House of Commons Hansard #43 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was amendments.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Citizenship Act Report stage of Bill C-3. The bill amends the Citizenship Act, responding to a court ruling on the "first-generation limit" for citizenship by descent. Liberals and NDP propose amendments to restore the bill's original form, arguing committee changes create "two classes of Canadians" and are unconstitutional. Conservatives and Bloc defend their committee amendments, which add "language and knowledge" requirements and stricter residency rules, to uphold the "value of Canadian citizenship" and ensure a "substantial connection" to Canada. 14200 words, 1 hour in 2 segments: 1 2.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Conservative MP Michael Barrett raises a question of privilege, alleging the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner exceeded authority by publishing updated disclosure forms without required House approval, potentially constituting contempt of Parliament. Another Conservative MP supports this, citing a pattern of alleged abuses of power, including unauthorized non-disclosure agreements and inquiries based on anonymous denunciations. 3800 words, 30 minutes.
Relieving Grieving Parents of an Administrative Burden Act (Evan's Law) Second reading of Bill C-222. The bill, also known as Evan's law, amends the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code. It aims to prevent parents who lose a child while on parental benefits from facing administrative burdens and financial clawbacks. The proposed changes ensure grieving parents can continue receiving benefits, providing compassionate support during profound loss. 8200 words, 1 hour.
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member said that Parliament is supreme and we should, therefore, ignore the ruling of the court. I would suggest to her that, rather, it is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is supreme, and it is the role of the court to advise parliamentarians when our laws exceed the capacity of the charter.
I would ask the member to please comment on that.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals rolled over on the court ruling. They said that Parliament should not have a debate on this. They allowed the first-generation limit to be eliminated by a lower court.
Parliament is supreme. I cited the part of our laws through which we have the right to determine what Canadian citizenship is, and the Liberals took that debate away from us. They had to extend the limit on the court ruling because they had screwed it up so badly that they did not have anything in place to prevent unlimited citizenship by descent. It is preposterous.
If the Liberals think that the court ruling should not be challenged, then why are we here? Why do we not just give everything to the judges? I say no.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, today's debate raises important questions about democracy. What role do judges play and what role do legislators play? The judge said it was discriminatory and told legislators to do their job and determine what the real connection is between a Canadian born abroad and his or her country. A guideline has been proposed, a reasonable limit that mirrors the immigration system. That is the job of legislators. It is not up to judges to decide everything, because otherwise we would have a government of judges, and that is not what we want.
I would like to know what my colleague has to say about the state of our parliamentary democracy if everything that is decided in committee is overturned when the report is presented to the House.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, I cannot wrap my brain around what is happening. We had members of Parliament stand up in here today and say that we should never, as a Parliament, exercise the authority our constituents have given to us when a court has ruled on something. We have the power to make legislation. We have the power in our charter to overturn court rulings.
The Liberals made a deliberate choice not to challenge legislation that speaks to the value of Canadian citizenship and how something so precious can be applied. They essentially eliminated rules for that. That is bananas. It is antithetical to the principle of parliamentary supremacy.
I am so proud to stand here and say that Canadian citizenship has value and that it is worth having this debate in the House of Commons. I believe there should be a language requirement; I believe there should be security checks, and I believe there should be a citizenship test. Anybody who does not believe this needs to give their head a shake.
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for the passion and knowledge she brings to this debate. My question is, why? There is so much value to Canadian citizenship that is recognized around the world. Why does the government want to cheapen it?
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, over the last decade we have heard a lot about what Canada can give to the world. We had the citizenship and immigration department tweet last week that Canada is essentially the walk-in clinic for the world.
It is about time this place started talking about what the responsibilities are of being a citizen as well, such as respect for the rule of law and upholding freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to worship without persecution or fear. Those things are under threat right now, and it is because of 10 years of the Liberal government erasing our national symbols and saying that in order for us to move forward, we have to constantly wallow in the past.
