Kevin Lamoureux
Winnipeg North, Manitoba · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want the member to recognize the degree to which the Conservative Party always wants to talk down the economy. It brings me to yesterday, when we found out that the Prime Minister went to the G7 and that 13 new deals were signed off, with countries such as Japan, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal, fi…”
“Mr. Speaker, since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians voted for our current Prime Minister and a new government, we have been listening to the people of Canada. Members will see that listening in every aspect of our legislative agenda and our budgetary measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on my friend's comment that we live in the real world. The real world is looking pretty good in terms of where Canada has been since the last federal election. We have a Prime Minister who has been out and about, attracting literally billions of dollars in commitments of investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated to a certain degree the member's comments when he made reference to the issue of the process. However, I would ask him to realize that, over the years, things have changed considerably. We saw time allocation used during Stephen Harper's government a record number of times.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from a number of individuals. Actually, over 1,000 people have signed the petition. The petitioners are looking for a sense, from both the provincial Government of Manitoba and Ottawa, of working together to try to come up with a solution to deal with Manitoba's unique situation related to our wo…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,647 lines we hold for Kevin Lamoureux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 52 of 73.
“If the Bloc members are genuine in wanting to look at ways we could change the system, it is not necessary to have the debate here. In fact if they insist on debate, it could have occurred in January or February. I would love for the Bloc to vote against the motion and then raise the issue at the committee stage.”
“Madam Speaker, I made the assertion that the Conservatives have worked closely with the Bloc on that particular committee to bring the report forward and that the Conservatives have made the determination to talk about it for three hours as opposed to talking about Bill C-3 . The member opposite said that the Bloc was not necessarily working with the Conservatives and that he feels this is a legitimate issue to be talking about. I understand the rules, and I know that the member opposite understands the rules. Nothing prevents debate on the report. If the good will is there from the Bloc party and if that is the real issue, the Bloc members should say no to the Conservative trap and agree to have a discussion at committee, where they could actually go over it. The Bloc and the Conservatives form a majority on the committee.”
“If they really wanted to be productive, then we should have the committee go through it. There might be some things that come out of the committee that could be positive, but that would be the responsibility of the committee. The Liberals are a minority on that committee. If the purpose of that committee is being manipulated just so Conservatives can constantly attack the Prime Minister , that is bad use of parliamentary tools and is not doing any service at all for their constituents. At least I have not seen that demonstrated today in the debate brought forward by the first two Conservative members.”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservatives decided to have a debate on this particular issue, and members will notice that they did not use an opposition day, where a full day could have been allocated to the topic. We would have had a vote on it, and so forth. Rather, they wanted to use a concurrence motion to eat into the government's time. In doing a very simple Google search, I counted seven Conservative MPs who have investments, directly or indirectly, with Brookfield Asset Management. I ask their ethics critic how many Conservative MPs have investments of that nature. Are there any obligations for them? Conservatives are trying to score political points, do a character assassination or give some sort of impression that the Prime Minister is offside somehow, and I say shame on that.”
“The official opposition, much like the government of the day, has an obligation to its constituents to allow for the orderly passage of legislation, or at the very least, getting it to committee stage. I would argue anywhere with anyone, time permitting, why debate of this nature is not warranted.”
“Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question because, in essence, it captures the message I was hoping to send, which is that we have a very limited amount of time on the floor of the House of Commons, and there are a lot of issues, which are all in the best interest of Canadians, that need to be addressed. We have the bail reform legislation, which Canadians and stakeholders from coast to coast to coast want to see passed. That legislation cannot necessarily be called until we can pass Bill C-3 , which deals with citizenship, because we have a superior court order that has given us a November 20 deadline. We have a budget coming up November 4, not to mention, as my colleague just did, the secure borders legislation.”
