Conservative Party is doing right now at the citizenship and immigration committee. I want to remind the House what the Conservatives said about Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, during second reading debate. There has been a six-hour filibuster on a motion at the immigration committee regarding Bill C-71.

I will take this opportunity to share that I will be splitting my time with the member for Davenport. I got carried away.

I would like to share some of the context on Bill C-71. Given the recent legal changes to the first-generation limit that Harper's Conservatives introduced, it was clear that changes were needed to the Citizenship Act to address cohorts of excluded citizens. This is especially relevant for those born outside of Canada to a Canadian parent.

In 2009, several amendments to the Citizenship Act remedied the majority of the older lost Canadian cases by providing and restoring citizenship and removing the need for anyone to file to retain their citizenship by their 28th birthday. However, the Harper Conservatives introduced the first-generation limit, which the Supreme Court of Ontario has now deemed unconstitutional based on equality and mobility rights.

The leader of the official opposition has suggested that he would use the notwithstanding clause if given the chance, and that the Conservatives are considering taking away people's rights when it suits them. What the Conservatives did here is a concrete example of taking away the rights of Canadians, and I think they will do it again if given the opportunity. When Conservatives say that Canadians have nothing to fear, Canadians need to take note of what they have done in the past, as they have repeatedly said they would run the system exactly how they did before.

Bill S-245, a Senate public bill on the lost Canadians issue, was sponsored by a Conservative senator. However, during the study on this bill, the Conservative Party filibustered for over 30 hours. During that time, the member of Parliament for Calgary Forest Lawn, who is the sponsor for Bill S-245 and the former Conservative immigration critic, recommended the introduction of a private member's bill or government bill to address the remaining cohort of lost Canadians. I want to point out that the Conservative Party continues to trade down this bill, even though it corresponds with its leader, who has assured us that the Conservatives will continue to support and advocate for this legislation.

As I said earlier, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn was quoted as saying that they will make sure there is no opposition to it, yet yesterday, the Conservatives spent hours filibustering, with different colleagues in rotation coming to filibuster. It was very misleading that they told Canadians there would be no opposition and it would be passed quickly. These Canadians came to our committee. The Conservatives listened to witnesses and heard them, yet they still misled them and moved into a filibuster.

We have a government bill in front of us that we want to pass. It is wrong that the Harper Conservatives created this division in the first place. However, once again, the Conservative Party is playing political games with the lives of Canadians. Nothing about that is new. They have done it before and are doing it again. I hope Canadians are watching.

The Conservatives are delaying Bill C-71 from going to committee so it can be debated. They are also filibustering at the immigration committee regarding the motion on Bill C-71. I am so disappointed that the Conservatives have been sharing misinformation and attempting to stoke division and drive fear into the hearts of Canadians, but I cannot say that I am surprised.

The Conservatives constantly talk about people's pensions. They talk about the NDP leader's pension, yet they do not talk about the fact that their own leader has a pension of $230,000. The Conservatives also do not want to address why their leader does not have a security clearance right now. These are all questions that Canadians need answers to, and Conservatives should be asking them themselves.

On this side of the House, we remain committed to righting the wrongs of the unconstitutional first-generation limit on families. We continue to support newcomers. We will continue to provide a safe haven for vulnerable asylum seekers, all the while ensuring that our growth is sustainable and that we continue to build more homes and grow our economy. We have prioritized family reunification by expanding the spousal, parents and grandparents sponsorship program, increasing our annual levels and lowering financial requirements.

We are taking action to restore the integrity of the international student program, protecting students from instances of abuse and exploitation. We have made it easier for foreign national physicians with job opportunities to remain here in Canada and seek permanent residency. We have also launched a health-specific category under express entry to help address labour shortages in the health care sector so that Canadians can receive the quality health care they deserve.

We introduced the home child care provider pilot and home support worker pilot to provide pathways to PR for caregivers. We are also the first country to introduce a special humanitarian stream for women leaders, human rights defenders, LGBTQI+ individuals, persecuted minorities and journalists.

On this side of the House, we will always support newcomers, asylum seekers, refugees and citizens, and we will always stand shoulder to shoulder with them every step of the way.

National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a great privilege to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Shepard. Over the past two years, constituents have written to me on multiple occasions, both for and against a universal basic income, and specifically on the legislation before us as well as what I will call its partner legislation, which is in the Senate.

It is very confusing when the bills have almost the same number, and sometimes people get them confused. It is very difficult to understand when we are sent a bill number in the subject line but it is not explained whether it is S or C and I am left trying to figure out which legislation it is. I am always looking to respond, but sometimes I get it wrong, and then there is a conversation back and forth.

