Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 3rd, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Amendment NDP-D is withdrawn—

Excuse me. I've been corrected to say that it's not presented, so there you have it.

Debate on clause 26? All those in favour of clause 26?

(Clause 26 agreed to)

I'm going to follow along with this procedure, because I assume it is the will of the committee to do it one by one. Am I correct?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

(Clause 27 to 30 agreed to sequentially)

(On clause 31—Existing applications—sections 5, 5.1, 9 and 11)

Now, something's happening here. We are on clause 31 and we have New Democratic amendment E.

Mr. Menegakis, this is 6631788.

Madame Blanchette-Lamothe, you have the floor.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The NDP is presenting an amendment to this clause, which concerns the transition time for the coming into force of this act.

The purpose of the amendment we are proposing is to exclude people who have previously obtained permanent residence from the measures of Bill C-24.

We are introducing this amendment because many people, as individuals or as representatives of groups, have come to meet with me personally or have testified before the committee to oppose the extension of time required to submit a citizenship application and the fact that the length of residence in Canada before citizenship was granted would no longer count.

Under the present act, foreign students and temporary foreign workers may count the time during which they reside in Canada before obtaining permanent residence since they live and study or work here. Under Bill C-24, however, that time would no longer be counted. As a result, the bill will affect all those who have not yet filed a citizenship application.

This will change the life plans of many permanent residents who had intended to file their applications this summer or fall since many of them very meticulously count their days. In so doing, they want to ensure that, when they file their applications, they will in fact be eligible to do so. This is a clear illustration of the beauty and value of Canadian citizenship.

In a way, a bill such as this alters the contract that we had with these people. We told them that they could come to Canada and that they would be able to file citizenship applications after a number of years. Now that they are here, have complied with their part of the contract and have carefully counted their days to ensure they file their applications when entitled to do so, this bill will change the rules of the contract and alter their short- and medium-term life plans.

Under the amendment we propose, these people would be able to continue their lives as planned in accordance with the current act and would be able to file their citizenship applications after the time periods we initially set for them. Ultimately, this bill would affect people who would be granted permanent residence in future but not those who currently have permanent resident status, that is to say those who obtained it because they were foreign students or temporary foreign workers or simply because we told them when they arrived that they could acquire citizenship after a number of years.

We want to ensure that we are respectful of those people, even though we oppose Bill C-24. If this bill is passed, we believe it should not penalize people who are about to file their citizenship applications.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Our analysis shows that this amendment would remove the transition provision that allows applications before the bill comes into force to be dealt with under the new rules. In other words, the bill would apply only to new cases and applications. This would go against the intent, which is to apply the new efficient decision-making model to the backlog of cases as well. That would reduce the backlog, and people would be able to obtain their citizenship in a much speedier and more expeditious manner.

So, we are opposed to this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madame Blanchette-Lamothe.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to go back to something my colleague just said. In his view, the aim here is to reduce waiting times and delays in the processing of citizenship files. That is a very noble objective. It should have been done long ago.

However, the Conservatives are going about it the wrong way. If we delay the opportunity for these people to file their applications for a year or two, that will be perfect if we want to adjust the statistics for the next federal election, but it will have no impact in the long term. There will of course be a decline in the number of applications because the administrative process will be slightly slowed, but, once this period of time is over, the number of applications from these people who are getting ready to submit their applications over the next year will rise again.

I believe that is very clearly illustrated here. The government is refusing to respect the life plans of the people who had intended to file their citizenship applications over the next year or two precisely so it can adjust the statistics for the election. This problem has been around for a long time and should have been solved a long time ago.

On the eve of the election, however, a minor one- or two-year delay before people can submit a citizenship application will be the perfect way to reduce the number of applications temporarily and improve statistics in the short term, not the long term, without adding any new resources. It was important to point that out.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

This section is on transitional provisions for existing applications.

I just wanted to share a story of two constituents I spoke with on Friday and yesterday. They pleaded with me. They said, “Please, please fight against Bill C-24. I have just finished qualifying and I'm going to be applying”. One person said they were going to be applying for their citizenship because they qualified with their PR time, and the other person said that based on the current laws, they would qualify and could apply in September, but if Bill C-24 came into effect, they wouldn't qualify anymore.

