Jenny Kwan
Vancouver East, British Columbia · NDP · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table three petitions today. The first petition is signed by electors of Vancouver Fraserview–South Burnaby and Vancouver Quadra, who brought their petitions to their local MPs but had to ask for my assistance to table this in the House.”
“Communities know what they need, municipalities know what they need, indigenous housing providers know what they need and frontline organizations know what they need, yet funding decisions remain concentrated in Ottawa while people on the ground continue to experience delays, uncertainty and shifting eligibility rules.”
“They see that the Prime Minister is abandoning the provinces and territories that did not sign the pharmacare agreement prior to the last election. People do not care about talking points. They care about whether or not they can afford their medication. They care about whether they must choose between prescriptions and groceries.”
“Phase 2 funding under the federal community housing initiative will sunset. This subsidy support is critical to co-op housing members whose household incomes would cause them to pay more than the current 25% rent geared to income. If this program is not renewed, more than 14,400 families across the country will lose their homes.”
“In fact, for 30 years, the Indian Residential School Survivors Society has provided support to indigenous people harmed by Canada's colonial systems, the sixties scoop, the ongoing missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and 2S+ crisis, and more, yet despite repeated commitments to reconciliation, despite having been told by Indig…”
“It determines staffing, curriculum and infrastructure. It determines whether first nations children have stable access to education. It is in effect the backbone of educational stability for first nations students in this province.”
The complete record
Every one of 508 lines we hold for Jenny Kwan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 11.
“The standard for this disclosure is simply the minister’s own judgment of what is “necessary”. This is vague, subjective and wide open to abuse. Why are there no requirements in the bill for privacy impact assessments? Why are there no guarantees that collected data would not be repurposed for unrelated purposes? Third is the absence of compensation or worker protection. If a company is ordered to rip out equipment or shut down services, there would be no compensation. For small Internet providers, that could mean bankruptcy. For their workers, it could mean layoffs. For rural and remote communities, it could mean disruptions in already fragile service. Where is the government’s plan to support the workers, providers and communities that would bear the costs of compliance? (1300) Fourth are the penalties.”
“While the minister explained that safeguards exist to prevent disproportionate orders from crippling providers and leaving rural Canadians disconnected, Bill C-8 would grant sweeping powers to cabinet and the Minister of Industry: powers to ban telecom companies from using certain equipment, to force its removal, to suspend services and to terminate contracts. These orders could be issued without prior judicial approval, without parliamentary review and without independent oversight. When we concentrate this much power in the hands of a single minister, we need checks and balances. Where are they in the bill? Second are the risks to privacy and civil liberties. The bill would allow for mandatory information sharing between telecoms, regulators and federal agencies, and possibly onward to foreign governments.”
“Bill C-8 is a near carbon copy of Bill C-26 , a bill that died when Parliament was prorogued earlier this year, and while some minor improvements have been made, some fundamental flaws remain. This is where I would like to focus my remarks as I and my colleagues in the NDP consider the ramifications of the bill. Allow me to bring those questions forward with the hope of bringing some clarity and changes to the bill. First is the scope of ministerial powers. Under the bill, the Minister of Industry could compel telecommunications providers to rip out equipment, ban entire suppliers or suspend agreements. Imagine that a company might have to pass the costs of that on to its customers or close its doors entirely.”
“They are a reality in today’s world, and we all recognize that. In that respect, I acknowledge that Bill C-8 reflects a pressing reality: Canada must strengthen the resilience of our critical infrastructure. However, in our rush to act, we must also ensure that we get the right balance. If we protect our systems but undermine our rights, if we secure our networks but destabilize our economy, then we will have built a fortress with the doors left open. Bill C-8 as it stands raises several concerns. The Liberals tell us the bill is proof of their so-called innovation agenda, but when we look closely at the fine print, the reality is far more complicated.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Bourassa , for splitting his time with me. Cybersecurity is no longer a distant concern of experts in back rooms; it is a kitchen table issue. Canadians expect their lights to come on, their paycheque to be deposited, their medical records to be private and their phone to connect them to loved ones without interruption. They expect those things to be safe from hackers, hostile states, nefarious actors and, yes, overreach by their very own government. Cybersecurity is not an abstract concern; it is about whether families can trust their power grid to stay on, whether a rural clinic can keep its patient records safe and whether small businesses can keep their doors open without fear of being taken down by hackers. Canadians deserve real protections against cyber-threats.”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberals abruptly announced that they will end door-to-door mail delivery. The elderly and rural, remote and indigenous communities will have a hard time accessing their mail. Those who work nine to five will have to take time off work to get their mail. There is a better way forward. Instead of tearing down Canada Post, will the minister build it up by reintroducing postal banking, building an electric vehicle charging network and expanding its infrastructure by creating a community hub of services such as high-speed Internet, computer access, video conferencing and e-commerce support? Will the minister do the right thing?”