“Madam Speaker, first of all, I would have personally much preferred to be debating Bill C-3 . What I believe members of the Liberal caucus came to hear and to participate in is Bill C-3 . This debate is being imposed upon us by the Conservatives. I suspect they are going to get the Bloc, as it supported the amendments at committee, to support the motion now on the floor. If I am wrong, I will personally apologize to the member. We should not be debating this motion right now. What we should be debating is Bill C-3 . Again, I would agree there is a need for change with regard to conflicts of interest, but when we are dealing with issues like this, would it not be wonderful if more of a consensus was achieved inside the committee and if the amendments brought forward for dealing with conflicts of interest had a consensus?”
“Madam Speaker, I did not ask him to ask that question. Can members imagine if we were to apply the same question to the leader of the Conservative Party ? There is a book, “The Evidence Compiled”, that lists off dozens and dozens of scandals. Let me give a few of them: the anti-terrorism scandal of $3.1 billion, the Phoenix scandal of $2.2 billion, the G8 spending scandal, the ETS scandal, the F-35 scandal, the Senate scandal, the two election scandals, the cuts to the Auditor General and the foreign interference within their leadership, like the current foreign interference within their leadership. There is a book of virtually 100 issues of corruption when the member's leader sat with Stephen Harper. When he talks about about looking in the mirror, he might want to get a better sense of just how corrupt the Conservative government was.”
“Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, let us collectively, no matter what political entity we belong to, look at ways we can better serve Canadians with a higher sense of co-operation. All of us were given that role in the last federal election. No political party—”
“That is the individual. Members should read what he said. Having said that, with less than a minute to go, here is my recommendation to my Conservative friends opposite. I would suggest that they get out of the Conservative bubble. They do not have to follow what their leader is saying. If he was a little more practical and a bit more reflective of Canadians' interests, they could do that, but he is too far to the right. My suggestion to you is to look at what your constituents are telling you and start supporting bail reform legislation, Bill C-3 or Bill C-9 , and look—”
“However, it does not fit the Conservative agenda. The Conservative agenda can be best described as character assassination, because the Conservatives have consistently done that. I will continue to argue, whether it is during a late show, question period or concurrence in reports, that the Conservative Party of Canada today under the current leadership is more focused on the internal workings of the Conservative Party, on spreading misinformation through social media and on attacking our institutions. At the end of the day, they do not recognize the genuine interests of Canadians and do not treat issues, like the budget, which is coming up on November 4, and the national school food program, with the respect they deserve. It is hard to say why. Just so the record shows, the member I was referring to is the member for Lanark—Frontenac .”
“Now Conservatives have come up with a conflict of interest, and they say they want X, Y and Z. They want to attack the Prime Minister and his character, because this is what they believe, and they start talking about the issue of perception. Members will have to excuse me for not knowing the member's riding. He is the one who I think owns Giant Tiger. I would encourage every member of the Conservative caucus to read what he had to say about conflicts of interest just the other day inside the chamber. As the leader of the Conservative Party calls into question the integrity of the RCMP, they should read what their colleague had to say about conflicts of interest. If members want to study something, they should bring what he said to the ethics group of members of Parliament. Let us study that. That seems to be more of a legitimate study.”
“I remember the member for Bow River indicated there is “management weakness”. (1555) David Bexte: Absolutely. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, he reaffirms it by saying “absolutely”. There is so much here. The member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner said, “there is a disconnect between upper management and [the rank and file]. There are operational issues that are not being addressed by...leadership.” The member for Peace River—Westlock said, “The actions of the leadership of the RCMP, I think, are indefensible in many instances.” The leader of the Conservative Party implied in a very strong way that the former prime minister, Justin Trudeau, would have gone to jail “[i]f the RCMP had been doing its job”. How do bizarre, weird comments of that nature reinforce confidence in our institutions?”