This person really wants to become a Canadian citizen. His family is from Egypt, but because of the civil war situation there, the tumultuous situation there, he's actually lost some of his family members there. He's just scared that he's going to become stateless, because he can't renew his Egyptian passport, and he has spent the last six or eight years in Canada building up his portfolio and his resumé so that he could become a Canadian citizen. If this bill passes as is, he's essentially going to become stateless, and he won't actually get to put in his application, because he won't be able to get an Egyptian passport and he won't be able to get a Canadian passport. He won't be a Canadian citizen, and Egypt has already refused to renew his passport for him.

So, this young man, who has done everything he needs to do to become a Canadian, and who wants to become a Canadian, is now going to be told, well, sorry, you're going to have to wait another x amount of time. The amendment we are proposing actually helps people like him, who have qualified based on the current laws that exist and who, depending on how the transition period goes, may not qualify anymore. All we're trying to do is to make this a fair, smoother transitional period, so that people who have already started the work, or who are already in the works, actually get a chance, based on the existing law.

That's all I'll add. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Ironically enough, I spoke to the same young man yesterday. His concerns were somewhat different from those represented here by Ms. Sitsabaiesan, but maybe he told both of us two different things.

In any event, it is critically important for us to highlight that Ms. Lamothe talked about next elections. This is not about elections, Mr. Chair. This is about citizenship. We are going from a three-step process to a one-step process. Surely all members here understand that if somebody is waiting for 24 to 36 months to get their citizenship and will now have an opportunity to obtain it in under a year, that is a plus.

How someone tries to equate that to elections is beyond me. I don't understand it. The word “elections” did not come out once in the drafting of this bill, in the discussion of this bill, or in the debate of this bill, or even from witnesses, from what I recall of this bill.

This is about going from a three-step process to a one-step process. We think and we believe as a government that once somebody has fulfilled all of their obligations of citizenship in their application, they should be able to obtain it as fast as possible. This will reduce backlogs in the citizenship system considerably. If that helps people, why not vote it in?

We are opposed to the NDP amendment. We will be supporting the clause as is written in the bill right now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there further debate on NDP amendment E? I'm going to call the vote.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

A recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair...?

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

(Clause 31 agreed to)

(Clauses 32 to 46 inclusive agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Clauses 32 to 46 carry. I'm amazed that you let me do that.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I didn't hear you properly. That's why.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, it's too late now, I'm afraid. I'm speaking out nice and loud. It may be crackly, but it's nice and loud.

(On clause 1—Short title)

We're now on the short title. Shall—

I'm sorry. Do you have a question?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I would like to debate on the one called.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On the title? Of course, you have the floor.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to speak to clause 1, which concerns the short title of the bill.

Rather than simply state that it is an act to amend the Citizenship Act and other acts, the proposed title of Bill C-24 is the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

I believe we have discussed this at length. The problem word in this title is "strengthening". We think it is a bit ridiculous to claim that Bill C-24 strengthens citizenship or the Citizenship Act. We have shown on several occasions in this committee that, on the contrary, Bill C-24 will set disturbing and probably unconstitutional precedents and will penalize several classes of permanent residents and citizens.

First, however, allow me to say that several aspects of this bill are a step in the right direction. The NDP said a little earlier that extending citizenship to lost Canadians is a good thing, although this aspect is not complete. Some experts who were unable to testify before this committee said we were not restoring citizenship to all lost Canadians. An effort is nevertheless being made to do so. The NDP supports that step in the right direction.

The NDP also supports harsher penalties for fraud, as in the case of immigration consultants. As you will have noticed, the NDP voted for several clauses of this bill, including those concerning the harsher penalty for fraud.

The NDP also supported a very interesting clarification, the stronger residence requirement; that is to say the clarification of the rules concerning the days that must be counted for a person to be eligible. In short, I have just cited three elements, but the NDP supports several other aspects of this bill.

