Gabriel Ste-Marie
Joliette—Manawan, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International has denounced the inhumane housing crisis that the Atikamekw nation of Manawan is experiencing. In Manawan, as many as 23 people may be crammed into housing that is often unsanitary. These conditions contribute to the spread of respiratory illnesses.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are discussing an important bill. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Barreau du Québec's response to this bill. The Barreau du Québec agrees with the principles, but it has some reservations.”
“Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International has launched a campaign to denounce the glaring underfunding of housing in indigenous communities. The organization focused on the situation in the Atikamekw community of Manawan. Isolated and dependent on federal funding, Manawan is facing a severe housing crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that the Liberals improperly broadened the scope of the provisions on bail conditions and other procedural safeguards that are applicable to intimate partner offences? This raises serious concerns in our view.”
“Mr. Speaker, we support Bill C-16 , as does the Barreau du Québec. However, in a statement, it indicated that while it feels the bill's objectives are laudable, it believes that “incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that will hinder the analysis, review and practical application of these prov…”
“Amnesty International and the community are calling for urgent action, and we are echoing their demands: invest heavily and sustainably, work in partnership with communities, adapt policies to guarantee dignified living conditions and put an end to discrimination. Chief Sipi Flamand took these requests directly to the Prime Minister .”
The complete record
Every one of 411 lines we hold for Gabriel Ste-Marie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 9.
“These people continue to experience problems, and Bill C-3 aims to fix some of these issues. These individuals who lost their citizenship as a result of certain obscure, unfair or discriminatory rules are known as lost Canadians. It is a diverse group, consisting of military spouses, children, soldiers, second-generation children born abroad, children of immigrants, border babies, orphans, indigenous Canadians and Chinese Canadians, to name but a few. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration establishes four categories of lost Canadians. The first is war brides, meaning women who married Canadian soldiers fighting for Canada in World War II and who immigrated to Canada during or after the war to join their Canadian husbands.”
“For example, under the 1977 Citizenship Act, individuals who obtained citizenship by descent had to reiterate their desire to retain their citizenship before the age of 28 or risk having it revoked. Because of this little-known requirement, many individuals living in Canada lost their citizenship without even knowing it. (1815) The government failed to communicate this requirement to its citizens, and it was only when the affected individuals had to prove they were citizens, to apply for a passport, for example, that they discovered that they no longer had Canadian citizenship. Some people had been living in Canada for generations. Their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on had been living in Canada, yet they found themselves stateless.”
“At the time, citizenship was not considered a guaranteed right, but a discretionary power of Parliament. Many situations, particularly those involving naturalization and citizenship by descent, were covered incompletely or not at all. For example, under this regime, when the responsible parent took the citizenship of another country, their children lost their Canadian citizenship. Other obscure provisions, such as the requirement for Canadian children born abroad to reside in Canada during their 24th year, resulted in many individuals living in Canada not officially having citizenship. The act was next modernized in 1977, and this iteration attempted to simplify the previous citizenship regime. However, the regime remains unfair for several groups, particularly children born abroad.”
“It defined Canadians as persons born in Canada, British subjects living in Canada, or immigrants naturalized as Canadians. The objective was to facilitate their passage across borders. In 1921, the Canadian Nationals Act was passed, defining Canadian nationality for immigration purposes for the first time, but without establishing Canadian nationality status. Other laws were also passed, such as the naturalization acts of 1906 and 1914 that sought to govern naturalization, as their names suggest. It was not until Mackenzie King, who became the first Canadian citizen, introduced the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1947, that Canadian citizenship was finally defined for the first time and granted to women as a matter of right. However, the 1947 act was not perfect.”
“This is an absurd situation because the birth of that child in Switzerland is a circumstance due to their parents' work abroad in service of Canada, and practically their entire life has been and should continue to be spent in Canada. Bill C-3 is an identical copy of Bill C-71 from the 44th Parliament, which did not pass. It is also similar to Bill S-245 . In 2023, the court gave the government six months to pass legislation to fix the problems. Despite the deadline having passed, here we go again. I would like to briefly review certain aspects of the history of Canadian citizenship. It is a relatively recent development in the country's history. When Confederation came about in 1867, Canadians were British subjects. It was not until the first Immigration Act was passed in 1910 that citizenship was first mentioned.”
“The court recognized that the ban introduced in the act was unfair, particularly for women who had to choose between the birthplace of their child and the ability to pass on citizenship. Take the case of the Brooke-Bjorkquist family's child. That child was born in Geneva in 2010 to Mr. Brooke and Ms. Bjorkquist, who were working for the government abroad. Despite the fact that the child was born to two Canadian parents and returned to Canada at age one, the child could not, under the current provisions of the act, follow in their parents' footsteps by working abroad and having a child abroad, because they would not be able to pass on citizenship to their child. That is the problem that was raised in court.”
“Mr. Speaker, as members know, Bill C-3 responds to a court ruling. I will provide a bit of background. In 2009, the Harper government amended the Citizenship Act to prohibit passing on citizenship beyond the second generation. On December 19, 2023, the Superior Court of Ontario struck down certain provisions of the Citizenship Act, ruling that they violated the section on mobility rights, which states: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada”. The provisions also violated a section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with regard to equality before and under the law and the equal protection and benefit of the law. The parties challenging the Citizenship Act represented seven families that had been discriminated against by the legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, could my colleague come up with an amendment to make that proposal acceptable and in line with the court's decision? Under the current legislation, if diplomats have a child abroad and that child also has a child abroad while working as a diplomat, the grandchild will lose their Canadian citizenship. The court is telling us to fix this. The government is proposing something. In my opinion, this is a routine issue that needs to be corrected. What legislative wording could be proposed to resolve this without causing the problems my colleague raised?”
“Mr. Speaker, the hypothetical case that was just raised illustrates exactly what Bill C-3 aims to regulate. A court has ruled on a similar case. A couple working in the public service had a child in Switzerland. They said that if their child were then to have a child abroad while working in an embassy or elsewhere, that child would not have Canadian citizenship. Bill C-3 seeks to address that. Citizenship must not be cheapened or devalued. Yes, we do need a complete overhaul of all operations and deficiencies at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. All of that is important. However, I really feel like we are living on two different planets. My reading of the bill is that it applies to those cases, children and so-called lost citizens. It is about making sure they get Canadian citizenship, and that is all.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where my colleague left off. This bill is a direct response to an Ontario Superior Court ruling in a case similar to the example she gave. It involves the child of a Canadian diplomat born abroad, in Switzerland. If the diplomat's child also has a child abroad, that child will lose their citizenship. This bill has nothing to do with security and criminals. We do need laws for those very important issues, and we need to deal with them. This, however, is about bringing the law into line with a court ruling. What exactly is the problem in the parliamentary secretary's example? I do not understand. That is exactly what Bill C-3 is about.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that this bill is a revival of a previous bill and a response to a ruling from the Ontario Superior Court dating from late 2023, which gave the government six months to comply. My question is as follows: Has the six-month deadline passed?”