Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I will get the opportunity to expand on the comments I will provide to the member. I want to amplify the fact that there are over 700 organizations that have recognized the need to do what is being proposed within the legislation. I believe that there was a relatively high sense of co-operation that has ultimately led us to the point where we are today. We all should express our gratitude to all those organizations and others, the individuals, who have made today possible regarding the legislation. Hopefully it will not take much longer before it ultimately passes and receives royal assent. I would like to compliment the member, who I know has been an advocate for this issue.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-273 today and, in my comments, pick up on the question I had posed to the mover of the legislation. Having had the opportunity to go through a number of the different organizations that have signed on in support of the legislation, what I have found is very impressive. In all the different regions, all different types of organizations, including everything from faith-oriented types of groups to professional organizations and non-profit groups, have a common thread. That is the interest of the child. All members of Parliament, I believe, have in our hearts a genuine concern. We want to be there to ensure that our children, who are our greatest treasure, will be protected into the future. The letter that I received that talked about the 700 groups was sent to me by Dr. Elizabeth Comack. I do not know exactly what role she played, and I apologize to her for not knowing, but I would like to compliment her in terms of her advocacy and ensuring that members of Parliament are a bit more informed about the types of supports that are out there for the legislation. I would hope that the listing she provided me is accessible, and I am sure those who signed in support and got behind the legislation will all be acknowledged. I would like to acknowledge them myself in terms of their efforts and their thoughts in making today a reality, as I expect that the legislation will pass. In good part that is because we have a minority government situation. Even though we have a minority, one of the nice things that came out of our situation is an agreement that was signed off on with the New Democrats and the Liberals that allowed us to look at areas in which there is common interest and see how we can move forward. This is one of those private members' bills that there was some discussion about, and one reason we might have it today is that high sense of co-operation. This clearly shows that minority governments can work; we can deliver some very good, solid legislation, whether in government bills or private members' bills. It was put into perspective well when Dr. Comack indicated that, since 1892, section 43 of the Criminal Code has really allowed parents to hit and hurt their children as a form of punishment. I want to pause there because norms and mores of society change over time. I was born in 1962, and I can recall my earlier years, in and around the early to mid-1970s, when there were many issues surrounding “my mom, my grandparents, this is the way in which they were raised” and so forth. I was surprised at the degree to which corporal punishment was being used in homes. I know from experience that it was actually tolerated quite freely in society, especially into the early 1960s, when we started to see significant changes. Regions of the country might have reacted differently; some might have been a little slower or faster than others. However, the bottom line is that, over time, I believe people have recognized that what was acceptable back in the 1960s and earlier would never be tolerated today. When I am out in the community and see someone hit a child, whether that person is a guardian, a parent or whatever, it causes a very different reaction today than it did a couple of generations ago. There are commentaries that go along with it. I was a member of the Manitoba legislature for a number of years and remember vividly a presentation that was made on the issue of corporal punishment. The presentation demonstrated that some people believe they really do have the right to hit and hurt a child as punishment. Some of the visuals that were shown were absolutely cruel. For example, there was the whipping of a child with the cord of a vacuum cleaner that left welts and physical abuse to the degree that the child would end up going to the hospital. We are not just talking about 13-year-olds or 14-year-olds, the teenage years. From the examples I saw, it went all the way to almost infancy, two-year-olds and three-year-olds, as a form of punishment. That, to me, is abhorrent. It was during the late 1980s, early 1990s, and we knew it was happening. Some people were not necessarily defending that extreme level, but they were ultimately arguing that corporal punishment is very effective as a form of discipline among children. That is why I say that it pleases me today, when I reflect on the past, how Canadians, as a whole, have changed those norms and mores. Many of the 700-plus organizations are educational organizations that, no doubt, share their thoughts and experiences with the public, let alone the many others out there that share those concerns, but may not have been aware of the legislation coming forward. We know better today than we ever have. It is surprising when we think of the date 1892. That really quite surprised me when I first found that out about the Criminal Code. I want to focus a bit of attention on the calls to action, specifically call to action 6. I have had an opportunity to talk about a number of calls to action. The government, in many different ways, has completed some. Most are in progress. This is legislation that would deal with call to action 6. There was a great deal of research done by the inquiry. We are moving even more toward the issue of reconciliation. It is also important to recognize that. I would like to think that there has been a great deal of co-operation, that members of Parliament on different sides of the House recognize the true value of the legislation and, ultimately, would like the legislation to pass. I am one of those members of Parliament. I thank the member for making the effort and bringing this bill forward. I think it was even a part of the agreement that we had, but it is something that we have to continue to support because it is really necessary.

Madam Speaker, I know that many of my colleagues, if not all my colleagues, are very much concerned about the finite amount of time that we have here on the floor of the House. What we have witnessed over the last number of years from the Conservatives is what I classify as a destructive force. They do not want legislation passed, even legislation that is good for Canadians, the people we represent. Whether it is with respect to dental care or what we were supposed to be debating today, the Citizenship Act, the Conservatives are an obstructive force. They do not want legislation to pass. They show no remorse for not recognizing that, as members of Parliament, there is a responsibility to appear to work with government legislation and the government's agenda to at least try to advance it. There is a responsibility for all members with respect to that, but the Conservative Party completely disregards it. All it wants to do is focus on character assassinations. It ties anything and everything to the words “corruption” and “scandal”, and ultimately says nothing about its own policies. Shame on the Conservative members.

Madam Speaker, there is no surprise that the Conservatives have used day two as a way to prevent debate on legislation. We have seen this consistently over the years, and I will expand on that during my comments. Today, we were supposed to be debating the Citizenship Act. It would have been day two of the debate. It was in anticipation that, hopefully, the Conservatives would join the Bloc, the NDP and the government in recognizing the importance of the legislation. Does the Conservative Party have any intention of looking at legislation and making some suggestions with respect to the legislative agenda items it would like to see passed, or is it purely going to filibuster from this day forward?