“Do I have a story for members on the credibility of the system. Every member of the House, I am sure, is aware of the leader of the Conservative Party 's attack on the RCMP, one of Canada's most significant institutions, recognized around the world as a first-class law enforcement agency and security agency that protects the interests of Canadians. It is, in fact, apolitical. What does the leader of the Conservative Party have to say about it? The word he used in regard to management was “despicable”. We then wonder what impact that has. All sorts of members piled onto that particular issue. They recognize the independence of our conflict of interest office and respect the office. Why do they not demonstrate some form of respect for the RCMP? Days after the Prime Minister said that, others piled on.”
“They ask about the conflict of interest and whether we are interested in it. Absolutely, we are interested in the conflict of interest. We are going by the code that the current leader of the Conservative Party supported and defended, which Stephen Harper brought in and which the current Prime Minister respected even before he became a member of Parliament, let alone the Prime Minister of Canada. Of course we are concerned about it, but it is the Conservatives who continue to believe that the best way to get Canadians upset is to come up with dots and stars all over the place, as if there is a conspiracy here and a given minister is bad. They are very good at the conspiracy stuff, but when it comes to tangible action, that is where they are found wanting. One member made reference to the credibility of the system.”
“They now bring up that we have a committee report, but it was decided by a standing committee where there is an unholy alliance or coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc because they now make up a majority of the committee, just those two political parties. They have made the decision that they want to continue with the Conservative idea that the best way to get a government to be disliked is to attack the leader, whether it is justified or not. That is their motivation. Then they say the standing committee has said we need to have this studied; it wants to investigate this issue. That is the Conservatives working with the Bloc. Those two formed a coalition to try to embarrass the government. That is the intent of the motion that was just proposed, not to deal with substantive issues that Canadians are concerned with.”
“We were also able to give an income tax break to Canadians, and 22 million Canadians derived a benefit as a direct result. We have substantial legislation before us. How many times did we have a Conservative MP stand up and talk about the need for bail reform? Bail reform is now in a position to be debated, but we need to get Bill C-3 through because of the superior court's deadline. Canadians want bail reform. The Conservatives say it, but they do not want it to turn into reality because they would rather say the government is dysfunctional. In reality, it is the Conservatives who are dysfunctional. Their priorities are all wrong.”
“Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member says I sound upset. I am a tad bit upset because I want to deal with the issues that Canadians are concerned about first and foremost, as opposed to playing these destructive games that the Conservatives want to play, putting their own political partisan party issues ahead of the interests of Canadians. (1550) I am a bit upset. Why? It is because at the end of the day, we had a Prime Minister and Liberal caucus recognizing that we wanted to build one Canada, a Canada strong. That is why we brought in legislation on that, Bill C-5 , which we were able to pass, and I am grateful for that. It took down barriers so we could have more trade within Canada. The leader of the Conservative Party was not elected at that time, but we did get it passed.”
“Interestingly enough, I do not think they brought any concurrence reports. I would have to confirm it. I am pretty sure they did not bring any concurrence reports prior to their leader getting re-elected in the by-election, which implies to me that their leader is still having a difficult time recognizing the need for change, in terms of what it is that people said in the last federal election. Is that any surprise when we take a look at how it is that we have had a Prime Minister who has been focused on Canadians throughout the election and following the election? We cant take a look at the agenda, at what the Prime Minister and Liberal members of Parliament have been able to accomplish. Contrast that to the obstruction that we get from the Conservative Party. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon.”
“It did not have to be brought in today. I even cited the bail reform legislation and citizenship legislation that we are supposed to be debating. I even made reference to the budget. What was his response? It was, “Well, we want the House of Commons to commit, in terms of concurrence. After all, that is what we are supposed to do.” What a crock that is. The member knows it. We get tabled reports coming in from standing committees all the time. If we were to have a three-hour debate on that, we would never get any government business dealt with. The member knows that. Do we remember last fall when Conservative backbenchers were jumping up and down, hollering and screaming, bringing in all sorts of privilege motions and motions of concurrence? They were a destructive force on the floor of Parliament back then.”
