Mr. Speaker, of course it would be hard to begin this new parliamentary session without wishing everyone, including those watching at home, a warm welcome back. The summer was particularly beautiful in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I think it was important for many of us to practice self-care after the year we had. That did not prevent some family trips, including to the Quebec Games, and a trip to the north shore for us. I think it was important to do some self-care and I hope everyone was able to do that.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the passing this summer of two of our icons. Léandre Bergeron is known for his bread, but also for the whole encyclopedia representing the core values of Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Quebec. I want to pay tribute to him. There was also the great painter Norbert Lemire, my great-uncle, who was a significant figure in my life. If my colleagues ever have the opportunity to see one of his paintings, I think they will find his style very unique.
I am very pleased to be back in the House to speak to Bill C-3, which aims to correct an injustice affecting many children born abroad to Quebec and Canadian parents. This is one bill that makes sense to me. It will enable these lost Quebeckers and Canadians to regain their citizenship. This bill reponds a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court, which invalidated provisions of the Citizenship Act that violated certain sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Say, for example, that a Canadian couple works for the government abroad and has a child in another country. Let us say they name her Caroline. The law says that even if Caroline grows up in Canada, if she gets a job abroad and has a child, that child cannot be a Canadian citizen. The situation is a bit complicated and it does not need to be. However, it shows that even though these situations are quite rare, they are still possible. It is not right, and it needs to be corrected.
This bill rectifies that situation by allowing the transfer of citizenship if the parent can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada, in other words, that they have lived in Canada continuously or intermittently for a period of 1,095 days, or three years. This type of change is helpful, particularly for many diplomats who may have to live abroad while representing Quebec or Canada. This bill corrects an injustice that could have affected them down the road.
What is more, Bill C-3 also rights injustices for other lost Canadians, such as those born between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981. At that time, as a result of amendments made to the Citizenship Act in 1977, individuals who wished to obtain Canadian citizenship by descent had to apply for it before the age of 28. Whoever failed to apply would lose their citizenship. This little-known requirement meant that some individuals lost their citizenship. Imagine how a person would feel if they went to apply for a passport only to find out that they were no longer a Canadian citizen, even though their family has been living here for generations. Of course, that is a rather dramatic example, but these individuals became stateless and had to go through a complicated process to prove that they are, in fact, Canadian.
The other change introduced by this important bill is to allow Canadian women who married non-Canadian men before 1947 to regain their Canadian citizenship. In fact, these women lost their citizenship when they married. Their situation is very similar to the experience of many indigenous women, an important issue that Parliament studied in the past before restoring the status of indigenous women who decided to marry non-indigenous men. In a way, it was characteristic of the sexist policies of that time. Bill C‑3 corrects an unacceptable situation and takes a step forward toward restoring gender equality, a value that I and Bloc Québécois members in this House hold in the highest regard.
The last group of people to have their status corrected under Bill C‑3 are children born abroad, who were adopted but whose parent died, and who were subsequently denied citizenship. Simply put, these changes are beneficial, now and in the future, in helping to address absurd situations arising from various oversights at different points in time. This bill rectifies those situations.
The Bloc Québécois believes it might be worthwhile to overhaul this legislation in the future to clarify some of its provisions, since it is still causing real headaches. I would remind the House that this is the fourth change that has been made in the past 25 years to correct the injustices against many people who have lost their citizenship because of obscure, unfair or discriminatory rules.
For example, in the 1947 legislation, in a clause that has since been corrected, Quebec citizens born abroad were required to spend their 24th year in Canada. In other words, if they arrived here at age 25, they lost their citizenship. The second update to this legislation was made 30 years later. Some changes have made it easier to access citizenship, but, again, some aspects of this legislation have created awful situations, including the ones I mentioned earlier, where Quebeckers and Canadians who obtained their citizenship by descent had to apply to keep their status before age 28. This part of the legislation was corrected in 2009, but only for Canadians who were not yet 28 at the time. Today, this bill will correct that major omission.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the work of someone with whom I used to work closely. I am talking about my former parliamentary assistant and, more importantly, the former member of Parliament for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Meili Faille. She and the Bloc Québécois undertook the enormous task of compiling an inventory of problems relating to citizenship in the 2000s. Under her leadership, the top experts from across Canada worked on those two studies, which many of my colleagues have cited during the proceedings. We must also highlight the work of Don and Brenda Chapman, whom I salute, as I am sure they are watching. Their work has been crucial in enabling many Quebec and Canadian citizens to regain their citizenship. As a result of their efforts, we learned that, due to obscure and complex rules at the time, General Roméo Dallaire, who was a senator and one of the greatest Canadians and Quebeckers who made us so proud, did not even have Canadian citizenship. This shows the importance of the work we are doing today.
Later on, numerous reforms were carried out to fix some of the problems that were being created by the Citizenship Act. These reforms, from 2005, 2009 and 2015, made it possible to resolve a number of situations. This means that the Citizenship Act, which was drafted in 1947, has not undergone a substantial review since that time. However, there is no law as important to a country as its citizenship law. The world has changed since 1947. Although some amendments were made in 1977, the fact remains that it may be time to sit down and review this important piece of legislation in order to make it clear what Canada is hoping to achieve in terms of citizenship. The definition of citizenship is at the core of what makes up a country. Canada has a responsibility to its citizens, whether they live here in Quebec or Canada or abroad.
During the pandemic, my office worked day and night to bring people from Abitibi—Témiscamingue home because they were stranded in various countries around the world. Our role as MPs is, first and foremost, to help our constituents and fellow citizens. I think it is worth emphasizing how important it is for Parliament to review the Citizenship Act. It may not be the most exciting topic, but it is perhaps one of the most important, because it forms the basis for defining our rights at a time when defining our identity and who we are is more important than ever.
I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill because it restores the citizenship that Quebeckers and Canadians have lost. I hope that this debate will lead us to begin the important work of reviewing citizenship, and so much the better if we begin our work with a consensus bill, because we have had enough squabbling in the House in recent years.