Madam Speaker, listening thus far to the debate this morning has been interesting. As I indicated in my question, I am not surprised that the Conservatives have decided to take a path of playing that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. That is not new. The Conservative Party has been very much focused on doing that for years now, and it is unfortunate. The Prime Minister indicated yesterday about the importance of listening to what Canadians were actually saying. Take a look at the questions that were being asked of the member, whether it was my question, or the Bloc question or NDP question. We will see that they were not necessarily directly on the report itself and concurrence in that report. Rather, they related to issues that Canadians would actually be concerned about at this point in time. The Conservatives are masters at spin. They are masters at these single, simple messages. Even when the Prime Minister was the leader of the third party, they have consistently targeted character assassination as their first priority with respect to developing issues on the floor of the House of Commons. We saw it yesterday, when there was the personal attack on the Minister of Finance. It is not the first time we have seen that. It happens time and again with the Conservatives. Today, they want to talk about GC Strategies and the ArriveCAN app. For them, it is all about the issue of corruption and character assassination. Canadians, on the other hand, are having a challenging time in dealing with a wide spectrum of issues, issues that the government of the day has been addressing, in good part. In introducing the motion, what was the first thing the member did? He talked about statistics coming from Statistics Canada and doing what the Conservatives do so well. They travel the country trying to convince people that Canada is broken when it is not broken. It is still the best country in the world to live, but we would not know that by listening to Conservatives. Every opportunity they get, the Conservatives are more focused on spreading misinformation. To their credit, they are being somewhat effective at doing that. The introducer of the motion talked about Statistics Canada and then tried to emphasize how Canada was broken. What he did not talk about was the report by Statistics Canada on the inflation rate. The inflation rate is 2% today. Canadians are very much concerned about the inflation rate. I would compare Canada's performance to any other G7 or G20 over the last number of years, especially postpandemic. Even though we have done exceptionally well as a nation, Statistics Canada, the organization that the introducer of this motion brought forward, can reinforce these types of statistics. If we look at the inflation rate and interest rates, we are going in the right direction and it is having an impact. These are the types of issues that I think Canadians want us to talk about, but not the Conservatives, because they do not want to share their ideas. That is giving them credit, assuming they have some. What were we supposed to be talking about today instead of ArriveCAN? The Citizenship Act. There are individuals in Canada, second-generation Canadians, who do not have their citizenship. We will see that there are New Democrats, Bloc members and members of the Green Party who recognize that we need to pass this legislation. In fact, before the summer, a New Democrat stood in her place and made the suggestion that we pass each of the stages through unanimous consent, and yesterday, we tried to get it passed. That is what we are supposed to be debating today, but we have come to learn, by listening to the debate yesterday, that the Conservatives have absolutely no intention whatsoever of passing that legislation. Even though a clear majority of members of the House have decided that this is good legislation that should pass, the Conservatives do not like it, and they do not want to be thrown off topic, so today they introduced a motion on the ArriveCAN issue. They want to talk about ArriveCAN. ArriveCAN was there as a direct result of a worldwide pandemic. It was upon us. Actions were being taken by the government to support Canadians every day. Billions of dollars were being spent. The majority of that money was supported even by Conservative members, not to mention New Democrats, Bloc members and others, as Canada was coming together to ensure that the interests of Canadians were going to be served. As a House working in a co-operative fashion, we were able to make a difference. We brought forward programs that positioned Canada well, going into the postpandemic era. We were there to support Canadians and their disposable income through programs such as CERB. We were there saving literally tens of thousands of jobs through the wage subsidy program. We were there to support small businesses through business loans. We were there to support our seniors through one-time payments and support individuals with disabilities with payments. We were there to support non-profit organizations to ensure that they could support Canadians at the grassroots level. We were there to support provinces, territories and indigenous people. As a national government, we were there in a very real and tangible way, and that meant we spent billions and billions of dollars. Today I look at our independent AAA credit rating. Canada is still financially strong, and even during those difficult times and in the postpandemic, we still had the Conservatives taking the cheap shots with the character assassinations. I will give a couple of examples, including ArriveCAN. They say those Liberal friends got all these contracts. They are kind of right, in the sense that Conservatives got contracts, New Democrats got contracts and even some Bloc members got contracts, and when I say “Bloc”, I am not identifying the parties. I am talking about the individuals within those political parties. Yes, there were some individuals within the Liberal party. There are entrepreneurs, businesses and Canadians of all political parties who have dealings with the Government of Canada, but to try to give the false and misleading information that Liberals were given an advantage is just wrong. They try to give impressions about ArriveCAN. I think about ArriveCAN. Let us focus a bit of attention specifically on ArriveCAN. Anthony and Firth, between 2010 and 2015, were part of another small firm called Coredal, which was later amalgamated into GC Strategies. Coredal was awarded a number of contracts. Actually, one or more of these individuals received federal contracts from the Conservatives. Members can imagine that. The Conservatives gave contracts to at least one of the two individuals, possibly under a different name. They try to say that the Government of Canada said, “We want you”, when in fact it was done through the public service. There was a protocol in place. The Auditor General actually found that the government has appropriate contracting rules in place, but in this situation, the rules were not followed. If the rules were not followed, then it begs this question: What was done in regards to it? The minister and the government took immediate action. There were audits, both internal and external, to deal with this issue. The minister and the government have been very clear. If there were abuses, as it appears there has been, there will be consequences to that. That is something that we would expect for anyone sitting in this chamber or any individual that we represent outside of this chamber. We do not condone in any way, in any fashion, inappropriate behaviour with respect to the procurement process. In fact, the Auditor General came back with a report. We have accepted the recommendations of the public auditor, whether they concern Canada border control, the CBSA; the Government of Canada; or the minister. However, the Conservatives say the government is bad. One of the largest scandals that we have seen was the ETS scandal. That was a procurement scandal. There were direct links and indirect links to the Conservative government at the time. What did the Conservatives do? They avoided any sort of public accountability on the issue. They went out of their way to hide information connected to the ETS scandal. Do colleagues want to know about the ETS scandal? If they do a quick Google search, they will see the hundreds of millions of dollars at issue. While in government, whether it be the federal government or a provincial government, sometimes problems arise. Yes, at times getting the Auditor General or a provincial auditor is necessary because it is good for all concerned. The same principle applies here. Here we have a situation that is concerning, not only to Conservative members. I would like to think that every member of the House of Commons is concerned about it, as I am. I want to ensure that there is a consequence for the inappropriate behaviour of individuals who inappropriately use tax dollars because I value those tax dollars, as I know my colleagues do. We recognize the true value of spending tax dollars to the benefit of Canadians. Let me cite a few examples. There was a question put forward by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul to her colleague asking where the Conservatives would save money. His response was a little bit modest of where the Conservatives would be saving money. Let me talk about where the Conservatives are looking at saving money, based on the question that was being posed there, while understanding the value of a tax dollar and a progressive government that is here to make a difference. We know there is the child care program that supports children every month. It is estimated that, every month, over $9 million goes into Winnipeg North alone because of the Canada child benefit. Imagine the impact that has on the local economy in Winnipeg North alone. It is something which we as a government established shortly after forming government in 2015. Think of the progressive policies that we have been able to elevate and put into place, such as the dental care program. Where are the Conservatives with respect to the dental care program? Maybe that should have been the question that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul asked her colleague because I can say there are literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are very much interested in the Conservatives' actual position on the dental care program. We know that the Conservatives oppose it. Are they going to flip-flop with respect to it? We hear often from constituents, and I can say that the number one concern that constituents raise with me, in my over 30 years of personal parliamentary history, is health care. Health care, in my books, is number one. As a government, we have spent those valuable tax dollars on things such as generational commitments to future health care. We are talking about $198 billion over 10 years. We are talking about bringing forward, in a gradual way, a national pharmacare program. We are talking about improving the standards of long-term care for our seniors. I made reference to the dental program. When the member for Kildonan—St. Paul asks her colleague, in regard to this motion, where we can save money, and the member said that we can save it from the ArriveCAN, I would suggest that is a bit of a flippant answer because what Canadians are more concerned about is the Conservative right-wing MAGA agenda for Canadians. That will come out in time. We will see that. Instead, the Conservatives like to amp up the issue of character assassinations and spreading of misinformation. Here is a lovely quote. I am going to say something and members will be able to figure out who said it right away. The Conservative Party had a caucus meeting over the weekend, and their inspirational leader had this to say to the caucus—