“The petitioners are noting that Canada as a country needs to uphold international human rights laws to ensure our reputation as a country is not diminished by Canada's inaction in the face of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute by other nations. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to suspend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement until the Government of Canada is certain that the Israeli government is no longer acting in violation of international laws with its deliberate blockade and to impose sanctions on all members of the present Israeli government who have publicly expressed their support for the continued blockade.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise to table a petition with over 7,500 signatures from people across the country. At the time of the signing of the petition, the petitioners noted that the Israeli government's blockade of food and medicines to Gaza had continued for more than 90 days since its commencement on March 2, 2025; that, according to the food security analysis released on May 12, 2025, by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification partnership, three-quarters of Gaza's population are currently at emergency or catastrophic food deprivation; that Canada has ratified the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which prohibit the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare; and that the starvation of civilians and other forms of collective punishment are also criminalized by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which Canada ratified on July 7, 2000.”
“Mr. Speaker, the NDP fought tooth and nail for the $4-billion investment in the for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern housing strategy, yet two years later, the money still has not flowed. Shovel-ready projects are stalled while the housing crisis for indigenous, Inuit and Métis peoples continues to escalate. In creating “build Canada homes”, the Prime Minister is admitting that CMHC is ill-equipped to deliver the much-needed affordable homes that Canadians need. Will the Prime Minister let Indigenous Services take over so it can do what is necessary for indigenous-led housing providers to access the funds to build the homes the community desperately needs?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government abused its power one too many times by invoking section 107 of the Canada Labour Code as a back door to order striking workers back to work. It did it with rail, port and postal workers and tried to do it with Air Canada flight attendants. CUPE national fought back and defied the back-to-work order. Trade unions across the country stood firmly on the side of flight attendants to say that unpaid work does not fly. Will the minister respect the constitutional right of workers to free collective bargaining and repeal section 107 of the labour code, yes or no?”
“It would make sure no country is exempt and that weapons, in part or in whole, cannot be exported under blanket permits. It would strengthen the criteria the minister must apply before approving any exports, would require clear end-use certificates and would bring in transparency by enhancing public reporting to Parliament. This legislation is about standing up for peace, human rights and justice. It is about making sure that Canadian weapons are never used to harm the very values we claim to defend, and it is about showing the world that Canada will live up to its commitments. Civil society organizations and legal experts have been calling for this legislation. I urge all members of the House to support this bill, because when it comes to protecting human rights and preventing war crimes, there can be no exceptions, no excuses.”
“Canada and arms exporters based here should never be complicit in fuelling war crimes, human rights abuses or the suffering of innocent people, yet right now, loopholes in our laws allow weapons, parts and technologies made here in Canada to end up in the hands of regimes that violate international law, commit atrocities and devastate communities. When Canada signed on to the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019, the government exempted all exports to the United States from scrutiny. This loophole has become a back door for Canadian weapons, components and technologies to fuel some of the bloodiest conflicts on earth. This week on Parliament Hill, installations of children's shoes are on display as the names of children are read out to commemorate the deaths of 20,000 Palestinian children in Gaza. This bill is about closing those loopholes.”
“Bill C-233. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act . She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, otherwise known as the no more loopholes act. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre , for seconding this bill. Canada signed on to the Arms Trade Treaty with the promise that we would not allow our arms exports to contribute to war crimes or the violations of human rights. However, promises are not enough. Words are not enough. We need to close loopholes. We need accountability and we need transparency.”
“John McCallum said the following: what makes me really proud is not that we got the job done, although that is good, but that at a time when so many countries around the world are closing their doors to refugees, ordinary Canadians across this land have come out and have welcomed our newcomers with open hearts. That is what makes me very proud to be a Canadian. Those were the words of John McCallum in this place on his way out as a parliamentarian. For that, I honour you. I honour your work. I thank his family for his service to our community and for sharing him. Last but not least, I say let those words be a reminder of what we need to continue to do, especially during these very difficult times in the global community.”
