Arielle Kayabaga
London West, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Madam Speaker, earlier a member of the opposition talked about the fact that they were not filibustering, yet she was the one who actually told the story about an elephant in a discussion of Bill C-30 , where there is money that has to go out to people who need more housing in a faster way.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, the member has been at the municipal level before, and we know that we cannot build homes without cities and without partnerships with the provinces and municipalities.”
“Earlier, Mr. Speaker, the member's colleague who sits on committee with me said he feels we are not listening. I talked about the fact that we did extensive collaboration.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. Of course, we all know that our systems and institutions are very robust in Canada, and I know my hon. colleague touched on that in his speech. Can he tell us more about what Canadians stand to gain from this bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I find interesting from the member opposite, who also sits on the committee with me, is the fact that he said he is not buying what we are selling, though we worked in collaboration with their team to bring the bill forward as quickly as possible.”
“Bad actors may try to interfere with our democratic processes and our elections from anywhere in the world at any time. Despite these challenges, the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions confirmed that our elections are safe.”
The complete record
Every one of 419 lines we hold for Arielle Kayabaga, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 9.
“That is exactly what the government is doing by strengthening legal tools, supporting law enforcement and investing in prevention as well as bail system reforms that will protect everyone in Canada while upholding our democratic values.”
“Reverse onus provisions apply, requiring each accused to show why they should be free. Courts can also impose conditions to protect victims and the public. The government also recognizes that detention cannot guarantee public safety. That is why our government is investing in community justice centres, drug treatment courts and other initiatives that tackle the root causes of crime, such as mental health and substance use. These integrated approaches promote rehabilitation, reduce recidivism and improve community well-being. People in Canada want a fair, effective and reliable justice system. They want to know that dangerous individuals will be properly dealt with and that our laws reflect the crime happening in our communities. Canadians also want a system that respects the Charter.”
“Our government developed these reforms in close collaboration with the provinces, territories and law enforcement agencies. More recently, in response to concerns regarding violent recidivism, the government worked closely with the provinces and territories to look at other possible improvements. Our government is committed to ensuring that our bail laws work as intended across Canada and that they effectively respond to new challenges. Public safety remains our government's top priority. (1645) We have just spent a couple of days talking about safety. This fall, we will be introducing a bill that will continue to address these issues. The Criminal Code already contains robust provisions for certain serious offences, including those involving firearms or organized crime.”
“These reforms also strengthened protection for victims of domestic violence by adding additional reverse onus provisions in such situations. Recent reforms introduced by former Bill C‑48 , which received royal assent in December 2023, strengthened Canada's bail system by expanding the use of reverse onus provisions and requiring the accused to demonstrate why they should be free. These changes mainly target violent repeat offenders, particularly those who have been charged with offences involving firearms, knives, bear spray or other weapons. Bill C‑48 also expanded the reverse onus provisions to cases of domestic violence and required the courts to specifically consider the accused's history of violence and the safety of the community when making decisions regarding bail.”
“When there are concerns that an accused person may reoffend or pose a threat to victims or the public, courts can impose strict conditions or deny bail. At the same time, our bail system must take into account the reality of marginalized communities, such as indigenous peoples and vulnerable and under-represented populations, in pre-trial detention. That is why our laws require police and the courts to consider the unique circumstances of these individuals when making bail decisions. The government has taken practical measures to modernize and improve the bail system. In 2019, Parliament passed former Bill C‑75 , which introduced the most significant bail reforms in decades. Thanks to these reforms, the circumstances of indigenous accused and accused from vulnerable populations are taken into account by the courts when assessing risk.”
“It is a fundamental part of our justice system that reflects the importance of the presumption of innocence and the right not to be denied reasonable bail without valid grounds, as provided for in section 11(e) of the Charter. Canadian bail laws aim to ensure that accused persons appear in court when required, that public safety is protected, and that confidence in the administration of justice is upheld. These principles, known as primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, guide judicial decisions relating to the detention or release of an accused person. Bail is therefore not just a legal concept. It reflects our democratic values here in Canada. It ensures that people are not unnecessarily detained before their trial, while providing courts with the tools they need to manage any risks to the public.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will begin by stating that I am will be sharing my time with the member for Châteauguay—Les Jardins‑de‑Napierville I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss the motion moved by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot about bail. This is an important opportunity to reaffirm our government's commitment to public safety and the integrity of our criminal justice system while ensuring that our bail laws strike the right balance between protecting our communities and respecting the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bail is the legal mechanism by which individuals charged with a criminal offence can be released pending trial.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that every member of the House can agree with the member opposite that we stand with victims, and no member of the House wants the continuation of victimization of women and other people in our country. There was a situation in my riding where a young woman was murdered by her partner. I stand with her family, and I just want to send another shout-out to them right now. However, the policy that the opposition leader put forward today has been shown, in every single city in which it has been implemented, to be a failed policy. Not only did it increase crimes, but it did not even address the issue of crimes. The Conservatives have been talking for the last two days about crimes. They listed so many members of their communities who have been victims of crimes, yet they are bringing forward a policy that would not bring—”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my colleague back into the House of Commons. I know that she had a lot more to say, and maybe she will get the opportunity to do so right now. I just wanted to comment on the fact that she said that this is not the final bill, and we want to take it to committee to discuss many of the issues that many people in the House have commented on. Could the member maybe speak to how she can continue to convince the opposition to support sending this to committee, so that opposition members' suggestions can actually be discussed and further moved into the bill?”