Madam Speaker, the members are feeling really excited because of the misinformation they have been spreading about the tax cut. What did the leader of the Conservative Party have to say? He tried to paint this picture during a Sunday morning speech to his caucus, saying that “the Liberal government's plan to increase the price would cause a 'nuclear winter' for the economy.” He said “nuclear winter”. Get that. Wow. He said, “There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high...our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter”. He also said, “Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere.” What is he going to say next? Will he say that refugees are eating cats and dogs? Seriously, this is something that the leader of the Conservative Party today is saying, trying to scare Canadians. He is spreading misinformation consistently. I would welcome a debate anywhere in Canada with the leader of the Conservative Party because his ideas are so much out of this world that I do not think he would be able to stand his ground in front of any university grouping, and I would welcome that particular challenge. I appreciate being allowed to share those few thoughts.

Madam Speaker, I am very content knowing about all the internal reviews and external reviews regarding the ArriveCAN issue. We always have to put it into the perspective, as I attempted to do, of the many things that the government was responsible for during the pandemic. That is not to say there was not any misspent money. The government is, in fact, ensuring that there is a consequence where tax dollars were abused. That is an absolute. We continue to ensure that there is a high sense of accountability and transparency with every tax dollar. The real challenge we have found is that the Conservative Party is reluctant to discuss its ideas. It is just constantly attacking personalities, which I classify as character assassination.

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely in favour of accountability and transparency, and ensuring that there is a consequence where there has been abuse of tax dollars. That is what I believe and will continue to advocate for, whether it is through the Auditor General of Canada, the standing committees or the RCMP. I look at what is happening in that particular environment and expect, like my constituents, that there will be accountability. Those who were abusive with our tax dollars will be held to account in many different ways, everything from potential criminal charges to having to pay back tax.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to the fall economic statement, where we will be able to get into more of those details. I want to pick up on what I believe is the biggest misleading information out there today with respect to the carbon tax versus the carbon rebate. I could talk to a number of random people and what I would find is the following. A vast majority of Canadians, 80%-plus, receive more money back through the carbon tax-carbon rebate system, yet that message is not necessarily getting through. At the end of the day, that means the collective disposable income in Winnipeg North, under this administration, is actually higher with that policy, and we are dealing with an environmental issue. If Conservatives were to come into power, I can say that collective disposable income in Winnipeg North would go down because of that one single policy itself. The carbon rebate matters. It is helping people. Why is the Conservative Party not as blunt on that as it is about the carbon tax?

Madam Speaker, I am interested in getting the member's perspective in terms of the scope. How far back does one actually go? For example, we know that before it was GC Strategies, some of the same individuals were involved in Coredal, and Coredal had also received government grants. In trying to get a fair perspective on how things evolved to the point they got to, how far back does the Bloc believe we need to go with respect to the individuals and the companies that were involved?

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's last statements and go to the Auditor General's comments. From what I understand, there was a clear indication the Auditor General found that the government has appropriate contracting rules that are actually in place. The problem is that the rules were not properly followed. When that occurs, there is an obligation for the government to take action. When the government did discover this, there were actions. Internal reviews were done. The Auditor General was brought in. The RCMP is also now looking into the matter. I do not know exactly where it is at in regard to it, but there seems to be a great deal of attention being brought to the issue, and justifiably so. The government has not been shy in terms of recognizing the need for transparency and accountability on the issue. The government believes that there have to be and will be consequences for those who have broken the rules and taken advantage of taxpayers. I wonder whether the member could provide her thoughts in regard to the Auditor General's comments that we seem to have the right system.