“I remember when he left this place back on January 31, 2017, and he gave his final speech in Parliament. He looked back on what he felt was good, the things he accomplished, and he singled out two things in particular: “the nomination of Nelson Mandela to be an honorary citizen back in 2001 and, in particular, the Syrian refugees.” We should always remember that. Why it stood out is that it showed Canada's compassion and kindness, and it showed that Canada is different. In nominating Nelson Mandela, who is an icon of social justice, that is also what it stood for. Let me close with a quote.”
“I went to John and said, “Look, we should be leveraging the strength of all Canadians in this effort.” He said to me, “What do you think we should do?” I offered some suggestions, including helping these younger, newer organizations to build capacity, and for us to utilize their strength and harness their strength in the resettlement effort. That is exactly what he did. (1605) I appreciate a parliamentarian, a minister, who brings that kind of view to this place. After all, that is why we run for office. I am absolutely sure that was the reason John ran for office as well. It was to help Canadians so that we can support each other. The responsiveness of John as minister is something to be noted, but I also want to acknowledge something else.”
“There were some missteps here and there and everywhere, as in all things that we try to do. John McCallum, though, took to the job with a sense of humility, I would say. He was not bragging about that work and he was also open to what he could learn and what I, as the opposition critic, could offer to help him do that job better. I offered many different suggestions, and in the Syrian refugee initiative, there were many lessons learned. One important lesson was for us to take in and utilize the knowledge of the communities of people who are new arrivals and have established themselves and have the language and cultural experience to welcome newcomers but do not really have a place in the established structure of resettlement services.”
“I will never forget that moment in time when a minister picked up a call and responded to a call from an opposition MP in helping their constituent. That kindness was something that I will never forget about John McCallum, that level of responsiveness that he took to the job and that respect he has shown not only to me as a colleague but more importantly to his role as the minister of immigration in respecting the needs of Canadians. That was the John McCallum I was reminded of when I heard about his passing. I then thought about his work. As he cited at the time, being the minister of immigration was a significant job, because the government was working through the Syrian refugee initiative. It was an ambitious initiative and it was a tough one to accomplish, and that he did.”
“Shortly after the election, a constituent phoned me to ask for help on an immigration matter. It was actually a family who needed to come and see their dying father before they departed. In my eagerness to support them, I did not know what to do. I picked up the phone, I searched the directory and I called John's office. I left a message and I was not sure if anybody was even going to pick it up, because it was early days after the election. Lo and behold, John McCallum called me back, and he put his office and his staff onto it, even though he did not have very much staff, as he said to me. However, he put people onto it and ensured that they would do their best to support the family, and that he did.”
“Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP, I too rise to pay tribute to the late Hon. John McCallum. It has already been said in this place that he had many accomplishments. He was a recognized and respected economist; he was a recognized academic; he was a recognized parliamentarian; and of course he was a recognized diplomat. In the face of all that work and all that effort, though, before all of it, he was a son, a brother, a husband, a father, and a friend and colleague, and that is how I knew John: as a colleague in this place, as many, like me, have cited as their experience with John. Like them, in 2015, when I was first elected, John was also in this House. He was the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. I was the critic for the NDP, and as a newly elected member of Parliament, I was so often lost in this place.”
“Madam Speaker, the NDP believes that the bill should be scrapped. We do not support the bill, because it is not what it purports to be. There might be some provisions in it that are good, but they should not be in a giant bill with more than 11 acts all shoved into one bill—”
“If the government wants to address criminality, it should bring forward a bill on trafficking, on criminality specifically, not shove it all under a bill that is 140 pages long, with provisions that have nothing to do with border security, that have nothing to do with criminality and that have everything to do with tackling and violating Canadians' basic civil liberties and expanding the government's surveillance capabilities on Canadians. That is wrong.”
“Madam Speaker, the NDP's view of the bill is that it should actually be scrapped entirely. The government is trying to shove through a whole variety of different things in an omnibus bill, a 140-page bill, stripping Canadians of their basic charter rights and stripping due process, all in the name of border security. If the government wants to tackle safer borders, it should bring forward a bill that specifically talks about that. We could examine it, study it and then debate it and determine whether it should be amended and passed.”
“Let us meet our labour demands for the full range of workers, the low-skilled, medium-skilled and high-skilled, and not just what the government has right now, targeting the high-skilled workers and then pushing the rest of them through the temporary foreign workers process. This needs to be looked at in a serious way, and it should be dealt with in a fair way so that all workers are valued here in Canada and are not subject to exploitation.”