I have taken the time to read the legislation over, and I want to give the member who sponsored it the benefit of going through each section on the merits of the content. I will be voting against the bill, so I want to explain section by section why that is.

Clause 3 is on the national framework. This is the part that a lot of constituents have told me they have concerns about. There are those people who support it as well, but on the balance, my constituents want me to vote against it. It would create a national framework for the implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income program throughout Canada for any person over the age of 17, and then it goes on to include temporary workers, permanent residents and refugee claimants.

It does not say “successful claimants”. It does not have the classification of protected persons. It does not refer to international students. It uses the wording “temporary workers”, which, when one reads it over, could mean a series of different things.

The bill also does not have a royal recommendation. It does not seek to spend any money. Therefore when I was responding to constituents, I noted for them that the bill does not have a budget, an amount, assigned to it, which is one of the reasons I would vote against it right away, because it would create a framework legislation. I generally do not support framework legislation. I have on a few occasions when I thought it would not be an imposition of huge new costs.

Subclause 3(2) has a consultation provision. Generally I like these types of consultation requirements with provincial, territorial and indigenous governments. I think they are more than reasonable. I come from the province of Alberta, where there is a requirement for the provincial government to consult, especially, for example, with Métis Settlements General Councils, or MSGCs. So far, I think Alberta is the only provincial government where it is a requirement; legislation affecting MSGCs cannot be changed without their consent. I think it is one of the first, if I am not wrong, among provincial governments, and I think it is a good idea generally.

Now I will move on to the content, which is subclause 3(3). It says that the framework must include four different types of provisions in it. For example, “guaranteed livable basic income program does not result in a decrease in services or benefits meant to meet an individual’s exceptional needs related to health or disability.” Of course this would not be universal, which in my view would be equal treatment for all, exactly the same.

I have read economics magazines and journals on the subject, which I will refer to in a moment, and they specifically state that a UBI or a negative income tax, which famously is kind of where the idea comes from, has to be completely equal to every single person regardless of their starting point.

There is also information in paragraph 3(3)(c) that would ensure that “participation in education, training or the labour market is not required in order to qualify for a guaranteed livable basic income”, and I have questions about temporary workers being made eligible for something like this. As I said, international students are not mentioned, but international students, as of September 1 of this year, can continue to work 24 hours per week in our labour market. However, as non-participation would allow them to participate in this benefit, they are specifically excluded in subclause 3(1). I do not know whether that was intentional or not.

Paragraph 3(3)(b) would “create national standards for health and social supports that complement a guaranteed basic income program and guide the implementation of such a program in every province”. I have two major concerns with this. One is that it would be an encroachment into provincial jurisdiction. My province gets to set what programs it wants. It does not have to in any way submit to the federal government when it is purely within its own provincial jurisdiction.

Second, setting national standards would encroach on provincial health care and social supports. My province has an age for PDD programs, as do many others, and it would be an encroachment to set a national standard, even if we consult with them. Consultation does not always lead to agreements, and our Constitution is very clear that there are areas of exclusive jurisdiction.

I know that is a comment often made by Quebec members of Parliament from different political parties, but it is one I think a lot of us Albertans make as well, that we have exclusive jurisdiction in many areas and we want the federal government to stay out of them.

Paragraph 3(a) talks about what would constitute a livable basic income in “each region of Canada” without spelling out what “region” would mean. In the Constitution, Canada is separated into four regions, if we use the Senate rules: western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Hopefully that is not what “region” means in this sense, because I think our state has evolved quite significantly and the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia combined now have a bigger population than the province of Quebec.

If I go on, there is a framework that is required to be tabled. There is more information on when it must be tabled and when the report must be provided to the House.

I have a Yiddish proverb, as I always do. I did forget to give one when I started speaking on Bill C-71, and I will always admonish myself for doing so. It says: He who is aware of his folly is wise.

In this instance, let us look at what is going on so we do not do something rash with our finances. We are facing a $40-billion deficit, and I wonder how we will pay for this. Jim Seeley, in my riding, wrote this great email asking a lot of questions about cost, percentages, who would be eligible, how would CPP and old age security work, just questions he was wondering about. I had to tell him I was not quite sure.

