Debates of May 28th, 2014

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The member had 30 seconds and he used them on congratulating the minister, which I am sure the minister appreciates, but unfortunately there is not enough time to answer the question.

We will move on and resume debate with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say at this late hour, that was a very fine example of Conservative self-glorification at its best. I would like to thank both the minister and the hon. member for the wonderful job they did of patting each other on the back regarding the most dreadful bill that we have had before this House.

Believe it or not, I can remember a day when the current government was in opposition. Those members would have been outraged that a bill, which was so important, had two hours of debate back in February and then today, for the 65th time, was put under a censure order so that we will just have debate tonight and then it moves on. This has become such a familiar pattern, but it really is very disturbing. I remember when Conservative members would have stood up in this House decrying the fact that the government of the day was doing this. Yet, here they are, worse than anybody has ever been.

I feel honoured to represent Vancouver East, a riding where immigration and new citizenship are very honoured. It is something that has built our communities, whether the Chinese Canadian, Japanese Canadian, or the Filipino Canadian community. There are people from all over the world. It is a working-class, hard-working riding. People have come from all over and built businesses. They have contributed to community services and have gone to school here.

I feel very proud to be part of a community that is very much built on immigration. It is a place where people feel very proud about being a Canadian citizen. Therefore, this issue of citizenship and what it means is an important subject in Canada. We are basically a country of new Canadians. Other than first nations, we are all newcomers. Some of us have been here for generations and some folks are here for the very first time. I myself come from a first-generation immigrant family and so I very much value the notion of what it means to be a Canadian citizen, which is all the more reason to look at Bill C-24 and go through it.

My colleagues here tonight and I are very concerned about the bill. Listening to the debate from the Conservative members, I feel as if we are in different worlds. Maybe we identify some of the same problems, but from two different worlds.

In the Conservative world, everything is good or evil. If anyone dares to speak about the rule of law or due process, somehow means that one is in favour of terrorists or criminal behaviour. I mean, it is so juvenile it is sort of pathetic. One would want to see the level of debate in this House be a little more thoughtful, but that is what it has come down to.

Of course, in the NDP, like anybody else, we are very concerned about terrorists and criminal acts, but the question that we are looking at tonight with Bill C-24 when we identify these problems is: how do we respond to them? How do we deal with them?

When we look at the bill, the conclusion that I come to is that basically Conservatives hold themselves above the law. Bill C-24 lays out a process whereby there are extraordinary powers conferred upon a minister to revoke citizenship in certain instances based on suspicion, without any regard to due process, without any regard to independent tribunals or court process. The government really does see itself as the final arbiter.

We believe that is fundamentally wrong, which is why we feel so concerned about the bill. Not only is it being rushed through, but this premise in the bill of affixing problems that have been identified is so suspicious in the power that it confers on an individual. Again, it is a familiar pattern that we have seen on numerous occasions with different legislation.

In the NDP, we do believe in the rule of law. We do believe in the legitimate role of Parliament to debate, to investigate, and to improve legislation. That is what we are here to do.

That is what we are here to do. That is what we are elected to do by our constituents. However, we see more and more legislation rushed through Parliament and rushed through committee, sometimes at all stages, through closure, censure, and time allocation. As I said earlier, we have seen it tonight for the 65th time, and it really does make a mockery of what debate and investigation of legislation should be in the House of Commons.

I feel a sense of dismay tonight, even at this late hour. I am sure we are all tired because we have had a long, busy day, but there is a compelling argument that makes us want to take this on again and again and respond to the absolutely irrational arguments being put forward on the government side.

I heard the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration say earlier in the debate that NDP was fearmongering, yet when we look at the bill and the powers that the minister would have, there is a sense of fear over what the consequences of this bill would be. When we look at the expert organizations in this field and the concerns they have expressed—and I certainly hope they will be heard in committee—surely we see that there has to be a rational debate about whether this bill tips the balance and goes to an extreme in conferring on the minister such extraordinary powers to revoke citizenship.

I do not want two-tiered citizenship in this country. There are other countries that have that kind of regime. That is something that Canada should stay away from. A Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen. If a person has gone through the process of becoming a citizen, that is good, and then citizenship becomes a right.

There are also responsibilities, and if there is wrongdoing, then we have provisions in this country—I think it is called the Criminal Code—that allow for a process to be enacted, for due process to happen, and for people to be prosecuted and jailed if necessary. We have that system in place, but in reading this bill, one would think that none of it existed.

I find it really quite extraordinary that we are dealing with a bill that would in effect allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to act as prosecutor, judge, and enforcer. To me, that is simply wrong. We have a separation of powers in this country for a very good reason. We have a balance of powers in terms of a legislature with regard to the execution and enforcement of the law. There is a reason we have those checks and balances, so the legislation before us is very disturbing.