“We have bail reform legislation, something that the Conservatives like to talk a whole lot about, but when they have the opportunity to deal with it, what do they do? They do silly things of this nature when, in fact, we have a Prime Minister who has followed the rules. Even before he was the Prime Minister of Canada, and even before he was a member of Parliament, he followed the rules. Across the way there has been absolute silence. Each and every one of them should be ashamed of the way in which they continually try to attack the character of individuals over protecting the interests of Canadians. If they had an ounce of integrity, they would see through the game that is currently being played. When I posed the mover of the motion a question, I asked this: Why was it being introduced today? What was the purpose? What was the motivation?”
“They have gone as far right as one could possibly imagine, and they are more focused on character assassination than they are on any great substance of interest to Canadians. (1545) That is what we have witnessed from members of the Conservative Party in their transformation. They know no shame. What were we supposed to be debating today? There was a superior court that made a decision related to citizenship. There is a deadline coming up on that legislation. We have to pass it before November 20, which means passing it through the entire system before it is ultimately given royal assent. If we do not, we will not have a law that deals with the issue of citizenship of descent. Conservatives have been putting up speakers to this, but the legislation needs to pass. We have the budget coming down next week, on November 4.”
“I do not know and will not know what's in there,” Wright told the committee. [The leader] responded by acknowledging Wright's experience in the private sector. “There are going to be people in this public service world who come from different backgrounds,” he said. “But that is a strength for our country. We look forward to inviting people from various sectors, in this case the business sector, but from all sectors, to make a future contribution to our country.” Talk about selective memory. This is today's leader of the Conservative Party , who advocated the benefits of a blind trust. He was an enforcer for Stephen Harper, who put in the rules we have today. Now, the Conservatives have apparently changed their clothes.”
“Wright appeared before the House ethics committee—of which [the current leader of the Conservative Party] was a member—to discuss his appointment, a conflict of interest screen that was set up with the ethics commissioner and a blind trust. I cannot say the leader's name, but he was actually a member of the committee. The article continues: [The leader of the Conservative Party], a parliamentary secretary at the time, said opposition MPs had “attacked” Wright's motives for taking the job and asked him to explain his blind trust. “I transferred all of my controlled assets into the blind trust in late October. The blind trustee is the legal owner of them all now, and I'm not to have any communication of any sort—no direction, no advice, no information about what's in there.”
“I find it absolutely amazing that the Conservatives cannot see the hypocrisy there. I am not surprised, in the sense that the Conservative agenda is very much not focused on Canadians but rather focused on the Conservatives' own self-serving party interests. They constantly put their party ahead of the interests of Canadians. Let me read a quote that comes from a CBC article. I cannot say his name, but I can say that he is the leader of the Conservative Party . It states: [The leader of the Conservative Party] previously appeared to have no issue with public office holders using a blind trust. In 2010, Nigel Wright was brought on to be then prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff after a career in the private sector.”
“Madam Speaker, there is a lot to go over here. I can say that much. What I find truly amazing is that anyone following this debate, which I hope does not have to go all afternoon, will see the hypocrisy that is oozing out of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is really quite amazing when we stop and think about it. The current leader of the Conservative Party was one of the staunch defenders of Stephen Harper in a very big and very real, tangible way. He was someone who defended the blind trust. Stephen Harper, as prime minister, was the one who put in the rules by which we operate today. Not only did the former prime minister Stephen Harper put in the rules, but one of the largest advocates for the whole idea of the blind trust was the leader of the Conservative Party.”
“Madam Speaker, over the weekend, because of a constituent, I did an inquiry using the Internet. I had asked the question of Brookfield Asset Management and Conservative members who had investments in it. It has everyone from the deputy leader to, and I like this one, the leader of the Conservative party. It says that while not directly holding Brookfield stock, he holds an indirect investment through the Vanguard FTSE Canada Index, which has Brookfield as one of its holdings. Doing a quick count, I find that AI identified seven members. I wonder if the member could tell me how many Conservative MPs have investments, directly or indirectly, with Brookfield Asset Management. Does he know that answer?”