Madam Speaker, there is one fundamental flaw in what the member is trying to portray. He is attempting to mislead Canadians, quite frankly. The member knows full well that inappropriate behaviour has not been condoned in any form by this government. In fact, when it was discovered that there was inappropriate behaviour, the government acted quickly by ensuring there was a process to assure Canadians, the taxpayers, that there would be accountability and there would be a consequence for those who had violated the procedures in place to protect the taxpayer. The member intentionally tried to give the impression that it is the Liberal Party or the government, the politicians, that has not protected the interests of the taxpayer when that is just not true. If we want to look at a scandal where politicians were trying to cover something up, look at the $400-million ETS scandal of the Harper era, which the Conservatives across the way are absolutely silent on.

Madam Speaker, talking about extreme statements, let me give an example. This is how the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada inspired his Conservative caucus just last Sunday. He said, referencing the carbon tax, that the Liberal government's plan to increase the price would cause a “nuclear winter” for the economy. “There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high...our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter.” So said the leader. This is the extreme MAGA right Conservative Party, the reformers, who want to paint a picture that Canada is broken. We have seen extreme positions. The member spoke about Liberal friends. I do not even think that company had a Liberal Party membership. I have no idea. It is just extreme, everything that they say. Why should Canadians believe the extreme right of the Conservative Party today? That is the question that I have for the member opposite. They are stupid ideas. It is a stupid statement.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to table a petition again today regarding health care. This petition is dealing with the important relationship between Canadians and health care professionals, in particular nurses of all forms. The petitioners are asking both levels of government to take the actions necessary to demonstrate their support with everything from compensation to credentials being recognized. These are all very important issues, and they are asking governments of all levels to, in essence, work together to try to resolve some of these outstanding issues.

Madam Speaker, I too would like to congratulate my colleague and friend's father for making a wonderful decision. Canada has benefited greatly by that decision to come to Canada and make it their family home. As the leader of the government in the House at one point, the member is very familiar with procedures. Yesterday my concern was that the only way we are going to get this bill to committee, it appeared, was if we use time allocation. I am wondering if my friend can provide her thoughts about looking for an opposition party to assist in advancing this legislation.

Madam Speaker, contrary to the false impression that the member tried to get on the record, Canada is not broken. Canada is, in fact, the best country in the world to live in and call home. That is the reality. Only the Conservative mentality and that far-right MAGA element goes around the country to give the false impression that Canada is broken. The Conservative Party of Canada continues to play a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. The Conservatives do not want anything to pass. My question specifically is: Why will they not allow this legislation to at least go to committee, given that the Superior Court of Ontario has said that the law is unconstitutional and that it has to change?

Madam Speaker, this will be the second consecutive Conservative that has spoken in regard to the immigration system as a whole and has tried to give glorification to Stephen Harper, who was a disaster on immigration. What those members are glorifying is the fact that Stephen Harper, for example, cancelled the sponsoring of parents and grandparents. They literally deleted hundreds of thousands of people who were under the process of becoming permanent residents. If we want to talk about cold immigration policies, we should go back to the Conservative years. What is important is the mixture of immigrants who are coming for permanent residence. We have annual targets that are set. That annual target is going to be coming out again. We will find that there is a great benefit through immigration to Canada. The Conservatives of late are trying to give the impression that it is us versus them. We should be proud of the diversity. Look at the immigration programs—

Mr. Speaker, welcome back. I find that our summers go by awfully quickly, that is for sure. It is nice to come back and talk about some important issues that Canadians are facing day in and day out. As we see the days proceed ahead of us, we are going to have a lot of good and hopefully healthy debate on the issues that we know Canadians are very much concerned about. As much as possible, we will try to put them into a perspective that gets us a better understanding of where the Conservatives are on a number of policy fronts, because they do send confusing messages. Let us take a look at Bill C-379 as an example. What we see is a bill that likely Stephen Harper would not have introduced. Why? If we look at his former legal adviser, Ben Perrin, he did not speak very positively about Conservative members of Parliament in regard to the legislation they are proposing today. When we think of auto theft, we have to realize that not just one jurisdiction is ultimately responsible. Let me give a tangible example. In the province of Manitoba, we had very serious auto theft taking place in and around 2004 to 2008. We had thousands of vehicles being stolen every year, and no province in the country, on a per capita basis, was doing any worse than Manitoba. What we found was that a provincial initiative made the difference. It was about working with MPI, Manitoba Public Insurance. It was about looking at how Ottawa might be able to complement some of the actions that would help us bring the rate down. However, let there be no doubt that it was not about any single level of government, and the lead government in this situation was in fact that of Manitoba. I understand and hear about the issue of stolen vehicles in Ontario in particular. I can say that my Liberal colleagues talk about it at great length because they understand how important it is. That is why we had the national summit.

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives from their seats are shouting as if they are impressed. As well they should be, because it was not until after the national summit that the leader of the official opposition started to raise the issue here in the House. It took a national summit for the Conservative Party, at least its leadership, to wake up and recognize the issue. That national summit, where we brought different stakeholders together, has made a difference. Not only have we seen tens of millions of dollars being invested by the federal government, but as a direct result, the number of vehicles being stolen has been reduced. The Conservatives might wish the opposite, as they well do. They want to see more crime on our streets. They can wish for it all they want, but at the end of the day, we will continue to be focused on Canadians and on bringing forward budgetary and legislative measures that are going to make a real, positive difference.

Madam Speaker, I think there is a very simple question that many Canadians are concerned about. The leader of the Conservative Party has no issue raising the notwithstanding clause. We have a former Conservative government that tried to establish the first-generation limits, and we have a superior court in Ontario that says it is unconstitutional. Will the critic for immigration give clear indication to the House that the Conservative Party, the official opposition, would never use the notwithstanding clause in order to invoke its will with respect to Canadian citizenship? Will he give us that assurance?

Madam Speaker, I think we need to put it in perspective, as the member made reference to, in terms of the people it actually affects. There are many individuals in the different regions of the country whose ability to get their citizenship recognized is being challenged. Whether it is Senate legislation or, now, government legislation, it is imperative that we try to see the legislation at least get to the next step. Conservatives say that they have amendments, and I would welcome seeing the types of amendments they have. Maybe we can come up with some sort of unanimous support in getting the legislation through. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to advocating for getting the bill out of second reading and into committee, where we would at least be able to advance it?