I am not saying there are not things we should be correcting, but if we are not talking about the responsibilities associated with citizenship, our pluralism will not survive.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here is that the Conservatives, more than a decade ago, brought in a law that is in violation of the charter. I know the member is a feminist, and this violation hits women the most. That is what the court found.
If we stand with women and their rights, why would we not ensure these amendments are passed?
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, why? It is because the member opposite is so radically far left and so postnational that she believes people who get citizenship by descent should not have to take a citizenship test, which includes such things as that female genital mutilation is a barbaric practice or that people need to reject violent and extreme ideology.
Bill C-3 Motions in AmendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Order, please.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. This bill responds to a court ruling.
Let us take a look at the historical background. In 2009, the Harper government amended the Citizenship Act to prohibit the transmission of citizenship beyond the second generation for children born outside Canada, even if their parents are Canadian. In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down provisions of this law on the grounds that they violated section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which deals with mobility rights and states that every citizen has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada, as well as section 15 of the charter, which deals with equality rights. The parties challenging the law represented seven families that were discriminated against by this law, and the court recognized that the ban introduced in this law was unfair, especially for those who were forced to choose between the birthplace of their child and the transmission of citizenship.
The case of the Brooke-Bjorkquist family illustrates the problem perfectly. A child was born in Geneva in 2010 to Canadian parents who were working for the government abroad. Despite the fact that this child was born to two Canadian parents and she returned to Canada at the age of one, she would not be able to follow in her parents' footsteps under the provisions of the act. She would not be able to choose to work abroad at some point in her career and give birth to a child abroad, because her child would not be able to obtain Canadian citizenship. That is ridiculous because the child was only born in Switzerland because of circumstances related to her parents' work and she spent most of her life in Canada.
The bill seeks to correct this type of injustice, which is why the Bloc Québécois supported it at second reading. Today, this bill has been sent back to the House from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for report stage consideration. At this point, we must ask ourselves a very simple question: What is the purpose of parliamentary committees?
After reviewing 26 briefs, hearing from 14 witnesses, holding two meetings and conducting four hours of work, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is sending the bill back to us with nine amendments. These nine amendments were adopted by a majority of committee members. What is the purpose of parliamentary committees in the context of a minority government like the one we have now? Are they a necessary but futile step, at the end of which the House overturns all the amendments that the parliamentary committee adopted by a majority vote? Alternatively, are committees a place where the will of the people can be expressed by representatives of recognized opposition parties?
I would remind members that, in April, the people elected more opposition members than government members. Were they sending a message? Did the people not give power to one party while asking that the other parties be more involved in law-making? I think so.
Yvon Pinard, the then president of the Privy Council, said the following about committees on November 29, 1982, and I quote: “Experience has shown that smaller and more flexible committees, when entrusted with interesting matters, can have a very positive impact on the development of our parliamentary system, upgrade the role of Members of Parliament, sharpen their interest and ultimately enable this institution [or committees] to produce much more enlightened measures that better meet the wishes of the Canadian people.” I think the last part of that statement is the most relevant part.
The bill as improved by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is a bill that contains more informed measures and, in our opinion, better reflects the wishes of the public. However, the government now wants to revisit the work that has been done and undo the improvements made in committee. It should be noted that the amendments now being proposed in the House come from the government, but also from a member of a non-recognized party.
It could be argued that, although that party is not recognized, its members should still be involved in the law-making process. That is difficult to dispute. The real question is, how involved can they be? Can they go so far as to erase almost all the work done in committee, to the point of setting aside the votes cast in committee by representatives of recognized parties? This seems to be at odds with the message sent by voters, who wanted to give more power to opposition parties.
There seems to be a risk that, at the end of the process, we will ask ourselves the same question: What is the purpose of parliamentary committees in the current Parliament?
The Bloc Québécois asks that the work done by the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be respected. We ask this because we believe it is a matter of parliamentary democracy and respect for the will of the voters, but also, in our opinion, because the amendments adopted in committee improve the bill amending citizenship.