In addition, this bill is approximately 50 pages long. We have voted on nearly 46 clauses. Several aspects of the bill are extremely problematic. I want to summarize a few aspects that we feel do not strengthen citizenship. On the contrary, they throw a wrench into the works for many people and may even be unconstitutional.

First is the declaration of intent to reside. Before obtaining citizenship, people will have to declare that they intend to reside in Canada. As we know, citizenship may be withdrawn from someone who has obtained it by making false statements or by fraud. The NDP is not opposed to the principle of revoking the citizenship of someone who has made false statements or committed fraud in order to obtain citizenship. However, here we are imposing a declaration of intent to reside. This is a declaration that people must make in order to obtain citizenship. Consequently, there is a danger here that citizenship may be withdrawn from someone on the pretext that he or she has made a false statement in order to obtain citizenship. The NDP is not alone in saying this. That is the opinion of virtually all the experts who testified here in committee. Those experts are much more knowledgeable in this matter than I or my Conservative Party colleagues.

The witnesses opposed to this declaration of intent to reside include the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Bar Association and others.

I have mentioned experts who are knowledgeable in the law. So when they say this may be an unconstitutional aspect, we should at least consider the opinions they have expressed. When they say this will open the door to a dangerous shift in the landscape, that should be considered as well. Unfortunately, the government has rejected all proposed amendments to the bill on this point.

Another important factor is length of residence, which is counted so that people can be eligible to obtain citizenship.

I would like to talk about a group, Pre-PR Time Counts, two representatives of which appeared before us. No one around the table had anything critical to say about their testimony. They told us that the time students and temporary foreign workers spent living in Canada was worth something, even if they had not yet obtained permanent residence. These people establish ties with the country and become familiar with Canadian values. They pay taxes, work and study.

Suddenly the right to calculate the time they have lived in Canada as foreign students or temporary foreign workers is being taken away from them for no valid reason. Neither the minister nor anyone else could give us an explanation on that point. No one can give us an answer, but students and temporary foreign workers are being slapped and betrayed because they were initially told that time spent in Canada would count. Now we are changing the rules without explaining anything to them or giving them a valid reason. This is appalling.

I do not recall hearing a single witness tell us this was a good change to the act. Neither the minister or any witness could tell us it was a good idea to stop counting the time foreign students and temporary foreign workers spend in Canada. No one understands why and no one supports it, but the government persists in its ideological drive to pass this change as is without us being able to understand the reason for it.

This frankly makes us wonder why we bother inviting witnesses to appear before the committee. If no witness was able to support this change, that just shows to what extent we are capable of inviting witnesses without listening to them. This is extremely problematic and very unfortunate. What message are we sending to these foreign students and temporary foreign workers?

The third element I would like to discuss is obviously the revocation of citizenship for an indictable offence committed in or outside Canada. This is a discretionary power of the minister, and those threatened with revocation of their citizenship have no right of appeal.

My Conservative colleague said a little earlier that the government's experts claimed that the bill complied with the Constitution and presented no problems. I think the Conservatives should learn a little lesson about the constitutionality of their bills. This is not the first time this has happened. It is not the first time they have said that something complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution and that the Supreme Court will have nothing to say about their bill since their experts claim it complies with everything.

As we have seen on several occasions, they have had to reverse their decisions. Here we have a good example of that. The only lawyer who appeared before this committee who did not question the bill's constitutionality was the departmental counsel. All other lawyers and groups of lawyers questioned the bill's constitutionality for one reason or another, or in the case of one clause or another. And yet that did not even set off warning bells for the Conservatives. It does not even raise questions in their minds.

They introduced no amendments to their own bill and accepted none in return. That is tantamount to laughing in the faces of the people who submitted briefs or appeared before this committee and told them to be careful because the bill entailed serious risks. Some said there were risks, while others said they were certain the bill was unconstitutional. However, questions arise in both cases. The government cannot claim it is right and everyone else is wrong. Something in that reasoning seems utterly false and artificial. We see very clearly that it moves forward with bills such as this, without amending them, for ideological reasons.