“Mr. Speaker, I question the motivation behind bringing forward this particular report. I will have a chance to provide some more detailed comments shortly, but the question I have for the member is this: Given that we have bail reform legislation we are hoping to start to debate, that we have a budget coming up and that there is a superior court deadline in regard to Bill C-3 , something that we were supposed to be debating this afternoon, can the member give an indication whether the Conservatives plan to continue to debate the report for the next few hours?”
“Mr. Speaker, if we were to apply the same principle the member is arguing for right now to all legislation that goes before the standing committee, we would not be able to bring in any amendments to legislation. All legislation has to go to committee. What is important to recognize in this debate is that the Conservatives and the Bloc did not work with members who do not have official party status, and as a direct result, amendments were brought forward without them. Does the member not believe that ultimately the majority of members who make up the House should be the ones who determine the ultimate fate of legislation that gets out of the committee stage?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will be given enough time to respond fully to the statements that have been made. I can tell the member that we had an election not that long ago, during which the Prime Minister made a commitment to deal with the immigration issue. That means stabilizing it. We are well on the way to doing that. There is a reason we are at this stage. Yes, the federal government has to take some responsibility, but so do post-secondary facilities and other stakeholders, like the provinces and so forth. It is not just one government at fault here. The member tries to give the impression that we in the government cannot reflect on our heritage and sees that in a negative way, and then he goes ahead and reflects on his own heritage. There are some inconsistencies. Will the Conservative Party support Bill C-3 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things that come to my mind. First and foremost, the Conservatives seem to not want to recognize that there is a difference in what this legislation would do for someone who immigrates to Canada. When a person immigrates to Canada, the individual becomes a permanent resident and then certain things have to be adhered to before they can become a citizen. For example, they have to be here 1,095 days within a five-year period. This legislation would acknowledge individuals who could or should be entitled to Canadian citizenship. I am wondering if the member opposite would recognize that there is a difference.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives fail to recognize that there is a difference between someone who says they want to be able to immigrate to Canada and someone who wants to get their citizenship reaffirmed. For example, a foreign bureaucrat, who has done years of service for Canadians but who has done that service in an embassy, wants to be able to see some form of their descendants being able to have citizenship. We want to apply the very same rules as when we are affirming the citizenship by having a substantial residency factor of 1,095 days. This is the connection, and I think it is reasonable, given that, in order to become a Canadian citizen, if they are a permanent resident, it is 1,095—”
“Those who attend the citizenship ceremonies will see that. They will see the respect for indigenous people and the respect for the distinct nature that all regions of our country bring together, along with the value of the English language and French language. We should celebrate our nation, recognizing what people outside of Canada—”
“At the end of the day, I truly believe that with the values Canadian have, they are very supportive of multiculturalism, because they see multiculturalism as an issue of diversity and something we should be celebrating. I can speak about the city of Winnipeg, which I have had the opportunity to live in and call home for a vast majority of the years I have lived. Not only is it a community that values the French language, but a growing number of people are speaking French there. When I go to a citizenship court and witness people of all backgrounds and diversities singing the national anthem for the first time as Canadian citizens, I see the multicultural fabric that makes up our society, which each and every one us should be proud of, like those who have just been sworn in. That is not just one occasion.”
“Boniface and visit some of the rural communities, like St-Pierre-Jolys, where I have family members who were born in Quebec and came to St-Pierre-Jolys. The French language is part of our Canadian identity. What the Bloc tries to seat as fear is, I would suggest, the opposite. If someone goes to a school in the north end, they will find that there are not many people of French descent, but there are many of Filipino heritage, and they are learning to speak French at school. When we hear members of other ethnic origins speaking the French language, I see that as a strong positive, because they are recognizing what Canada is: a bilingual country. Canadians do not have to live in Quebec to appreciate and value the arts and heritage in Quebec. We see in Manitoba a respect and passion for Quebec.”