The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-3 as amended by the committee. The bill was amended so that the requirements for passing on citizenship by descent to second-generation Canadians born abroad would align in every way with the requirements applied to naturalized citizens going through the immigration process. Bill C-3 proposed that citizenship be granted to children if one parent had spent at least 1,095 days in the country, the equivalent of about three years, over an indeterminate period prior to the child's birth. The Bloc Québécois supported an amendment to include this 1,095-day requirement, but over a five-year period instead, to match the requirement for people seeking citizenship through the immigration process. This amendment corrects injustices and ensures that new Canadians have a real and substantial connection to their new country, not a tenuous one.
Furthermore, we also supported an amendment to require citizenship applicants over the age of 18 to meet additional requirements. Like naturalized citizens, they would have to pass a language test, pass a knowledge and citizenship test and undergo a security assessment.
Another amendment adopted in committee establishes some degree of accountability by requiring that a report be tabled in Parliament containing the annual statistics on the number of citizenships granted under the new law. It is important to know what kind of impact this new legislation is having. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the new rules could result in 150,000 new Canadian citizens over the next five years. That is more than the entire population of the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, and more than the vast majority of ridings in the House. That is a significant number of people. I think it is important to understand what effect this new legislation will have.
We believe that these amendments respond to the court's ruling calling on us to determine what constitutes a real connection to Canada. By aligning the naturalization requirements for second-generation children born abroad with those for individuals seeking citizenship through immigration, we are ensuring a level playing field for everyone.
However, the amendments that the government and the member from an unrecognized party are now proposing to the House seek to restore the amended clauses to their original form, except for the three requirements regarding security assessments, the French language and citizenship tests for people aged 18 to 55. At least that is something.
Apart from those three things, the amendments introduced by the government seek to overturn the work of the majority of the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The government's intent is to restore the bill to the way it was before it was studied in committee, reinstating the requirement that one of the parents must have been present for 1,095 days over an indefinite period, rather than within the five years preceding the birth of the child, in order for the child to obtain Canadian citizenship by birth. In our opinion, it is reasonable to require the parent to have been present in Canada for about three of the five years before the birth.
The amendment also removes the requirement to table an annual report in Parliament on the number of citizens who have benefited from the law in order to obtain citizenship. Why oppose a transparency measure? Why refuse to learn what effect this new law will have on the number of Canadian citizens? I do not understand this.
That is why we will vote against the amendments proposed by the government and the member at report stage and support the version of the bill as amended by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. These amendments remove important safeguards that were added in committee by a majority vote in order to avoid a situation where, in righting wrongs, we leave the door too wide open, causing citizenship to lose its value.
Aslam Rana Liberal Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canada's housing crisis demands urgent action to lower costs and expand access to affordable and sustainable homes. Recently, the federal government, together with the City of Hamilton, celebrated the completion of 82 new homes on Queenston Road in Hamilton Centre.
Our work did not stop there. We also marked the groundbreaking of a 40-unit supportive housing project on Gage Avenue North for indigenous people transitioning out of homelessness, investing $12 million. We are also proud to join Kiwanis Homes next week for the launch of its new project on Barton Street East, again in Hamilton Centre.
We are working with community partners to build homes at a rate not seen since the Second World War.
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, recently, I had the honour to pay tribute to the Women's Royal Canadian Naval Service, also known as the Wrens, at the 83rd anniversary of its training establishment in my hometown of Cambridge.
Established in 1942, HMCS Conestoga was located in a former detention centre for “wayward” girls. The facility that was originally meant to punish women was transformed into a place to empower them. Their courage was equal to any sailor's, yet for too long their stories were untold, stories such as that of Isabel Macneill, who was trained here before going on to be the navy's first female commanding officer.
We remember not only the Wrens but all those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for country. Within the House of Commons lies a simple, dark room, and in that room are books with the name of every single Canadian who gave their life to fight for freedom. If ever someone visits Ottawa, I welcome them to pay tribute to the heroes in these pages in the Room of Remembrance.
Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba Liberal Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight a remarkable initiative being led by four workers from Carrefour pour elle, a shelter for women escaping domestic violence.
From October 24 to 26, Daly, Taïmé, Maxime and Amélie will take on an incredible challenge: a 48-hour cycling relay across their service area to raise awareness about domestic violence and fundraise donations to support the women and children staying at their shelter.
This gesture of solidarity and self-sacrifice is a testament to the participants' deep commitment to their community.
On behalf of Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie, I commend these four women and I urge everyone to support this noble cause.
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, Remembrance Day is all about thanking Canada's war veterans and remembering those who never came home. Sadly, Canada's Second World War veterans are getting fewer and fewer in number. Recently, Regina lost its last remaining World War II veteran.
“Ossie” Lakness enlisted in the Royal Canadian Navy in 1943, shortly after his 20th birthday. He went on to serve as a quartermaster on the HMCS St. Stephen, guarding supply convoys as they crossed the hazardous U-boat-infested North Atlantic waters. After the war was over, Ossie went on to live a fulfilling life, farming near Govan, Saskatchewan, starting a family with his wife Reta and enjoying curling in his spare time. His funeral will be held tomorrow at St. Mary's Parish Hall in Regina.
As the number of World War II veterans becomes fewer and fewer, I encourage all Canadians to take the time to thank a veteran of the Second World War while they are still with us.
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honour the incredible contributions of Jo-Ann Fisher, who, in the early 1980s, opened a small women’s fashion boutique that has become Hangar9, a name and store that is synonymous with quality in our community. It is a clothing store that has catered to the community for all of these years. She has since operated that store with her daughters, Lisa, Denise and Rachael. On the 40th anniversary of Hangar9, I salute their efforts.
Entrepreneurship is a great thing. We are so valued to have entrepreneurs in my community of London, and throughout the country, in fact, who continue to make a contribution. Small business is the backbone of our economy, and Hangar9 is a testament to that.
I invite the community to attend the special retrospective that has been planned, where memories of the past 40 years will be shared by all those at Hangar9. We are in their absolute debt. They have done such a great thing. I wish them all the very best going forward.
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, first responders, nurses and health care workers serve and protect our communities. They run toward danger, they heal our broken bones and they hold our hand as we take our last breath. However, what we have seen in the last 48 hours by the Liberal government, which is using frontline heroes as political pawns, is shameful.
I received a message from a first responder late last night who said that this week, they were so hopeful that political agendas would be put aside to pass a bill that had been unanimously supported three times and should have passed in the last Parliament. They said that now our safety is once again being used as a bargaining chip in a bill that will never pass in a minority Parliament. They are saddened to see their government act like this. They gave their life to a career that has destroyed them.
Violence is not part of their job description. The Liberals tying the safety of our first responders and health care workers to an omnibus bill that will never pass is disgusting. Does a first responder or nurse actually have to lose their life before they will take this seriously?
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to remind members that 10 years ago, we were at the height of a refugee crisis during which thousands of people were coming in from Syria. My community in Ottawa Centre responded by stepping up and welcoming many refugees.
Out of that anniversary comes the story of Refugee 613, an incredible organization created to help Syrian refugees settle and build better lives right here in Canada. It has done a tremendous job in helping not only Syrian refugees but many other refugees over the years. Just this week, it celebrated its 10th anniversary of building an incredible community.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Louisa Taylor and all the volunteers and staff of Refugee 613 for building a thoughtful, more inclusive community here in Ottawa, which has benefited all of our country.
Jeff Kibble Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, according to this week's Auditor General report, the Liberal government continues to fall short on getting the Canadian Armed Forces the personnel and equipment it needs to succeed. The report shows that the military is short 7,000 housing units, and the plans to build more are woefully insufficient. Only one in 13 people who apply to join completes the process, but we are short 13,000 troops. This will see an 81% shortage in critical trades for over 10 years.