“London is at the centre of growth in southwestern Ontario, and my focus is to make sure that Ottawa continues to match that ambition by investing in people, industries and the future that all Canadians want.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we open this new session, I want to welcome my colleagues back to the House of Commons. We are here because Canadians expect us to get things done. For me, that means delivering for the people of London West. Londoners have been very clear that they want affordable housing, good jobs and support for their families, which is why I welcome the new housing investments that will speed up construction, bring down costs, and put young people and skilled workers on the job. With the new work relief measures, we are making sure that families have the help they need right now through the tough times. We are also seeing major CAF investment, which means stable and long-term jobs for Canadians while strengthening our economy and protecting our country.”
“Madam Speaker, in the member opposite's comments he talked about the importance of privacy of Canadians, which we believe in. I had an opportunity this summer to talk to an RCMP member in my community, and he was explaining to me why this portion of the bill is really important. He talked about the fact that he worked in Yukon, and he took a week away. In one week, one package came in. There had been one case of overdose, and in only one week, he saw 700 cases. Can the member talk about why RCMP members are calling for us to bring this measure into the bill to make sure we can reduce overdoses in communities like Yukon?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. I appreciated his speech, which was well thought out. Earlier, we were talking about the fact that we would like to take these discussions into committee so that we can move the bill forward and ensure that we are doing what Canadians have asked us to do. I think my colleague agrees with us. Could he talk a bit about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the comments that my colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned around co-operation and making sure that we are listening to our constituents and the people who sent us to the House. The hon. member mentioned earlier that we promised Canadians we were going to remove the carbon tax, and he said that we did not. That is misleading, and that is not co-operation. Canadian voters, including Conservative voters, want us to co-operate. They want the House to function for the business of Canadians. Can the member comment on how he is going to commit to making sure that we move on the things that Canadians sent us to do in the House?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether my colleague is open to taking this to committee. We have heard a lot of comments that, obviously, Conservatives want to discuss the bill further, and it will be going to committee. Will the member support the bill's going to committee so we can look at it further and make sure it represents the desires and thoughts of Canadians who voted for us, and to co-operate and make sure we are working together in bringing legislation that makes sense for Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome my colleague back to the House of Commons and thank her for the very reflective thoughts that she shared. We have listened, in the House of Commons today, to many comments that our colleagues have made about the bill. We know that Canadians sent us here with a mandate to collaborate. Canadian voters, including Conservative voters, want us to take action on the borders. Can the member talk about ways that we can co-operate, collaborate and even take the bill to committee, make sure that many amendments are considered and bring the bill to pass?”
“Madam Speaker, I am very confused as to what the member opposite was trying to convey, because it sounds like, in theory, for the last four years I have been here, he has been talking about having a bill like the one that is before us. What exactly is he suggesting we can work on in committee to move it forward collaboratively? Canadian voters want us to have a bill for borders, as well as to work in co-operation with the whole House to make sure we can pass good and sensible bills. What exactly is the member trying to shift and change in the bill? He spent four years talking about it. Now we have a bill, and he is complaining. What is he complaining about?”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously we have heard long speeches today on this bill, and as I mentioned earlier, this is not the first time that we have had to deal with this bill. Also, the opposition made a promise to lost Canadians who came here to Parliament, to our committee. The Speaker was a member of that committee and promised to make sure we would not leave any Canadians behind. What does the member opposite have to say to those Canadians you spoke to, Mr. Speaker, and promised you would not leave behind?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you back in the House, and I want to thank my hon. colleague for her comments and the fact that she really did make some reasonable comments around what it means to be a Canadian. I am sure that the member has heard a lot of the dialogue that has been going on, and there has been rhetoric around this bill, Bill C-3 , which is intended to restore Canadian citizenship to lost Canadians and not anything else, but other colleagues have been talking about crime, trying to demonize this bill and trying to demonize immigration. Can the member comment on why we should not frame immigration citizenship in the way that it has been framed today in the House?”