My colleague also said a little earlier that NDP members did not care about expert testimony since they opposed the bill at second reading. This may surprise my colleague, but I speak to people outside this committee. A lot of people came to see me at my office before the vote on second reading. They were people whom we had invited to appear in committee so that they could share their opinions with us. However, the most surprising thing was to see that even the witnesses invited by the Conservatives suggested improvements to this bill. In some instances, they even questioned the bill's constitutionality.

Allow me to cite one example.

The minister recently said—and this appeared in a newspaper article—that the Canadian Bar Association should be ashamed of opposing Bill C-24. My colleague even said that the NDP did not want to punish criminals, that it wanted to keep terrorists safe, or something like that. It is typical reasoning on the Conservatives' part to think that we cannot disagree with them without being completely off base and that we should be ashamed not to think as they do on all matters.

The government says that the bill enjoys broad public support, but I would be curious to see its polls and figures. I have before me a petition that was submitted by one group and signed by more than 26,000 people opposed to Bill C-24. I do not know what kind of consultation the Conservatives conducted. And I am not telling you that those 26,000 signatures are necessarily valid or that the petition itself should be taken at face value. However, it is unusual to be able to gather so many thousands of signatures in order to oppose a bill. It nevertheless has some value when weighed in the balance.

What kind of consultation did the minister conduct so that he could say that Canadians support his bill? This is another argument that we often hear and that I think is of little value.

Is this an act that would strengthen citizenship? That is frankly ridiculous. After all we have heard in this committee, we cannot say that this bill is perfect. We can understand the concern, not only of the opposition, but also that of the community at large and of many experts who appeared before us. It should be taken seriously.

Lastly, this bill concerns fundamental rights. It would have the effect of changing the way in which people are able to access our justice system. It would also change the lives of several thousands of people who had intended to file citizenship applications over the next few months. Even though the minister himself said that the bill constitutes a reform that has been awaited for 30 years and that it is extremely important, the normal procedures have been circumvented and no proper study has been conducted in this committee. In addition, debate on this bill was limited by a time allocation motion. A time allocation motion was introduced at second reading, and I would not be surprised if there was another one at third reading.

If the Conservatives feel that citizenship is so important, but that this bill does not even merit proper debate in accordance with the normal procedures of the House of Commons and Parliament, then frankly they should be ashamed.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, as you will understand, I will be opposing the title of this bill because it includes the words "strengthening Canadian citizenship", and I will also be opposing the bill itself.

I hope that Canadians will remember this for a long time. There has been an extensive mobilization effort on the part of citizens and experts, and it is not over yet.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, after that rant from the member opposite, I don't know where to begin, but I will. I will start, perhaps, with some of the reasons or many of the reasons why we are supporting the short title of this bill, “strengthening Canadian citizenship”.

Irrespective of the comment that the member opposite made, that Conservatives perhaps need a lesson on constitutionality.... I could of course rebut that comment with a number of lessons that I believe members of the NDP need. But in the interest of not going back and forth with this name-calling, I will take the high road and avoid discussing issues that are current and very much in current affairs, with respect to how NDP members and their leader behave, Mr. Chair.

I will focus my attention only on the “strengthening Canadian citizenship” act title. Before I do that, I think it's important to note that we know we are in a parliamentary democratic system. Canadians did give us a mandate to govern; this is a majority government. I think we have demonstrated on repeated occasions our willingness to listen to some constructive critique, but as I said earlier, the credibility of some of that critique was somewhat weakened, Mr. Chair, when the opposition critic stood up in the House on February 27, before hearing any of these witnesses that she eloquently presents in her argument about the short title of the bill, before it was considered and debated on by so many witnesses and certainly through the clause-by-clause process, before even having had the opportunity to listen to any of that, and said, “We're opposing this bill”.