I did go and look, though, at the government's projections for future years. When does it expect to have a surplus? From a surplus, presumably, we would then look at whether we could do a universal basic income or a negative income tax. There is a $20-billion deficit in the last financial year that is forecast. The Government of Canada expects to accumulate a deficit of $157 billion by fiscal year 2028-29, and that is without any new spending announcements. That means no new public infrastructure dollars added, on top of what has already been announced, and no new procurement. There would be nothing new, nothing extra above and beyond that, and the government would still run a $20-billion deficit, so I wonder how all this would be paid for.

Finally, as I mentioned, a negative income tax has been talked about for at least the last 50 to 60 years. It was first proposed in a journal by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. He is often tagged as an economist of the right, which I do not think is entirely fair to him. Now, UBI and NIT, whichever acronym we want to use, work in slightly different ways but their goal is sort of the same. He recognized that a lot of public advocates on the left were generally very enthusiastic about the ideas he explained, especially the mechanisms his concept would work on and its end goal.

Public advocates on the right were much less enthusiastic and heavily criticized him when he wrote the journal. He recollected this quite often. There is a great YouTube video I often send to constituents, for them to hear from him, the expert, on the logic of how it would work. One of the things he said about UBI, or NIT, is that there would be no other welfare programs competing at the same time. There would be fewer civil servants, who he called nannies, who would look over the spending of citizens, of how they were living their lives and what they were doing.

To go back to my Yiddish proverb, I really hope we would be careful with the public's finances. We see it reflected in the polls, but I heard it while I was door-knocking in my riding of Calgary Shepard. My constituents are worried about the public finances. They are worried about a $40-billion deficit and about $150 billion more in debt being accumulated on the credit card of the nation. That is why I will be voting against this piece of legislation.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Yes, Madam Speaker, by popular demand, I am back. I really missed these exchanges. Some of our great moments are on Thursdays, not just for CPAC viewers, but also for you and me personally, I know. Therefore it is wonderful to exchange and wonderful to be back. I want to wish members a good return. I hope everybody had a productive and happy time with their families and their constituents in their ridings.

This afternoon, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-66, the military justice system modernization act.

Tomorrow, we will begin the report stage debate of Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act.

On Monday, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-63, the online harms act.

Madam Speaker, you will be very happy to know that next Wednesday we will also be resuming second reading debate of Bill C-71, which would amend the Citizenship Act.

I would also like to take the opportunity to inform the House that both next Tuesday and next Thursday shall be allotted days.

Furthermore, on Monday, the Minister of Finance will table a ways and means motion on capital gains taxation that incorporates the feedback received during consultations over the summer. The vote will take place on Wednesday of next week during Government Orders.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship introduced Bill C-71. As Canadians, we can never take our rights for granted. We must remain vigilant, especially when the Leader of the Opposition suggests he would use the notwithstanding clause if given the chance. Like the first generation limit introduced by the Conservatives, it is a concrete example of them taking away the rights of Canadians.

Could the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship explain to the House the importance of Bill C-71?

Recent Deaths of First Nations People During Police Interventions

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nunavut for raising this topic this evening. After reading the letter that the member for Nunavut put forward in asking for this emergency debate under Standing Order 52(2), the first thing I would like to say is that I want to express my condolences, and the condolences of everyone in my riding and in the city that I live in, for these individuals who are no longer with us. We all know, as parliamentarians, that life is so precious. Life is very special. As a person of deep faith, if I can use the term, in the context of modern times, every single life is precious. Every single life is to be lived to its fullest. These individuals have perished. In 11 days, six first nations people were killed. That is a tragedy. I even want to add that not seeing the coverage in the media that it perhaps should have received much more thoroughly is obviously disappointing. To the member of Nunavut, I thank her again.

I am a member of Parliament from a very urban riding in Ontario that borders the city of Toronto but my roots are in small-town British Columbia, on the north coast of B.C. and Prince Rupert. As the member for New Westminster—Burnaby knows, up in northern British Columbia there is a very rich history, dating back millennia, of first nations people.

Growing up, in terms of my interaction with and learning about first nations people and what they have gone through, we did not comprehend the colonialism, the systemic barriers, the racism, the residential schools, that many of these individuals were put through and that the communities were put through. It is absolutely horrendous. Over the last eight or nine years our government, as well as governments prior to ours, has done a lot to work with and build a nation-to-nation relationship with first nations and indigenous peoples. I am very proud of that, but there is obviously much work to be done still.

I want to begin my remarks this evening by thanking the member for Nunavut again for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I acknowledge her advocacy in seeking ways that we can work together to meaningfully address the challenges facing the first nations and Inuit policing program. I recognize, and I do not need this written for me, that the current state is completely and utterly unacceptable.