“That is something we should all, collectively, be very supportive of. The Bloc makes reference to Quebec as a province or as a nation. I, too, understand its distinctness and nationhood, and I do support the French language. In my home province today, as diverse as it is, the fastest-growing communities are probably our Indo-Canadian community, our Filipino heritage community and, to a certain degree, our Ukrainian heritage community. Those are the fastest-growing communities today in the province of Quebec. (1155) The French language in Manitoba is a success story. Never have we had as many people speaking French in Manitoba as we do today. I would encourage members, in particular Bloc members, to visit Winnipeg, check out St.”
“I posted about it because I thought it was a wonderful thing to see a group of people aged 55-plus playing this wonderful game. The racial comments on the post, the hatred in what was said in words, many of which I would not dare repeat inside the chamber, were very upsetting. When I looked into the backgrounds of most of the people who were making the negative comments, I saw that they came from a sector of society in Canada that is very much close-minded with respect to what I believe our Canadian values are, one of which is that we should be very proud of our diversity. I think of multiculturalism as one of the things that highlights Canada and gives it an identity we can share around the world. Our values are ultimately one of the reasons Canada is a desired country to immigrate to.”
“I have made reference in the past to the fact that generations ago, my family originated from the province of Quebec. Today I have siblings who live in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. I have a sister who has in the past lived in the province of Quebec. I have a sister who has lived in the province of Newfoundland. No matter where one goes in Canada, I believe it is its diversity that defines how great our nation is today and the potential it can have into tomorrow. I will give some specific examples of that. When I think of multiculturalism, I think of tolerance. A week ago I posted something on Facebook, and the response I received was actually quite upsetting. A group of gentlemen from our Indo-Canadian community was playing a game of Seep, and I was there.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the issue of multiculturalism. Many years ago I was appointed the responsibility of tourism in the province of Manitoba. One of the challenges I was provided was to attend all the pavilions Winnipeg offers in the summertime during Folklorama. It was like visiting 40-some nations in a two-week period. The reason I say that is that it showcased what I believe, and what I suspect we will find a majority of members believe, which is that the diversity Canada has to offer the world is one of the greatest assets and strongest strengths we have as a nation. I look at what is being proposed by the Bloc Party in two ways: One is the motivation for bringing forward the legislation, and the other is the whole issue of diversity. I reflect on Canada as a nation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a very specific example of a foreign diplomat who serves abroad and has a child. That child makes the determination, after a number of years, to stay in another country and starts a family. They are still passionate about Canada, they still travel to Canada, they demonstrated that they do have an interest and meet that 1,095 days, but the parent of that child now has a child, so they have their grandparents living in Canada. Is the member prepared to say that he does not support foreign affairs and people in the Canadian forces being able to pass citizenship down to their grandchildren?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would caution the member about diminishing the importance and the sense of equality among members of Parliament who are on the floor of the House. He might not necessarily like it, but there are five political entities inside the House, and all individual members of the House are due equal respect.”
“Mr. Speaker, the legislation requires a substantial connection to Canada with respect to the 1,095 days. That is not necessarily within the five years. I have had the opportunity to work with literally hundreds if not thousands of individuals who are permanent residents and who contribute immensely to our economy in every significant way that matters. At the end of the day, having that substantial connection to Canada alleviates that particular concern. With respect to the overall numbers that are out there, just because one can throw a number out does not necessarily mean everyone is going to be flooding in to get their Canadian citizenship. I do not believe we should be denying individuals through a generation, saying that, no, they cannot be identified as Canadians even though they have a substantial connection to—”
“Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely confident in Elections Canada's ability to ensure that we have fair elections in every region of our country. I would like to think that the collective confidence we should have in Elections Canada would allow us to proceed with what Bill C-3 is proposing without concern about any impact it would have on the election, because of some sort of fear factor. I believe that issue can and will be addressed.”