The opposition in a democratic system holds the government to account. That's the opposition's job. We understand that. We know it's the opposition's job to stand up and hold the government to account. But we would hope that would be done in a manner that respects the parliamentary process, after debate has been heard, and with the benefit of having heard contributions and input from all members across all party lines. That's particularly the case when it comes to committee, because in committee, we all have a partisan relationship, but I would hope we could put that on the side and debate issues for the sake of issues. Certainly deciding to oppose a bill before you even hear a single witness does not lend any credibility to the argument we heard from Madame Lamothe.

However, that being said, why do we like the title “strengthening Canadian citizenship” act? When the minister introduced the bill, he was very clear that this act, strengthening Canadian citizenship, Bill C-24, would protect the value of Canadian citizenship for those who have it, while creating a faster and more efficient process for those applying to get it.

These are the first comprehensive changes to the Citizenship Act since 1977. That was 37 years ago. The country has changed. We believe so many components of this bill are very pertinent to Canada today, and they are what Canadians want, that it is important to see swift passage of this bill through the House and royal assent through the Senate.

There is some blueprint for citizenship improvements in this bill. This important legislation streamlines Canada's citizenship program by reducing the decision-making process. That certainly strengthens Canadian citizenship. When you can reduce it from three steps to one, and when you give senior officials who have the experience and the knowledge to deal with and make a decision on a citizenship file more quickly than it would be done if it had to go through a three-step process, then we expect that by 2015-16 this change will bring the average processing time for citizenship applications down to under a year.

Every single member in this House—I don't care what party they're from—has heard complaints from people who are waiting for a long time to get their citizenship. Every single person has heard them. Nobody can stand up and refute the fact that they have seen a constituent who has said, “How come I don't have my citizenship yet? I've been waiting for two or two and half years”.

Well, here is legislation before us that fixes that problem, that gets us to under a year. Those who have those qualifications will have the opportunity to become Canadian citizens and enjoy, in a much faster and more expeditious manner, the same rights and privileges that all of us have.

It is also projected that by 2015-16 the current backlog will be reduced by more than 80%: that's 80% of the people who are waiting for their Canadian citizenship. It will be reduced by 2015-16, and we're in 2014 now.

Citizenship application fees will also be better aligned with the actual cost of processing. I said it before, and the members opposite may have taken note, that it costs us about $550 to process an application. We have a marginal increase—it's going up to $300—that brings it closer to what the actual cost of an application is. I think it's fair to Canadian taxpayers, who are currently bearing the majority of the cost for citizenship applications.

These are people who are already in Canada for a number of years, working, filing taxes. They pay for all kinds of other things; they can pay for their Canadian citizenship application.

The legislation reinforces the value of Canadian citizenship. The government will also ensure that citizenship applicants maintain strong ties to Canada. This act will provide a clear indication that the residence period to qualify for citizenship in fact requires a physical presence in Canada. More applicants will now be required to meet the language requirements and pass a knowledge test to ensure that new citizens are better prepared to fully participate in Canadian society. New provisions will also help individuals with strong ties to Canada by automatically extending citizenship to additional lost Canadians who were born before 1947, as well as to their children born in the first generation outside Canada.

This is something that the opposition members have made a lot of hay about, this intent to reside—i.e., why should they have to have a certain proficiency to speak in one of the two official languages? If a 16- or 17-year-old who has been in the country for four years can't converse in one of the two official languages, it's okay; give them a break, they're children. But that makes absolutely no sense to Canadians.

Here's the thing that may come as a bit of a revelation to members of the opposition. They're not the only ones who talk to Canadians. We speak to Canadians on a daily basis as well. We are members of Parliament and we speak to them. We know very well that the 14-, 15-, 16-, 17-year-olds who are in the Canadian school system can converse much better than at the elementary level, which is the requirement here for citizenship, in either one of the two official languages.

So to oppose for the sake of opposing makes absolutely no sense. They can be as eloquent as they want, and present the case as if this is doomsday, but the fact of the matter is that the requirement to reside in Canada is something that Canadians expect. People who are born here, who are Canadian citizens by birth, who live their lives here, who are welcoming of people coming from all over the world...like my parents came here and like a lot of the other families of people, of members of Parliament sitting around this table and in the chamber, came here. In the Conservative caucus alone there are 28 different languages spoken.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm corrected by my colleague here; there are 40 different languages spoken.