There is no question that there are issues in the bill that need to be dealt with, such as the issue of the lost Canadians. That is a long-standing issue that has needed to be addressed. I am glad that it is being addressed, but it is being smothered in this bill by other provisions, particularly the revocation of citizenship, which I think is very offensive.

There is also the question of why some of the real concerns we have about our immigration system are not being addressed. Many members tonight spoke about the issue of the backlog, the fact that there are over 300,000 people still waiting and that it takes an extraordinarily long time for applications to be processed. The Conservatives have promised and failed on many occasions to rectify that problem. We have not seen it happen, and it is not rectified in this bill.

If we look at an issue like family reunification, which is very important in terms of citizenship and immigration, we see that it is not dealt with at all; in fact, to the contrary, all of the measures we have seen from the government have actually narrowed family reunification and made it a lot more difficult.

At the end of the day, Bill C-24 is a bad bill. There might be some good provisions in it, but overall, the powers that it would confer upon the minister are unnecessary. They are not needed. They are powers that would cause problems in the long term.

I am very proud that New Democrats have been standing tonight to debate this bill and expose how fundamentally flawed it is. It will go to committee, and we will do our utmost to ensure that there are witnesses and that there are amendments. We can only hope that members of the House will be willing to consider amendments to make sure this bill is improved.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, from the remarks of the member for Vancouver East, it is very clear what the fundamental difference is between us and the opposition on this bill.

The NDP believes that it can somehow be coherent, that it can somehow be consonant with Canadian citizenship to have someone be convicted of terrorism and retain their citizenship. We respectfully disagree.

Gross acts of disloyalty deserve to result in penalties under the Criminal Code, but also the revocation of citizenship when statelessness is not a result. Many other countries agree with us, all of our allies in NATO, except one.

Could the member opposite cite one example of revocation of citizenship for citizenship fraud that was done improperly or that was unfounded? Has she seen any case where the power and duty to revoke under the law has not been implemented properly by the government or others? Will the member come clean with Canadians and admit that when there are cases of revocation for terrorism, or espionage or treason, there will be judicial supervision and involvement? That is required under the bill.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to talk about what this bill means and what it would do.

In reading the bill, what is very clear is that it would confer extraordinary power on the minister to allow the minister, he or she, to revoke citizenship in certain circumstances. That is wrong. We believe it violates due process, that it is not done through the judiciary with independent tribunals. It has been strongly criticized and condemned by a number of organizations that have examined the bill.

Why does the minister think a minister alone should have that kind of power? It just seems so fundamentally wrong. I do not think the government has answered that question. Where is the accountability? We have not heard that tonight from the government.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of the hon. member for Vancouver East.

There are some good elements of the bill. I appreciate the member for York Centre pointing out he is best minister we have ever had, although I do not know how the current Minister of Employment and Social Development feels about that. However, with all due respect to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the bill represents a dangerous departure from fundamental understanding of what it means to be a citizen. It runs contrary to international commitments that Canada has made under the Convention on Statelessness and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It arguably also runs contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in treating classes of Canadian citizens differently from each other.

I do not quarrel for one moment with what the minister says. If somebody obtains his or her Canadian citizenship by fraud, there are already ways in which that citizenship can be revoked because it was obtained fraudulently.

However, for Canadian citizens who arguably might or might not be dual citizens of another nation, to lose their citizenship from Canada is a dangerous and slippery slop.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has identified a real problem in the bill, in that the bill would create two tiers of citizenship. That is unheard of in Canada. I do not know what kind of debate there has been out there in the community. I do not know if people are even aware that this is what the consequence of the bill would be.

We have yet to see whether it will contravene international conventions. As we see with so much of the legislation passed by the government, there are all kinds of legal challenges that have to take place because legislation is brought forward in such a narrow partisan way.

I feel that the whole notion of sound public policy is being eroded by the Conservative government. Bill C-24 is a very good example of that.

I thank the member because her comments are very relevant.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great honour to be here this evening. We stand in a historic place and we look forward to a historic anniversary. Our 150th celebration as a nation is coming. If we look back 100 years from today, Prime Minister Borden was bringing in the Naturalization Act that precipitated the Citizenship Act of 1947, and here we are today, generations later, finally updating our Citizenship Act.

We stand in the name of great people. I am honoured to represent people from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, people who really care about their citizenship, a varied population of different ethnic backgrounds and first nation backgrounds. They are people who cherish their citizenship.

I stand in the name of my father and my uncle. My late father was a prisoner of war in World War II. My late uncle, Smoky Smith, was the last surviving Victoria Cross holder. I am very proud this day, and I know that they would be very proud, considering what we are doing to protect the rights of Canadian citizens and ensuring the rights of a group that I am about to speak about, the lost Canadians.