Madam Speaker, I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to emphasize that achieving one's citizenship is very significant. I have had opportunities, as no doubt others have had, to witness the swearing-in for citizens. We should not be taking it for granted. One of the things that is quite upsetting, and I made reference to it in the question I asked of the Conservatives, is the idea that the Conservative Party feels very easy and relaxed in using the notwithstanding clause. We have a superior decision from the Province of Ontario that says that the first-generation issue that the Harper government brought in is, in fact, unconstitutional. Can I get the Bloc's perspective on having the Citizenship Act in compliance with the Constitution?

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of Oral Questions on Tuesday, September 17, 2024, the House observe a moment of silence for the late Honourable Chuck Strahl, that afterwards, the Speaker, a member of the Conservative Party, a member of each of the other recognized parties, a member of the Green Party and the member from Chilliwack—Hope each be permitted to make a statement to pay tribute, and that the time taken for these proceedings shall be added to the time provided for Government Orders.

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2701, 2703 to 2705, 2712, 2716, 2718, 2724, 2726, 2739, 2742, 2744, 2747, 2753, 2756, 2757, 2760, 2762, 2765, 2766, 2770, 2771, 2773, 2774, 2776 to 2780, 2782, 2783, 2788, 2791, 2792, 2794, 2795, 2799, 2800, 2803, 2805, 2808, 2811, 2812, 2814, 2815, 2817, 2819 to 2821, 2827, 2828, 2830, 2832, 2833, 2836, 2838, 2843, 2849, 2851, 2853, 2854, 2859, 2861, 2862, 2872, 2876, 2887 to 2890, 2895, 2897 to 2899, 2901 and 2903.

Madam Speaker, once again, it is disappointing that the Conservatives do not see the value of, at the very least, allowing the bill to get to the committee stage. My question for the member is about passing legislation of this nature and how it would directly impact many people in different regions of the country. They would literally be getting their citizenship, which is something they should have today. I am wondering if she could reflect on the impact today on the individual who would benefit by the legislation passing.

Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether the member can expand upon his thoughts in regard to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision. The Conservatives have taken the approach that they would have appealed that decision. Would the Conservatives have agreed if the higher court had reinforced that particular ruling, or would they have potentially given their opposition to it and used a notwithstanding clause?

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity on a couple of occasions to ask Conservatives what their actual position is with respect to the notwithstanding clause. At the end of the day, Canadians need to be very much aware that the Conservative Party has demonstrated that it really does not have a problem resourcing the notwithstanding clause if the need is there. If we listen to what the Conservatives are saying about this particular piece of legislation and look at what they have done with regard to a so-called Conservative-friendly Senate bill that was brought in, we begin to believe that they are diametrically opposed to what the legislation would do. We all need to be concerned about that because, at the end of the day, through legislation and the manner in which they vote, they start to show their cards whether they like it or not. People will start to get a sense of what the Conservative Party stands for. We know that the Conservative Party does not have reservations about using the notwithstanding clause. I asked the question directly to the member. He said it was hypothetical and he was not going to answer the question. That kind of pushed it to the side, maybe a little too quickly, because I do think it is a very important point. When we talk about citizenship and the first generation, the second generation and what was done back then, we have to put it in the perspective of Canadians and what it is that Canadians do abroad. I had the honour of serving in the Canadian Forces for a few years, and through that process I got to know a lot of people, whether it was veterans or current members at the time. A lot of members of the force spend a great deal of time outside of Canada, and while outside Canada, they often have a child. That child might ultimately come back to Canada for a relatively short period of time, maybe for a posting or education, and then have to leave Canada again, and they find themselves in the situation where the Conservative Party has made the decision that the serving member does not necessarily deserve the right to have his or her children recognized for Canadian citizenship, depending on the situation. The same principles—