“Madam Speaker, not all people with a visa who are here in Canada want to claim refugee status. Some of them are actually seeking permanent resident status. Some of them are having their permits extended. What has happened with our immigration system is the mismanagement of the system by the Liberal government. In fact, I remember that both the Liberals and Conservatives called for an expansion of temporary foreign workers. The NDP members were the only ones who said, “No, wait a minute; we should not be doing that.” The NDP members were the only ones who actually said that if we need more workers here in Canada, we should make sure we go through the proper process, which includes allowing them to get permanent resident status on arrival.”
“Bill C-2 is not about border security; it is about expanding government surveillance. It threatens to chill freedom of expression, erode trust in doctors and service providers, and normalize the sharing of personal information with foreign powers. Canadians deserve better. We cannot allow democratic norms in Canada to become roadkill under pressure from an increasingly authoritarian and unhinged American president. This is not the Canada I know. This is not the Canada I think Canadians voted for. I call on every member of the House to vote against the bill and send the government back to the drawing board.”
“We must understand that people in normal circumstances do not risk their lives—and the lives of their families—to [flee] for reasons such as economic stability. They do so out of desperation and as a last resort. Now, as minister , he is putting up walls and barriers through the legislation. Yes, refugees and those who need safety are under attack under the bill. Bill C-2 would deny hearings entirely to refugees from the United States, block applications from those who have been in Canada over a year, and ignore risks of persecution, torture or even death. It echoes Trump's asylum policies, and if I might add, there are over 150 Canadians in ICE detention right now. What is the government doing? Nothing. We have heard nothing about what the government is doing with Canadians who are held in ICE detention in the United States.”
“They should not lump them in with a 140-page bill and sneak in provisions that would turn Canada into a surveillance state. Of course we all want safety. Communities want safety, and we want secure borders. However, we already have existing legal tools, like warrants and court orders, that respect civil liberties and let law enforcement do its job while still protecting civil liberties. Stripping away judicial oversight is not the answer, and that is not how we do things in a democracy. The public safety minister , in an op-ed about refugee asylum seekers, in 2016, wrote the following: Our country will never be the same again, and collectively our doors should always be open, not just to those who come to our shores, but those taking extraordinary risks to cross other shores in search of refuge.”
“Groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group are sounding the alarm. They are rightly pointing out that Bill C-2 threatens charter-protected rights to privacy and to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. These are not abstract concerns; these are rights that go to the heart of a free and democratic society. If the Prime Minister and the public safety minister are serious about protecting those rights, they must scrap the bill and send it back to the drawing board. It should not be brought forward as an omnibus bill. If they want to address border safety, they should bring forward a bill that addresses border safety. If they want to address fentanyl trafficking, they should bring forward a bill that addresses fentanyl trafficking.”
“In the Trump era, where the LGBTQ2IA+ community is under attack, this is extremely dangerous. Canadians should never have to worry that their personal medical decisions might be exposed to another country's government, yet the bill makes that possibility very real. (1135) Matt Hatfield of OpenMedia critiqued Bill C-2 for having an “astonishing scope of who can receive data demands without a warrant that is unprecedented in Canada.” He is right; we have never seen anything quite like this in Canada being pushed through. It is alarming. It is American-style surveillance creeping north of the border. Canadians were warned about this during the last election. Did the Prime Minister , during the election, tell any Canadians that this is what he was going to do? No, and all of this is to appease Trump.”
“When governments start cutting corners on civil liberties, it is often racialized, low-income, marginalized communities that bear the brunt, but they will not be the only ones. We all would be under this kind of scrutiny. Even more alarming, Bill C-2 would open the door to increased information sharing with foreign governments, including the United States. Ottawa is currently in talks to join the U.S.' CLOUD Act, the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, which would allow U.S. law enforcement to access Canadian data stored on servers abroad. That could include deeply personal records, such as whether someone accessed abortion services. In a post-Roe America, where abortion is criminalized in several states and reproductive health is under surveillance, this is profoundly dangerous.”
“This includes doctors, banks, landlords, schools and even psychiatrists, and the list can go on. Let that sink in for one minute. Government agencies could make information demands for when and how long someone has accessed service from a provider or an associate provider related to that service. This of course means that government agencies would know where the provider is located and the timeline, how often and for how long someone has sought service from the provider. Under the bill, the government would be able to access online activity that someone is engaged in, without having to justify it to a court. These kinds of unchecked powers are ripe for abuse, and historically, we know who pays the highest price.”