“All sorts of things are possible, but is it justifiable in order to prevent a second generation from being able to come to Canada as Canadian citizens? Some may argue and ask, why could they not just reapply to become a Canadian? As we all know, it is not as simple as that. Canada is recognized around the world as one of the countries, I would say the country, to come to, with the strongest reputation today and over past years. There are far more people who want to come to Canada and call Canada home than we can sustain. When we look at immigration and the issue we are talking about today, I think it is reasonable for us to support this because we can still have integrity within our immigration system. We have the flexibility. The Prime Minister has been very clear on the immigration file and the need to bring stability to it.”
“What the Conservatives are saying, along with the Bloc, is that if my son or daughter has a child, that child cannot be a Canadian. I am suggesting that my grandchild should be entitled to be a Canadian. In terms of facilitating some sort of a connection, we do have, within the legislation, that there should be evidence of a substantial connection. That substantial connection is 1,095 days. I referred to 1,095 days a few minutes ago. If my son was to maintain that relationship with Canada and have that substantial connection, then why should my grandchild not be able to have the opportunity to call Canada home? This is where we differ. I do not quite understand the opposition to that. They will take the extreme position, which, I would suggest, is a bit of an exaggeration. Is it possible?”
“I want members to imagine I am a civil servant working in the embassy, in the foreign service, and I am now posted to country X. While I am in country X, I have a child. That child is not born in Canada but is born in, let us say, Germany. Being part of the foreign service as a diplomat, I might be there for a number of years. I could possibly come back to Canada, or I could stay on a foreign deployment for a number of years, as many bureaucrats will. Let us say my son or daughter is the age of majority and has an opportunity in the country I was posted to, decides to stay there and, ultimately, has children of his or her own. I end up coming back to Canada, whether I have retired or my posting brings me back to Canada.”
“In order to acquire naturalization, people have to go through a process that sees them being in Canada, after being a permanent resident, for a minimum of 1,095 days. The third way a person can be a citizen of Canada, and this is where the contention seems to be, is through descent. I will give a very specific example. There are literally thousands of Canadians who serve abroad in order to serve Canadians here in Canada. I am referring to our military personnel and foreign service, and these are just some national government-related positions. There are many international companies rooted here in Canada, headquartered in Canada, with individuals working outside the country in one way or another. (1250) I will try to simplify this.”
“For those who do make the decision to pursue their citizenship, which is the majority, there is a 1,095-day qualification in order to get that citizenship. I acknowledge that there is a certain time frame around that number, but these are individuals who have never set foot in Canada in the form of having a successful permanent resident application, which is a very important qualifier. A person can be in Canada as a visitor almost indefinitely. Typically it is a six-month return; people go back to their home country, and then they might come back for another visit. We encourage people to come visit our great lands from coast to coast to coast. This is a positive thing, but it does not count toward a person's citizenship.”
“I have been working in the area of immigration and citizenship for many years, and I really believe something of great significance has been overlooked or, at the very least, not talked about enough. There are three ways in which one acquires citizenship. The first is the most common and recognized way; a person is born, raised and lives in Canada, as is the case for a high percentage of members in the House. Another way is through naturalization. Ultimately, naturalization means that individuals are able to come to Canada through some form of an immigration stream. The numbers have fluctuated over the years. Many individuals have been permanent residents in Canada for years but have never taken the next step to get their citizenship, for all sorts of reasons.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address the legislation through its amendments. I hope I can provide some clarification as to why we are here today having this particular debate. It is important to recognize that amendments and changes were made to the Citizenship Act under the former government, a Conservative government that the leader of the Conservative Party was very prominent in. Through the Ontario Superior Court, we found out it was in violation of rights. Ultimately, we are here today because of a Superior Court order about an issue that Bill C-3 is attempting to resolve. We have a deadline. The court has indicated that as long as we can pass the legislation by November 20, then the system will in essence stay intact.”