“Why are we misleading Canadians by making them think that it is a new bill and that it is something that it is not, by connecting crime, housing and all other issues to a bill in which we have made a promise to Canadians who have served our country, that we will bring them back to our country and give them the citizenship that they deserve because they are members of our country?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome my colleague opposite back to the House of Commons. There are a lot of things that were said in my colleague's speech that, although I do not want to blame him for misleading, were very misleading to Canadians. Connecting crime, jobs and housing to Bill C-3 is very misleading to Canadians. I think it is important to remember what the bill is about, and the Conservatives have, on multiple occasions, voted for the bill. I have met lost Canadians, some of whom are family members of service members of our country.”
“Madam Speaker, it is very nice to see you back in the House, and I welcome my colleagues as well. I want to take this opportunity to ask my colleague a question, based off of her comments, as she did talk about the measures that were adopted in 2009. Many of these measures were deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Court of Justice, so this is not the first time the bill has come to the House. It has come back because there had to be some changes made to the bill. We have made those changes, and the Conservatives supported those changes. Why are the Conservatives misleading Canadians once again on what we are actually talking about? They told lost Canadians in the last session that they would pass the bill. Why are they arguing this to be something that it is really not?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had many opportunities to work with my colleague, but I think she is well liked here in Parliament. I think she can appreciate that using a word like “scammed” is a bit of an exaggeration. I would like her to consider the fact that Canadians asked us to do this. This is the mandate that Canadians sent us here to carry out. We won 44 seats in Quebec because Quebeckers also want us to build an economy that works for all Canadians. I am sure they would not be pleased to hear the word “scammed” being used in the House today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for running on a banner that promised Canadians the building of a strong economy. Maybe the minister can talk about how the bill would impact regions like my region in southwestern Ontario, a region that often faces bottlenecks and interprovincial barriers. What impact would there be for workers in our region?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, a Canadian is a Canadian, whether someone is a Canadian by birthright or became a Canadian through naturalization, which is how I became a Canadian. I came here as a young refugee. I grew up here, and I worked hard to become a Canadian citizen. I am a Canadian citizen. Imagine if I were able to serve outside of Canada now for a number of years; I would fall into the double-tier system the Harper government created to divide Canadians and make it so some are valued Canadians and some are not valued Canadians. That is what we want to get rid of. There are many service members like Don Chapman, whom I mentioned earlier, people who served our country and have been part of the lost Canadians, who want to make sure this does not continue to happen.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague understands very well how Canadian democracy works when Canadians want an election. There were frequent calls for an election for several months in the House of Commons while I was here. Let us also remember that we were not a majority but a minority, and that our colleagues opposite continued to call for an election, which we gave them. I think my colleague also understands that the Liberal government came back with 44 Quebec seats, so he understands that democracy works, in a way. I also appreciate the fact that his fellow party members will be able to work with us to pass this bill very quickly.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite would remember, he was on that committee, and we worked on amendments that made sense. We passed the bill through the House. We sent it to the Senate. It is back now. If the member has amendments that he wants to propose, we can discuss them in committee, but the reality is that the member has supported the bill in the past. With respect to the question around the numbers, I have heard many people ask, “How many is it?” We have had that conversation in committee. With respect to any question the member has had this day, we have had that conversation. We are saying that we are happy to bring in amendments that make sense, in committee, and work together with all parties to make sure that we do not put Canadian families through this limbo as—”
“I am very happy to rise and to reassure the lost Canadian families, the many people who came to Parliament to speak to us and to ask us to make sure we pass the bill, that we are going to do that. We are not only going to make sure that we pass the bill; we will also work with all parties across the House to make sure that amendments make sense and that we do not have to put people through the limbo of questioning their value, of questioning whether they can even serve as Canadians and of questioning whether they are Canadian.”
“We settled the issue of making Canadians question whether they belong. We settled the issue of having the banter and the debate that is politicized for Canadians, but here we are again. I have listened to countless speeches in which people are putting those Canadians back into the debate of “Am I a valued Canadian?” I want to tell them that yes, they are a valued Canadian. I want to tell people like Don Chapman, who spent countless hours working with parliamentarians, working with committees and working with different members of our public service to make sure that we get to a place where lost Canadians are no longer considered lost and to where they are Canadians, as we all in the House believe that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”
“The last thing we want to do is start conversations on whether or not people deserve to have Canadian citizenship restored. Unfortunately, I have been here this morning and have listened to colleagues re-question. I have listened to colleagues who sat with me on committee and promised to those families that we would not do this again. They re-question instead of proposing amendments, instead of agreeing that we can send the bill to committee and work together on amending it in an appropriate way and in a fast manner that would actually stop the long delay of Canadian families going through limbo, where they do not know and are re-asking themselves whether they are valued Canadians. I thought that we had settled that problem. I know that today's Chair was also on the committee. We settled the problem.”