Madam Speaker, my comments are part of the actual debate. I can tell the member who stood up on a point of order, calling into question my statement on the legitimate concerns people have with respect to that second generation limit and beyond, that there are many Canadians who have all sorts of reasons and rationales they can use that might put them into a position where the law that was passed back in 2009 by Stephen Harper ultimately has compromised them. What is being lost in a lot of the discussion, especially coming from the Conservative Party, is that this legislation would have a very profound, positive impact for many people who believe, as they should, that they are Canadian. The Conservatives are saying no to that. They will come up with a rationale or an excuse to attempt to justify their attitudes toward it, but I would suggest that there is a fundamental flaw in their thinking, which is that the law passed by Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party back in 2009 has a fundamental flaw. It is called the Constitution. The Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights clearly demonstrated, through the Superior Court in the province of Ontario, that the law, as it was passed by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, was in violation of the Constitution. That decision was made toward the end of 2023. If we were to rewind a bit, we would find that there was a wonderful opportunity to address the issue in the form of a piece of legislation from the Senate that was brought forward dealing with the issue of citizenship. The Conservative Party at the time saw the merit of the legislation to the degree that it was prepared to bring the legislation through the House of Commons on behalf of the Senate. Things were going relatively well until it got to the committee stage. I was not at the committee, but I am told there were 29 or 30-plus hours, and I am not 100% sure, where the Conservatives filibustered the debate. The Conservative Party felt that the changes the opposition and government members were making to the legislation made it unacceptable, even though the Superior Court in the province of Ontario said that it was in violation of the Constitution. The bill passed at committee stage, and because it was a Conservative initiative, it means the Conservative Party has to allow it to come up for debate at report stage and at third reading here in the House of Commons. We all know there is a calendar that is set and that allows for private members' business. I am talking about Bill S-245 in particular. It would ultimately be guaranteed, virtually, because it was high enough in precedence to get that debate. Now, the Conservative Party has made the decision that it does not want that debate because when that debate starts, it is only for two hours, which includes at report stage. The brain thrust from the Conservative Party, the House leadership team that believes in things like using the notwithstanding clause to take away rights, is that it does not want to bring it forward, so it will defer it to another piece of legislation. I do not know how many times the Conservatives have done that. That now leaves the government in a very difficult position because that superior court decision actually allows us to make the changes. I believe it is until the end of the year, but do not quote me on it. We need to see the legislation get through. If it does not get through, that would cause some other issues. I am actually encouraged that an NDP member stood in her place and tried, through unanimous support, to get it through the House. That was not the first time. When we had the agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, there was an attempt to get it through virtually all steps, and I thought that was a good idea. Now we are saying, at the very least, let us get it to the committee. In fact, some Conservatives will say that it just needs some amendments, and maybe they could support it if there were some amendments. The problem is that the Conservative Party knows, and I know, the only way this legislation is going to get past second reading and get to committee stage, based on the discussions I have witnessed and the history of the Conservative Party playing a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons, is if the Bloc or the New Democrats decide to support a government initiative to time allocate the legislation. If that does not happen, I do not believe for a moment that the Conservatives are going to allow it to go to committee. They have already made the determination that this is bad legislation. The reason I used that example is so that people following the debate would have a better appreciation of why it is so important that the legislation actually pass. We are talking about real people not being recognized and given their Canadian citizenship. That is a very real issue. When this legislation passes and receives royal assent, people are going to be given their Canadian citizenship. We all know how important that is to Canadians. It has been pointed out that there are three ways in which one becomes a citizen of Canada. The easiest and most obvious way is via birth. Some families have been here for generations. My roots go back to the province of Quebec and then over to Manitoba. Some went into other prairie provinces. We have been here for generations. I am a citizen because I was born here. I often meet families, relatively young couples who might have two or three children. One of the children was actually born here in Canada, and some of them are still in the process of being recognized as permanent residents. That is something the Conservatives seem to have issues with. Some are going through the Manitoba nominee program, and will ultimately become citizens of Canada after going through a rigorous procedure. They have a sense of pride when they are able to say, “My child, this one here, was actually born here in Canada.” Whether it is that child who was born here or someone like myself, having been born here, we are all equal. That is the way I perceive it. People might want to try to distort that in different ways for different political purposes, but that is one way to become a citizen. Another way to become a citizen is through naturalization. Naturalization is through one of the many different streams of immigration. Some provinces, including mine, would have been challenged for many years, in terms of a growing population, if it was not for immigration and those individuals who ultimately become citizens of Canada, and most of them do. Every one of us is afforded the opportunity to go witness, first-hand, swearing-in ceremonies. If one has not taken that opportunity, I would highly encourage all members to participate in a citizenship court. There is a sense of pride when 50, 60 or 70 people are sitting in a room and have all met the requirements to become a Canadian citizen and then are sworn in as Canadian citizens. I have had the opportunity to speak at many of these over the years. I have had opportunities, as I would trust that most have, to extend personal congratulations and to witness tears in eyes because of that step. This is where I tend to differ. There was a Conservative member who talked about being Canadian. For immigrants coming to Canada, becoming permanent residents and then becoming citizens, the expectation is not that one forgets about one's homeland. Canada is the greatest country in the world to live in and to call home, but it does not mean that we have to forget about the home in which we were born. Ultimately, I would suggest that some of Canada's greatest assets are our diversity and our ability to build upon our world community and how we use that as a way to expand our economy and to showcase our diversity to the world, in terms of how people can get along. I like to think that we are not a giant melting pot, as some Conservatives might like to try to portray, but rather, take a look in terms of the values and the norms and mores of our society. That is the second way. The third way is by dealing with the whole idea of descendants and, specifically, the legislation recognizing what I made reference to at the beginning, and that was dealing with the first-generation issue established back in 2009. Some Conservatives will say that Liberals voted for it at that time. I have heard that on a number of occasions. I can assure the member that I personally did not vote for it at that time, but that does not really matter because I understand the context in which that vote took place. It has been explained here before. It was a holistic piece of legislation coming forward, and that was where the mistake was ultimately made. We had the prime minister of the day threatening to take away the legislation unless it ultimately was able to go through in a more timely fashion without, necessarily, amendments. We know that Stephen Harper was not fond of amendments. I know that first-hand, in many different ways. This legislation deals with that issue along with something the previous speaker recognizes, something he supports, and that is the issue of adoption. In the House, we often have discussions where we talk about adoptions. We try to give the impression, I would like to think, in a very honest and genuine way, that an adoption is just as important as a natural delivery or a biological child. The way we can enhance that through the Citizenship Act is a very strong positive. I would think that all members would support that. Taking a look at the legislation itself, and even taking a look at the background of the legislation, I would have thought, as some members have already pointed out, that there would not be an issue with it passing the House of Commons. Unfortunately, based on the debates that we are hearing from members of the official opposition today, they are more preoccupied with the Conservative Party of Canada and their leader than with Canadians as a whole. As a direct result, we find ourselves in a position where there are going to be many people in different regions who are not going to be able to get their citizenship. There is going to be another speaker after I sit down, and I believe it is going to be a Conservative member. I would like to think, at the very least, that the Conservative member could give a very clear indication that the Conservative Party is not going to require other opposition members and the government to bring in time allocation to see this legislation pass and at least allow it to go to committee. The Conservatives say that they have amendments or changes. When Senate Bill S-245 was at committee, there were changes that were made to it. The minister has been clear in being open-minded to possible changes. If the Conservative Party has changes, then let us get the bill to committee to allow us to see what the Conservative Party has in mind or what its plan actually is. We know that members of the Bloc and the New Democratic Party are supporting the legislation, and I appreciate that fact. However, we have a couple of days. Let us see what happens with the legislation. Maybe the Conservatives will have a conversion of sorts and see the value in passing this legislation on to committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that there are individuals out there who can better explain to the member opposite than I could. There are individuals such as Don Chapman, who has been cited, and even glorified, by some. However, there are people out there who would be able to explain to the member opposite that, in fact, there are many people who should be considered citizens of Canada. I would like to think that, if that member met with and talked to some of those people, he might have a different opinion than he currently has. I can appreciate that the member has likely been instructed to come into the House and make an argument as to why Bill C-71 should not pass. I find that unfortunate. What is next? Is the Conservative Party going to say, “Well, we are going to put limits”? Will it say, “We are going to increase the number of days required to become a Canadian citizen from a permanent residency”? Can we anticipate that this would happen?