We know how welcoming the country is. We expect, as Canadians, that those who seek to have Canadian citizenship and the rights and privileges that we all have do have the intent to reside in this country. It's very basic. It's a very basic principle. We can go back and forth and argue this forever to make our points. The fact of the matter is that Canadians expect people who seek citizenship and get citizenship to have the same obligations that they have to obtain that citizenship by being contributing Canadians in this country.

We want to crack down on citizenship fraud. This is a key component of this piece of legislation, but for some reason the member opposite questions the title of “strengthening Canadian citizenship”.

The legislation includes very strong penalties for fraud and misrepresentation, a maximum fine of $100,000 and up to five years in prison, and expands the grounds to bar an application for citizenship to include foreign criminality, which will help improve program integrity. I don't think it's asking too much for Canadians to expect of their government that criminals are not granted Canadian citizenship, and that if they're found to have been granted it fraudulently, it should be removed from them.

The legislation protects and promotes Canada's interests and values.

Finally, the legislation brings Canada in line with most of our peer countries—something, of course, that during the debate of this clause-by-clause was not mentioned once by members of the opposition—by providing that citizenship can be revoked from dual nationals who are convicted of terrorism. I know that this part they did discuss, but we're talking about peer countries, and peer countries provide for citizenship to be revoked from dual nationals who are convicted of terrorism, high treason, and spying offences, depending on the sentence received, or who would take up arms against that country.

Permanent residents who commit these acts will be barred from applying for citizenship. It's very simple. If you commit an act of terrorism or treason and you're a permanent resident, too bad. You can't become a Canadian citizen. Does that sound harsh? Canadians don't think so.

Opposition is not for the sake of opposition. It should be constructive, and it should be in line with what we hear from Canadians when we leave this hallowed place that we have the privilege to serve in, representing our constituents. I am convinced that in their hearts of hearts all members of Parliament feel the same way about that, irrespective of the partisan political comments that we hear, not occasionally but daily, from members of the opposition.

The legislation also recognizes the important contributions of those who have served Canada in uniform. They serve Canada in uniform either in the country or outside of the country. Those permanent residents who are members of the Canadian Armed Forces will have quicker access to Canadian citizenship. The act also stipulates that children born to Canadian parents serving abroad as servants of the crown are able to pass on Canadian citizenship to their children, to children they have or adopt outside of Canada. Now, this is a very personal issue for me, and I'm so delighted to see that it's part of this bill.

The quick facts of it are these, Mr. Chair. Canada is successful in turning immigrants into citizens. More than 85% of eligible permanent residents in Canada go on to become citizens.

As a result of these amendments in Bill C-24, applicants will need to be physically present in Canada for a total of four of the last six years. In addition, they would need to be physically present in Canada for 183 days per year for at least four of those six years. It's not that you come here, make the application, disappear, and come back four years later, saying that you made the application four years ago. You actually have to be physically present here. That's an expectation that I think Canadians have and that I think we're obliged to fulfill to ensure it happens.

The current citizenship fee, as I've said, does not reflect the actual processing cost, so changes will ensure that applicants are responsible for most of the actual processing cost. I heard a Liberal member in the House get up and say that's a grab. It's not a grab when you apply for something. There are applications done every single day by Canadians. For a litany of things in Canada, millions of different things. You apply for a membership and you pay for it. To pay for your Canadian citizenship application is a tax grab somehow...? Somehow Canadians are expected to pay for you to become a Canadian citizen...? Give us a break on that one.

There are many quotes from different people who have spoken to us and have appeared before us, but in closing, Mr. Chair, I will say this. This is a major and very significant step forward for Canada. We were elected with a strong mandate to ensure that we bring forth legislation that strengthens our country.

As a member of the Conservative Party, the governing party, I'm proud to support this legislation. I could not think of a better short title than “strengthening Canadian citizenship”.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there further debate?

Mr. Sandhu, sir, you have the floor.