Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled. Members are saying, “Well, the NDP is not in government.” I do not know why the Liberals would just support their bill. It is completely strange.

Here is the thing: We do not know how many people the bill would affect. The government could not say, over a 10-, 20- or 30-year period, how many people would be able to draw health care benefits in Canada, draw on the services of our country.

We asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Again, he was kind of stonewalled in his analysis on the government, because I do not think it wants the public to know. I think the government knows how many people this could impact. Earlier my colleague said there is about four million people currently living abroad that have Canadian citizenship. We could start thinking about the exponential downstream impact the bill would have. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that at a minimum it is going to be 100,000 people over five years. That is his best guess.

Why would the Liberals propose a bill that would essentially allow mass chain migration to this country through automatic Canadian citizenship without any sort of substantive tie to the country? It really does speak to motive. Why are they doing this? They could have kept the Conservative bill with just a minimal scope, but no. They did this on purpose, and they have now done it twice. Instead of making amendments to the bill as were required, they have now done this twice.

There are two things that are missing in the bill that absolutely, 100%, need to be instantly changed. The first is that missing requirement of a substantial connection to Canada. I mentioned, in questions and answers, that the court ruling some of this applied to, which the Conservative bill and not the government tried to address, had a requirement or a definition for a substantial connection to Canada. How have the Liberals defined that? There is nothing. We heard that in the non-answer of the colleague who spoke just before. She could not really define that.

What we need is a substantial connection to Canada. Precedent for this type of situation in virtually every other country around the world is something like five or 10 years in a set period of time. Earlier my colleague from the Bloc asked if it would stop somebody from leaving Canada. It is usually five or more years within seven years, and at least a chunk of that is spent in the country as an adult, over the age of 14 or over the age of 16. That point was brought up in the hours of debate, with witness after witness giving testimony in the last Parliament.

The Liberals could have harmonized that with other jurisdictions around the world, but instead they purposefully tabled a bill with that missing. I think that they did that because, again, they want to have a devaluation of the Canadian citizenship. Let us think about it; it is literally like devaluing currency. If they want to refute me on this point, this should be their response: It should be that they will entertain an amendment to have a consecutive residency requirement, as a bare minimum amendment. That is what I think. That makes sense to me.

The second thing that the bill absolutely needs amended is the fact that there is no security vetting requirement whatsoever for somebody applying for this. Let us think about what that means. If somebody looks up their ancestral food chain and finds an ancestor who held Canadian citizenship, even though that person has never been in the country, they could come, three years over some period of the course of their life, and then be granted Canadian citizenship without having been vetted for any sort of security risk whatsoever. There is an automatic get-into-Canada pass with the bill, and that is not right.

I want to talk about fairness too because there are millions and millions of positive stories. Many people who now work and serve other Canadians in this place have migrated to Canada, played by the rules and played fair through Canada's immigration system. They checked all the boxes, waited for years, had security tests and had all of these different tests. I cannot imagine how they feel looking at this bill. It is not right, and it is not fair.

Again, I want to be very clear: I think one of the things that Canadians have always been proud of, and are proud of and open to today, is the concept of immigration that functions within the context of the pluralism of Canada. That does not work under what the Liberal government has done, which is increase immigration to a level that is so unsustainable that we do not have houses, we do not have health care and we do not have jobs to adequately address everybody in the country, newcomer or not.

I think what has happened here is the Liberals have tabled the bill without amendments, partially because of an incompetent minister. However, they have also put the bill forward without amendments because they put Bill C-2 in place. They broke Canada's asylum system so badly that they had to put the immigration provisions of Bill C-2 in there. That is another debate. I will have a lot to say on that in the future.

There are people, “consultants” in loose quotations, who have made an entire industry of scamming people who want to come to Canada to build a better life. I think the Liberals are afraid to stand up to those people. I think what they try to do is talk out of both sides of their mouth on this issue. That is why the bill came in unamended.

If the Liberals had come in with a bill with a narrow scope that looked a lot like our colleague's bill from the other place, in which she had very tight definitions to address the very real needs of some of the stakeholders who are considered lost Canadians, everybody could have supported that. It would have been fast-tracked. However, the Liberals and the former NDP members stalled the bill at committee because they gutted it and then made it this endless chain migration bill.

I need to hear from the government that it is going to amend the bill so that there is a substantive presence test that includes some sort of consecutive presence, as well as, at a minimum, security vetting for people this would apply to. The government has not signalled that, and every Canadian should be asking why. Conservatives will continue to press the Liberals on this issue because we will not let Canadian citizenship be devalued by poor Liberal legislation and the poor Liberal broken immigration system.

Michelle Rempel

$533,680.00