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure, but from what I heard through translation, the type of child being referred to would be a citizen of Canada. It is as simple as that. We are talking about that second-generation individual, which is where it becomes somewhat problematic according to the Conservative formula. Someone can be a Canadian or a diplomat or whatever, and people move out of Canada for a wide spectrum of reasons, and when they are outside of Canada, they do have children. It is those children who could potentially be at risk. This is where, in good part, a lot of the concern arises. I would really encourage members of the Conservative Party in particular to become more familiar with the types of individuals we are talking about because hopefully it would change the members' attitudes.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that there has to be some form of a significant connection to Canada, and that is something the minister himself highlighted in bringing forward the legislation. However, when I listen to Conservative after Conservative talking about the issue, I think there is a legitimate issue to raise and that is what the Conservative policy is regarding permanent residents. Will the Conservatives give a guarantee that they would not increase the number of days required for a permanent resident to ultimately apply for citizenship? Based on some of the Conservatives' comments on immigration we have heard today while talking now about citizenship, I am very suspicious of Conservative far right MAGA attitudes toward immigrants. We need to push the Conservatives to come out and tell us specifically what their plans are, whether they concern citizenship, permanent residents or any other public policies, such as the environment.

Mr. Speaker, I tried to highlight in my comments where the Conservative Party really is with respect to the legislation. It has become abundantly clear that Conservatives do not support the legislation. The moment I sit down and the Conservatives stand up to speak on the legislation, it will be reaffirmed. This means that, in order for the government to ultimately pass it, we are going to have to look to the New Democrats and the Bloc and possibly at bringing in time allocation. I hope I am wrong. Maybe the next person speaking will reassure me not to worry, that two days of debate is plenty, and that we will see it go to committee, where the Conservatives can look at it, have experts in, maybe get some of those questions answered and listen to real people who are experiencing what my friend just talked about. That is why I say we should get the legislation to committee. It is the very least we can do. Often the Conservatives, including this morning, say that we should get legislation to committee so we can get public input on it. The same principle might apply here.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's bringing forward the personal stories he has brought to light this evening. I suspect, knowing the member, he has probably even raised a few of them not only inside the House but also outside the House. The question I have for the member is in regard to law enforcement agencies in general. I like to think that over the last number of years in particular, primarily because of the calls to action, reconciliation has been on the agenda of many agencies, not only of governments but also of those at arm's length. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to the different stripes of law enforcement agencies, like provincial, municipal and the RCMP, and the importance of reconciliation?

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to add a few thoughts and concerns on what I know is such an important issue. I have had the opportunity to address the chamber in regard to issues of a similar nature for a good number of years, and one of the conclusions that I have drawn and I believe most, if not all, members would share is the importance of having indigenous people provide and continue to lead the public discussion and debate on this very important issue. I reflect on another time there was a minority government, when we saw the Kelowna accord, through Paul Martin. The Kelowna accord was an attempt by first nations with the Government of Canada to really make significant changes in a wide spectrum of ways. I say that only because I recognize how critically important it is, when we talk about indigenous issues, that we recognize the importance of the nation-to-nation dialogue that public policy needs to be led by. We all have personal opinions, and members know that I have a lot of opinions. I always enjoy sharing my opinions on a wide spectrum of issues, and this is one of them. However, one of the things I have found to be so fruitful for the community that I represent is an organization called the Bear Clan Patrol. I have a deep amount of respect for what the Bear Clan Patrol has been able to accomplish over the years. In good part, it is about reconciliation. It is what the government can do to advance the issue of reconciliation. From my perspective, when I look at law enforcement agencies, non-profit, indigenous law enforcement agencies, RCMP, provincial, municipal, however one wants to put it, paid or unpaid, there has to be some form of reconciliation brought into it. In fact, if we take a look at the RCMP as a model, one only needs to visit its website to gain a lot of insight in terms of what it is doing in regard to the issue of reconciliation. There are things such as working in partnership with indigenous policing services that are provided, working co-operatively, allowing and respecting the jurisdictions and getting a better appreciation of the culture and the heritage, which is so very important. When I think in terms of the Bear Clan Patrol, I think about a wonderful group of individuals of all different backgrounds. It is indigenous-driven but opened up to the broader community. I think of how they have influenced and changed the behaviour of the north end of Winnipeg in a very real and tangible way, not only for the residents who live in the immediate community by building a more positive, healthy relationship with law enforcement, but also through advocacy. I have had a couple of opportunities over the years to walk with the Bear Clan Patrol, but more importantly, I know that other elected officials of different political stripes, from different levels of government, have all been engaged. There is a great deal of advocacy that takes place. In terms of law enforcement officers, it even goes beyond the city of Winnipeg and, in fact, Canada. We get others from outside of Canada, not to mention throughout Canada or from different areas of Canada, coming to see what has made the Bear Clan Patrol as popular as it is. In good part, it is community relations working with law enforcement agencies and law enforcement agencies working with the Bear Clan Patrol. Members say that they would like to be able to contribute to the debate today in terms of ideas and thoughts. The most important message that I would leave is to look at the importance of reconciliation, in which all of us have a role to play, and start looking at ways in which we can see tangible results. Whether it is the different levels of government, non-profit groups or others, we have seen some significant progress in this area. Is it going fast enough? We heard citations of individuals and victims. My heart, prayers and thoughts are with the families and friends and the community because we do need to do better. We need to be challenging and to ensure that there is a higher sense of accountability. Our national law enforcement agency, the RCMP, has acknowledged that there is systemic racism within its ranks, and it is taking action on it in different ways. We know that it exists, that it is real and that it is having a tangible negative impact. The question is this: What do we do? We look for examples throughout the country with, in particular, not only law enforcement agencies but also others. Look for good practices and, where there is a good practice, see how we might be able to enhance or, more importantly, duplicate it. An example of that would be back in 2019-20, when there was the first ever report from the RCMP on the issue of the RCMP and movement toward reconciliation. In Saskatchewan, the RCMP is looking at a capital investment where it is fixing up considerably and putting in a museum. There was a presentation that I witnessed, and I can say that what is very much on their minds is the issue of reconciliation and what it is they need to do, as Canada's premier law enforcement agency, to ensure that we are moving forward on the issue. We do need to see those strategies developed and dealt with. We do need to ensure that there are priorities and support. There are areas in which, no doubt, the federal government can contribute more, and I am open to that, as I know the government is. However, I want to emphasize that we need to see those policy ideas and directives being spearheaded from first nations, Métis people and Inuit communities, which were here well before any of us. They have the ideas, and in certain areas, governments do need to step up to the plate more. We are a government that is prepared to do what we can, where we can, as the Prime Minister himself has clearly indicated, nation to nation. This is something we have strived to do since first taking the reins of power back in 2015. By looking at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and the recommendations that came out of the national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, we will continue to move forward where we can, but we will look for ideas on how we might make sure that others are moving in the same direction.