The more we discuss this at the defence committee, the worse it gets. Yesterday, I confirmed that despite creating a whole new bureaucracy to streamline military procurement, led by a banker friend of the Prime Minister who may have multiple conflicts of interest, the new Defence Investment Agency will not deal with the F-35 project, the largest military procurement in Canadian history. According to the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, the F-35 report is complete and in the Prime Minister's hands, but the decision is still under review.
How much longer must the air force wait for the fighter jets it desperately needs? Our military embodies leadership and decisive action. When will the Liberals?
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is national independent community action week in Quebec, and I rise today to pay tribute to the thousands of organizations across Quebec that work with passion and determination to build a more just, inclusive and supportive society.
These groups are rooted in our community. They are the glue that holds us together. They defend people's rights, support the vulnerable, promote civic engagement and fight against inequality.
Their independence is an asset, because it allows them to operate freely, according to the real needs of their communities. This week of recognition is a fitting time to commend their unwavering commitment, creativity and resilience.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to thank the 54,000 professionals in the independent community action network and the 4,500 organizations that, day after day, bring these spaces of hope and social transformation to life.
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
Mr. Speaker, during this Women's History Month, members of this House may be surprised to know that until 1969, it was criminal in Canada for physicians to prescribe oral contraceptives for women for the purpose of contraception. However, some brave physicians who felt that every child should be a wanted child were defying this prohibition before 1969. One of them was Dr. Marion Powell.
Dr. Powell established the first municipally funded birth control clinic in Canada in 1966 when she was the country's first-ever female medical officer of health. I worked with Marion in the 1970s and 1980s when she was director of the Bay Centre for Birth Control, a clinic that is still operated by the Women's College Hospital in Toronto to this day. She was my mentor, and she encouraged me to become a medical officer of health.
As we celebrate Women's History Month, I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Powell for her pioneering work in advancing women's health in Canada.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister once said that he would be judged by the prices Canadians pay at the grocery store. Canadians have judged him, and Canadians are paying the price. Food inflation is up 4%. Vegetables are up 2%. Sugar is up more than 9%. Meat is up 6%, and beef is up 14%. What is the government's so-called plan? It is to spend more, tax more and call it “affordability”. Their hidden food taxes on fuel, food packaging and production show up on the receipt as higher prices for everyone, or at least everyone who has to pay for their own groceries, and Canadians feel it every single time they shop for food.
When will the Liberals get it through their heads that the more they spend, the more inflation goes up? The more inflation goes up, the more the prices go up for Canadians. Canadians should not have to go hungry because Liberals do not understand basic economics.
Bruce Fanjoy Liberal Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to recognize Treat Accessibly. Earlier this month I joined their founder, Rich Padulo, in Stittsville in my riding of Carleton to participate in the vision to make Halloween accessible for children with disabilities. A street in the community was transformed into a Halloween village, and neighbours set up tables at the ends of driveways, enabling children with limited mobility to trick-or-treat without barriers. I want to thank the Padulo family, Rich, Natasha and their daughter Siena, for their work with communities across Canada to bring treats into the streets and create inclusive spaces where everyone can participate in Halloween.
Treat Accessibly is a reminder that inclusion is not a barrier but an opportunity. I will continue to show up and be supportive of all organizations like Treat Accessibly to create conditions for all Canadians to thrive.
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told a room full of students that they are going to have to make sacrifices, but young Canadians have already sacrificed enough. They have already sacrificed the dream of home ownership. In 2015, the median age to buy a first home was only 31, and today, after 10 years of Liberal failure it is 38, with some provinces as high as 40. Young Canadians have sacrificed their careers, with youth unemployment at all-time highs, and nearly half of young Canadians have sacrificed by delaying starting a family or by not even having one at all.
The ancient Greeks told the story of the Titan Cronus eating his own children. I hope that is not why the Prime Minister said that we are Athens. Sacrificing our children's future is not good economic policy; it is wrong. Our parents and our grandparents worked hard to make a better life for us, but for the first time in our history, they are saying that this generation is not better off than the last. If that is not a testament to 10 years of Liberal failure, I do not know what is.