“It would undermine due process, and it is a power grab. The Liberal government's new strong borders act is one of the most serious threats to Canadians' civil liberties we have seen in years. It makes Stephen Harper's infamous Bill C-51 look tame by comparison. Framed as a national security measure, the legislation would give sweeping new powers to police and intelligence agencies, powers that would override long-standing privacy protections and skirt judicial oversight. At the heart of Bill C-2 is a deeply troubling expansion of warrantless surveillance. Under the proposed law, the RCMP, CSIS and even undefined “public officers” would be able to demand personal information from a wide range of service providers without ever going before a judge.”
“Madam Speaker, Bill C-2 , the strong borders act, was introduced in June by the public safety minister . Framed as legislation to strengthen border security, fight fentanyl trafficking and address U.S. irritants, the 140-page omnibus bill would make sweeping changes across more than 11 existing acts, and it proposes a new framework for digital surveillance of Canadians. Many aspects of the bill have little or nothing to do with border security. The government is seeking unrelated powers it has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain in the past that present significant threats to human rights and civil liberties. Bill C-2 is not about safety; it is about normalizing surveillance, criminalizing migration, bypassing Parliament and public debate, and attacking Canadians' privacy and charter rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question; he is absolutely right. The NDP work collaboratively with the Bloc, and they are absolutely onside to respect the constitutional rights of all Canadians, particularly women. We have debated this matter. In fact, this very issue went before committee for 30 hours. We debated the matter at committee at length. We already debated it in the House for not one round, but two rounds. This should be made law. There is no—”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that is exactly the kind of politics and approach that Canadians rejected. That is why the Conservatives are sitting on that side of the House, and that is why their leader lost his own seat. There had to be a by-election for him to win his seat back. However, I am not here for any of that. It does not matter that the NDP has only seven seats in the House. I am going to do what is right for Canadians. I will continue to champion the rights of all Canadians. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. We should all be treated equally and not in the way the Conservatives want, which is to strip away the rights of women. That is what they did in 2006, and it has been ruled by the courts to be unconstitutional. That is why I am here to champion this and to make sure that this gets fixed.”
“Mr. Speaker, in fact, I have been championing the work of the government and want to say to the government that we need to make sure Canada's immigration and citizenship laws are charter-compliant. I have carried this file for more than a decade. The Conservatives first brought it forward in 2006, so it has been 16 years that our charter rights have been violated. I am asking the government and urging the government to fix this, working through a Senate bill and working with the government on a government-introduced bill. We are here again doing that. It is incumbent on all members of Parliament to work collaboratively to honour the rights of all Canadians and to treat each other respectfully and equally. All Canadians are Canadians, period.”
“I have heard the Conservatives say that there should be a criminality test. Would they apply a criminality test to Canadians who were born in Canada to say that if they commit an offence, they will lose their birthright of being Canadian? No. We have the judicial system that we can go through to deal with that. If there are criminality issues, a person would then go before a judge and the process would follow as it should. It is time for us to fix this problem once and for all. Canada's immigration citizenship laws should be charter-compliant to respect the rights of women and women who have children abroad and to respect the rights of all Canadians who travel abroad. We are global citizens; we work and travel abroad. It is time that we honour all of our rights as equal in Canada.”
“What I heard the Conservatives talk about was the connections test, that somehow these Canadian citizenship rights are deemed not to be rights. They somehow treat it that one has to earn one's citizenship back. However, if people are Canadian, they have Canadian birthrights that are being passed on. These are not immigrants per se, trying to get their citizenship through an immigration process. These are their birthrights. The connections test in this remedy is that they have to establish and show they have a connection to Canada. The substantial connections test in the legislation requires they have some connection in Canada, having been here for 1,095 days nonconsecutively, because people travel. They move and work abroad. Therefore, they have to show a connections test of 1,095 days nonconsecutively.”
“An estimated 170,000 women born abroad in the age range when people often start a family are being affected by the current law. As reported, the justice said in her June decision that “these are not ‘theoretical or minor constitutional violations’ but ones that could lead to ‘children being stateless.’” She went on to say: They can lead to women having to make choices between their financial health and independence on one hand, and their physical health on the other. They can separate families.... They can force children to stay in places that are unsafe for them. They can interfere with some of the deepest and most profound connections that human beings both enjoy and need. That is why we are here today. This is what we are trying to fix.”