Madam Speaker, I was being somewhat careful about some things I talked about. One thing I did not talk about was the number of budgetary lines I could easily cite going into the hundreds of millions of dollars toward supporting the types of things I have been talking about. However, rather than talking about and expanding on those points, I thought it was more important to recognize that there are some good things taking place in Canada today that are indigenous-led, non-indigenous actions and things that are really making a positive difference. Governments of different levels should be looking at those success stories and ways in which the House of Commons can expand and complement them. Has the federal government given enough federal dollars? I know that we have provided a great deal and that there is a great deal of negotiations and discussions taking place. I do not know the finer details, but I do know that we are probably looking at record amounts of money today in comparison to what it was 10 years ago.

Madam Speaker, the Tina Fontaine story is one I would commend all members to become familiar with. I found it to be inspirational, personally. It is the story of very young girl who went missing. She was murdered and was then found in the river. A lot of the issues surrounding the types of things we are talking about today and on many other days are found in this story, and we can learn from that particular story. The reason I brought up the Bear Clan Patrol is that this is a group of individuals who, over the years, has really moved the ball forward by encouraging law enforcement agencies, not just in Winnipeg but all over the place, quite frankly, to be more sensitive and to better understand the issue of reconciliation, among other things.

Madam Speaker, I believe that we should be raising the bar and the expectations that we have as parliamentarians, and as Canadians as a whole, of our Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I believe that the RCMP, as a law enforcement agency, should be a leader in terms of reconciliation and in looking at ways of dealing with the very serious nature of the issue. That is why I was glad a few years ago that they tabled their first-ever reconciliation report. We have a training centre. I say now, because I believe it to be the case, and I would be disappointed if it is not, that there is a great deal of dialogue with the indigenous community on what is taking place in the training of RCMP. I realize we should never assume, but I would like to think that the bar is high enough that this is a reasonable expectation. Would he not agree?

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have been encouraged by is a local group, a club that I made reference to earlier, the Bear Clan Patrol, which is very well established. For many years they have had different levels of government and different political parties participate in some of the patrols that are taking place One of the single best things I see that it has accomplished is bringing community members and improving relationships with community members along with elected officials and law enforcement agencies. In fact, it is more than just one law enforcement agency. It has attracted a great deal of attention in North America, and I am wondering whether the member can just provide her thoughts in regard to how community initiatives can help advance reconciliation by bringing the different stakeholders together.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate this evening, one of the things that crosses my mind is that we have the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. As with all other standing committees, there is always an agenda set. There are individuals such as the national chief of the AFN, Cindy Woodhouse, who has always been a very strong advocate for indigenous policing. As well, I know the member for Sydney—Victoria moved a motion at that standing committee saying that we should be conducting a study on the issue. The member opposite knows having an emergency debate is not that common on the floor of the House of Commons, especially on this issue. Given that we are having this debate tonight, would he not agree that the standing committee should look at what has been suggested by the member for Sydney—Victoria so we can actually have that committee deal with what is being talked about this evening? It seems all members, all parties, want to see something happen on the issue. Would the member not agree this is something that should be bumped onto the study agenda? I understand there is a pecking order among the different political parties, but all political parties seem to see this as a very important issue, to the degree that we are having an emergency debate on it. Would he not agree that this should be a priority for the committee given there is a motion before it to deal with the issue?

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of our Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, which has before it a proposal to do a study on indigenous policing and to look at studying other issues. The chamber is actually recognizing how important the issue is with what has taken place. National Chief Cindy Woodhouse, who has been a very strong advocate for indigenous policing, wants to see more movement in that area. Would the member not agree that this is a study that is in fact important to see take place, even if there have been other studies before it, recognizing now that we have a higher sense of urgency due to the fact that we are having this emergency debate and that there have been changes within the community itself?

Mr. Speaker, only because it has come up on a few occasions, I think it is important to recognize that, when we talk about the legislation the member has just been asked about, the government is actually working in collaboration with indigenous communities to develop it. This often means that it requires additional time. I would suggest that it is time well spent because it is a genuine attempt, in working in collaboration with indigenous people, to make sure that we have it right. Could he talk about just how important it is, whether it is legislation in progress or other initiatives, that we look at and support indigenous policy ideas and leadership coming from that?

Mr. Speaker, to reinforce something that was indicated earlier today in regards to the RCMP and a number of actions, one of those actions was the first-ever report on how the RCMP needs to work on reconciliation and take specific actions to make a difference in building a healthier, stronger relationship. It is important, as legislators, that we set a very high bar for our national law enforcement agency, and the expectations that they are moving forward on the issue, and working with and supporting, in particular, indigenous police services. Would the member not agree that the expectations and the bar do need to be very high for our national policing agency? Part of that is making sure that there is a higher sense of accountability at that level.