The government has offered additional funding for uniformed officers and equipment, including 17 additional officers for the Treaty Three Police Service, the UCCM Anishnaabe Police Service, and eight additional officers for Anishinabek Police Services. However, we know that we need to continue to work with these police services to ensure our full understanding of their concerns, including where improvements can be made to the program, and collaborate on a true path forward. We must recognize that the funding issues highlighted by specific police services are indicative of our larger program challenges, which is why the Prime Minister has mandated the Minister of Public Safety to continue to co-develop legislation that recognizes first nations policing as an essential service.

Important work in this area is under way, and the Government of Canada continues to work with first nations partners. We heard, through the Government of Canada's engagement, the many challenges faced by first nations police services, including access to stable, sustainable and equitable funding. The co-development of this legislation is our opportunity to change the status quo to better meet the needs of communities and to transform first nations policing to a more sustainable model, one that is well-funded and respectful of the communities it serves. While the co-development of a legislative framework for indigenous policing is a key responsibility of our government, it must also be done in partnership with provinces and territories, given their role as regulators and funders in this area. First nations communities, like all communities in Canada, should be places where people and families feel safe and secure. That is a fundamental duty of any government.

Every first nations individual, wherever they live here in Canada, in whatever community, needs to feel safe and secure. I tell my residents all the time that we live in a great city. We are safe. We have the York Regional Police department. Whatever challenges we have, we can face them together. We are a great city, a great province and a great country. If we have this nation-to-nation relationship, the first nations need to feel safe and secure in their communities.

A properly funded, culturally sensitive and respectful police service is essential for community safety and well-being. In addition, in order to support safer indigenous communities, budget 2021 provided the mandate to stabilize the FNIPP by adding new officers to existing self-administered police services, expand the FNIPP by creating new first nations police services, transition some community tripartite agreements to self-administered agreements, provide dedicated funding for community safety officers and provide dedicated funding for community consultative groups.

Budget 2021 provided new funding in the amount of $540 million over five years and $120 million ongoing. Most of that funding is being dedicated to self-administered police services; it will allow the services to add new officers and sustain investments in training and equipment. For the first time, it includes an escalator of 2.75% to help mitigate the cost of inflation.

The FNIPP aims to provide culturally responsive policing services, which are being established in many first nations communities that would not otherwise have a dedicated on-site policing presence. However, the issues raised earlier by my colleague are valued. They serve as a reminder that we have a long way to go when it comes to reconciliation. That is why our government remains committed to continuing this important work in partnership and in collaboration together with indigenous communities, based on respect for community needs.

While change does not occur overnight, meaningful actions have been taken to date, and our government remains committed to supporting community safety improvements and advancing reconciliation with indigenous people. I can read a few simple stats with regard to the FNIPP: There is $181 million under the first nations and Inuit policing program to support 1,410 officers in over 426 indigenous communities in Canada; $43.7 million for first nations policing to recognize first nations policing as an essential service; $540.3 million and $126.8 million ongoing to support indigenous communities currently served under the first nations and Inuit policing; and finally, $108.6 million over five years to repair, renovate and replace policing facilities in first nations and Inuit communities.

We tend to rise in the House and speak about programs, our opinions, the economy and what is happening in our communities. Earlier today, I had the opportunity to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister and finance minister, which is always an honour for me to do. It is a privilege to be in the House, and earlier this afternoon, I had the opportunity to speak on Bill C-71 with reference to a piece of immigration policy for lost Canadians. There was a bit of debate. There is unanimity among us, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois, the three parties there, and the official opposition is on another side, pursuing another path, and that is fine. That is what our parliamentary process involves. That is what debate is about, bringing forth our ideas and sharing opinions.

This evening, with regard to this debate, to be honest, I rather wish we were not here tonight and that this debate was not taking place. All of these individuals' circumstances are unique, and I hope there is a full investigation, obviously, into what has gone on. We ask in some terms from economic business if this is a cluster of this. How could such things happen in an 11-day period? I hope that, in the days to come, we do not read about these stories. I understand that these stories do not happen and these events do not happen. I understand there is a desire to bring this to committee and to have it studied. Obviously, for those individuals who sit on the indigenous services committee, or INAN, I encourage them to do the work that a committee does. Committees are destinies of their own domain, as we always indicate from all parties, because more work needs to be done.

Indigenous communities and indigenous people deserve better all the time.

With that, I thank the Speaker for his attention. It is great to see him. I hope he and his family are doing well. To my hon. colleagues tonight, good evening.

Self-determination of the Tibetan People

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, consultation has taken place, and I believe that if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

That notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, be deemed to have been read a second time—