“I was not here when the bill was first introduced, but in the last Parliament, I was here, and I saw the countless hours we spent filibustering, blocking conversations around whether or not Canadian families deserve to be Canadians. They went through that. They withstood the long conversations. They listened to the banter. They listened to disagreements. They listened to people talk about them as if they were not humans and as if they were not in the room, to get to the end. We got to the end. We brought the bill into the House. We passed it. It went to the Senate, and for parliamentary reasons, we are back at the bill again, and we are here to discuss it to make sure we can take it to committee, agree on amendments that make sense, and pass it quickly.”
“We are having this debate today as if the work that has been done for the last number of years is not important, and that is not fair. We need to protect Canadians, and we cannot afford to put them on pause due to legal technicalities that do not reflect modern mobility or the realities of a globalized world. As we build what we believe to be a fair Canada, we have to be fair to the men and women who have served our country and their children. (1305) We have to be fair as well when we reach out to people to come here to talk to lawmakers and to engage in committees for a number of hours. My colleague from the Bloc Québécois mentioned earlier how many hours he spent listening to filibustering that happened on Bill C-71 when it was introduced in the House in the last Parliament. I can speak only to the last Parliament, because I was here.”
“This bill, in spirit, works to restore stability to help Canadians understand that it is their institutional right to be Canadians and not have the lawmakers of the country having that discussion. If Harper had not created this system, I do not think we would be having this conversation. I will remind the many colleagues who have asked questions as if we are having this conversation for the first time that this is not the first time we have had this discussion. We have brought Canadian families who belong in the lost Canadian group to Parliament and told them we think it is important that we restore their citizenship. Here we are again having the discussion as if for the first time, questioning the many families that have struggled through this system wondering whether they belong as Canadians or not.”
“Canadians work to pay taxes, contribute to our communities and are civically engaged. They raise their children to be Canadian. In the House earlier, I heard a number of members ask what really constitutes a deep connection to being Canadian. When a Canadian citizen has children, I am more than sure they pass Canadian values to their children regardless of where they find themselves in the world. Having this conversation when a parent has a child and wants to return home means talking about bureaucracy, reaching out to IRCC and trying to figure out whom they can call, whether it is their member of Parliament or member of provincial Parliament. With that tier of bureaucracy, it is a very confusing system for Canadians who have served us and who, for different reasons, do not have Canadian citizenship.”
“It is a covenant between the individual and the state, between generations, between past sacrifices and future potential. When we deny that link, we undermine the trust in our system and introduce a risk that erodes the social contract that underpins our democracy. When families return home after years of service or work abroad, they should be able to resume their lives without bureaucracy clouding the future of their children. Bill C-3 would deliver that. It would provide clarity where there was confusion, fairness where there was inconsistency and continuity where there was disruption. It says to families that they are Canadian and their children are as well. That is not only the right decision; it is part of our foundation of rights, our charter rights.”
“I want to be clear that this bill addresses a gap between the intent of our laws and the lived reality of Canadian families. Specifically, it intends to restore the ability of Canadian citizens born abroad to pass their citizenship to their kids and grandchildren, ending a policy that left many Canadian families in limbo, unsure of whether their children would be recognized by the country they serve or contribute to and call home. This is not an abstract policy fix. This is about restoring stability for military families that are posted overseas, for diplomatic corps who have represented Canada with dignity and integrity, and for the countless global Canadians who have lived and worked abroad while remaining firmly rooted in the values of our country. Citizenship is not a transactional benefit.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise to speak to this bill for the many reasons I spoke about it in this House in the last Parliament. I have had the privilege of working with colleagues from all parties on committee specifically on this legislation, which impacts Canadian families. The spirit behind this bill is that Prime Minister Harper, in 2009, basically created a first-generation limit, creating a double system in immigration and causing children born outside of Canada to Canadian citizens to struggle to acquire their right to be Canadians. First of all, Canada is built on institutions that uphold fairness, strengthen opportunity and provide certainty to its citizens, and today, as we are talking about Bill C-3 , we have the opportunity to reinforce one of those foundational institutions, which is citizenship.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am curious to know and I really do want to know how we can make the House function better and work together better, because that is what Canadians want from us. They want their members of Parliament to speak to each other like members of Parliament and find ways to work together.”