“The Bjorkquist decision held that the second-generation cut-off violates section 15 by discriminating against first-generation born-abroad women more particularly, stating: [The cut-off] disadvantages pregnant first-generation born abroad women who are living abroad when they get pregnant by placing them in the position where they have to make choices between their careers, financial stability and independence, and health care on the one hand, and the ability to ensure their child receives Canadian citizenship on the other. Women's reproductive autonomy and family planning are extremely time-sensitive, and the Conservatives' legal impediment to exercising this freedom comes at a human cost to women, parents and children. This is the reality.”
“The Conservatives again filibustered the House, and Bill C-71 was never actually passed. Here we are again, with Bill C-3 , for the third round, still trying to fix the situation where the judge ruled that Canada's citizenship law is unconstitutional. It is not charter-compliant. The court had to give the government multiple extensions to fix the situation. This is why we are here today. (1555) If the first-generation born-abroad Canadians decide to go abroad and have a child, they cannot pass on their Canadian citizenship to their child at all, and, of course, they run the risk of rendering their child stateless.”
“We went through a whole series of discussions, lengthy debates and committee work, and we came through with a number of amendments, which passed, but then the bill never had third reading in the House. Why is that? It is because the Conservatives filibustered the debate and used a whole bunch of rules and tactics that delayed that debate, and it never came back. In the midst of all of that, I said to the government that if it wanted to make sure Canada's citizenship rules were charter-compliant, it needed to bring forward a government bill. It agreed. Conservatives, by the way, at the time actually said that if the government brought forward a bill, they would support it. The government brought forward a bill, and what happened? There were more games played.”
“We go abroad to work, to study and to travel, and, guess what, as life would have it, sometimes we fall in love. Sometimes we marry people abroad. Sometimes we have children abroad. If this happened to a second-generation born-abroad child, they would not have Canadian citizenship rights. The matter was actually challenged in the courts. The Ontario Superior Court ruled that it was in violation of charter rights, and the government had to remedy that. In the last Parliament, there were several attempts to try to fix this. In fact, Senator Yonah Martin brought in a Senate bill to try to fix it. Through much debate, much effort and much collaboration, I, as the immigration critic for the NDP, raised the matter and worked with the government to bring forward amendments to fix the bill and fix the charter violation, and we did.”
“Somewhere along the way through the history, and more specifically pertaining to the piece of legislation before us, in 2006, the Conservatives, under the Harper administration, saw fit to take away citizenship rights for those who are the second generation born abroad. The Harper government took away the rights of Canadian citizens who are the first generation born abroad to pass on their citizenship to their children who were also born abroad. If an immigrant who became a Canadian were to have a child outside of Canada, they could not pass on their citizenship to their child. That citizenship right was stripped away for Canadians by the Conservatives. As a result, many people had to separate themselves from their families, and some children were even born stateless. Canada is a global country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the discussion and the debate about Bill C-3 . This morning the bill was debated, and I listened intently to the debate back and forth, which was primarily from Conservative members. I actually did not even hear, from the members who stood, about the purpose of the bill, why we are here and the remedy that Bill C-3 is proposing. Let me start with that. Why are we here, and what is Bill C-3 all about? First, Bill C-3 is a piece of legislation attempting to correct a wrong. It is attempting to make Canada's citizenship laws charter-compliant. In fact, Canada's citizenship laws have not been charter-compliant for decades. Why is that? It is because we have a set of archaic immigration citizenship rules.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could elaborate. In rushing through Bill C-5 , not only does it, of course, violate indigenous rights, as we have heard, but what are the implications for the environment of overriding environmental standards?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her ever-diligent and vociferous attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and holding the government to account. The government, and particularly the member for Winnipeg North , seems to claim that under this bill, part 2 of the bill, it actually respects indigenous rights through its consultation provisions. The Liberals seem to be oblivious about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the consultation requirements stipulated in that. I wonder if the member can enlighten, particularly, the member for Winnipeg North .”
“While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House. We find ourselves in a similar situation here. While the measures in Bill C-5 are broadly related to Canada's economy, part 1 is distinct from part 2. Therefore, it would certainly be appropriate to divide part 1 and part 2 of this bill for the vote. (1005) The Speaker has that authority, and that would make it possible for members to better represent their constituents by voting separately on these bills, which are quite different from one another. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your ruling.”
“In a ruling by Speaker Regan on March 1, 2018, he quoted the following: “The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they apply to a specific field.” The former House leader of the Bloc Québécois and former member for La Prairie—Atateken knew of this since it is from page 400 of Parliamentary Procedure in Québec . Speaker Regan continued as follows: While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me.”