“Mr. Speaker, the results of the election are that the Liberal Party is back in government, and the former leader of the opposition did not make it back into the House of Commons. I heard a lot about the spirit in which the Conservative Party was dividing Canadians. I just listened to the member degrade and speak with ill intent toward our members who have been speaking to Canadians, speaking to the people who send them to this House. Can the member speak to how we can work, as members of this House, to better serve Canadians, with the understanding that the Conservatives did not come into government, because of the way they were treating Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, just on that point about the 20,000 Canadians who have been able to receive citizenship through this program, and the leftover Canadians, many people have applied to be part of these lost Canadians to receive their citizenship. The IRCC has been working to make sure it is only people who are considered lost Canadians who have been able to receive this grant of citizenship. Maybe the member could talk about the meticulous work that goes into making sure we are paying attention to who is applying and we are giving it to people who merit it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for talking about preserving the institutions of Canada that we all believe in and that protect the rights of Canadians. Maybe my hon. colleague can expand on the fact that this bill really does go to the foundations of our institutions that we uphold and that are there to protect Canadians, and would make sure that if a soldier went to serve Canada in another country, their children's children should not have to worry about ever losing their citizenship from a parent who served our country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed working with my colleague at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. This is not the first time that this type of bill has been before the House. We were able to work together on the second iteration of Bill C-71 . I have really enjoyed working with him. I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to explain why it is important to keep the promise that we made to the families that we met at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We had discussions with a number of families, some of whom are from Quebec. They want to see progress. They told us how important it is to avoid introducing amendments that will slow things down and said that it is time to pass this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have had lots of opportunities to work with the member opposite on this specific legislation in the House during the last Parliament. I remember when we were able to pass it and commit it to families across Canada, some of whom were our constituents. We told them that we were committed to making sure that we were not going to have their children lose their citizenship and that they were not going to be part of the list of lost Canadians. I remember, if my memory serves me correctly, the member opposite supported this. What changed?”
“Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the member opposite what he thinks about the mandate that Londoners sent him here with and whether he heard what I heard at the doors. What I heard at the doors is that Londoners want safer borders. They want an economy that works for everyone. They want more jobs for our communities. I want to welcome him to the House, first of all, and hear what he thinks about the things we were hearing in London at the doors.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to echo what we heard on the campaign trail. Canadians want safer communities. Canadians want safer borders. Canadians also want to stop being aggressed by our south-of-the-border neighbour because of the terrors that have ravaged our communities and our workers. Can the member expand on the mandate that he has been given to respond to all of the questions that Canadians had during the campaign on safety, on secure communities and the one Canadian economy?”
“I want to thank every worker, the Canadian Labour Congress, which worked really hard to see this bill through, and especially our former colleague, former minister Seamus O'Regan. Our Liberal government has stood up for workers and will continue to stand up for workers.”
“Mr. Speaker, on June 20, we are turning the page. The anti-scab legislation will come into force, banning replacement workers during strikes and lockouts in all federally regulated sectors. It is a long overdue step toward a fairer economy. For far too long, the threat of replacement labour weakened bargaining and eroded trust. This law, however, will restore balance, protect the integrity of collective bargaining and leave good Canadian workers less vulnerable. We are sending a clear message that Canadian workers are not replaceable. Now more than ever, as we gear up to build a historic economy, workers will be the building block to a stronger economy and a more just and resilient Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for honouring the mandate that his constituents sent him to do. I want the member to talk about how during the campaign the Conservatives talked about anything but the tariffs imposed on the automotive sector. Maybe the member can talk about how on this side of the House we care about jobs in the southwestern Ontario corridor and every single area of the automotive sector that is affected. Conservatives talk about giving choice to Canadians and allowing Canadians to have consumer choice, but why are they not letting Canadians pick the EV sector as well?”
“Mr. Speaker, that was a great speech that captured the spirit of Canadians who sent us to the House to make sure that we deliver on some of the most important key things. The member mentioned labour, and I know that he was Minister of Labour at one point. He went across the country talking to workers, so he actually understands the importance of removing these barriers for workers. Maybe the member wants to expand on the benefits of removing these internal barriers across the country and the benefit that would have on workers, not just in his riding, but across Canada, in all our ridings, as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the hon. minister for all the work she is doing to make sure we honour the mandate that Canadians sent us to the House to do. Earlier in the House, I heard a lot of questions asking if the government was moving too fast, if there are benefits to removing these internal barriers to trade and if that was actually going to have an impact on jobs within communities across Canada. Maybe the member could answer those questions.”