I am proud to speak on behalf of my predecessor, the former member of Parliament for this riding, John Reynolds, who was an ardent advocate for the lost Canadians, for the people whose rights will be restored in Bill C-24. I am proud to speak on behalf of constituents who have worked for this day, including people like Don Chapman, who helped John Reynolds on his way to advocate for lost Canadians.

Given these personal connections, I am also very glad to speak on behalf of all Canadians who have been watching the evolution of this bill from coast to coast and who have waited with anticipation for us to do something truly historic.

The measures in Bill C-24 represent the first comprehensive reforms to the Citizenship Act in more than a generation, and they deserve the support of every member in this House. Canadian citizenship is central to our identity, values, and traditions and is a tremendous source of pride for all of us who are fortunate enough to have it.

Generations of Canadians have made great sacrifices to defend our way of life, to ensure that our country remains strong and free, and to guarantee the rights and responsibilities that come with citizenship. Among those Canadians are the people I have mentioned, and there are others, such as the people who have returned from Afghanistan so recently and those at that poignant ceremony that we celebrated, the Day of Honour. Those are the people who are watching this evening.

In short, Canadian citizenship is precious, and it should never be taken for granted. Its value must always be preserved and strengthened whenever possible. That is why Bill C-24 is such an important piece of legislation.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I would like to focus on one particular measure in this bill: the restoration of citizenship to those who are known as the lost Canadians.

Under the 1947 Canadian Citizenship Act, there were groups of people who were either not eligible for citizenship or who lost their citizenship for various reasons. They included people born outside Canada to a Canadian parent and people born in Canada who naturalized in another country. They were people who might have justifiably but erroneously thought they were Canadians. They were excluded because of outdated and inconsistent provisions in previous citizenship legislation. Those affected by these provisions became popularly known as “lost Canadians”.

Some lost Canadians spent many years of their lives believing in their hearts that they were Canadian citizens and publicly identified themselves as such. They did not realize that they did not actually have Canadian citizenship. In some cases, the bad news of their actual status came as a nasty surprise when, for example, they applied for a Canadian passport for the first time. Other lost Canadians spent many years yearning for the citizenship they felt would rightfully be theirs if not for outdated legal provisions.

This was a unique and unfortunate situation. I am sure all of us in this House can sympathize with the plight of these unlucky individuals.

Over time, many lost Canadians asked the Government of Canada to give them citizenship. Four and a half years ago, building on the advocacy of my predecessor John Reynolds and others, the government did just that. In 2009, significant changes to Canada's citizenship legislation were implemented. The changes restored citizenship or granted it for the first time to the vast majority of lost Canadians. The amendments reflected the seriousness with which our government takes the issue of people's citizenship.

On the day that law came into effect, most lost Canadians automatically obtained their citizenship retroactively, as of the date they lost their citizenship if they were former citizens, or as of the date of their birth.

Many of my hon. colleagues may remember the day in April 2009 when this law came into effect. There was a lot of media coverage of what was naturally a very happy story of these lost Canadians, so-called, returning home. In fact, a number of former lost Canadians showed up here on Parliament Hill that day, determined to celebrate the restoration of their citizenship and to apply for a Canadian passport at their earliest opportunity.

Our government resolved the vast majority of lost Canadian cases in 2009, and we are committed now to fix the remaining ones. The Liberals could have done this, but they failed to do so.

Although the 2009 legislation did cover the overwhelming majority of lost Canadians, there still remained a small number of people who did not benefit from those changes. The lost Canadians who would gain citizenship under the provisions of Bill C-24, the bill we see before us this evening, fall into three categories: people born or naturalized in Canada before 1947 who subsequently lost their British subject status and did not become Canadian citizens on January 1, 1947; second, British subjects ordinarily resident in Canada prior to 1947 who did not become citizens on January 1, 1947; and third, children born abroad in the first generation to any parent who was born, naturalized, or was a British subject ordinarily resident in Canada prior to 1947.

Here is what Bill Janzen, consultant for the Central Mennonite Committee said about Bill C-24:

I welcome the government's decision to include “Lost Canadians” in their changes to the Citizenship Act. The decision will improve the situation of people born outside of Canada who until now were deemed ineligible for Canadians citizenship....

For instance, someone who was born out of wedlock before 1947 to a Canadian father and a non-Canadian mother did not automatically gain Canadian citizenship when the 1947 law came into force. Neither did someone born in wedlock to a Canadian mother and a non-Canadian father.

It goes without saying that these, seen from our perspective today, are archaic provisions. There is why the measures in Bill C-24 pertaining to remaining lost Canadians are so timely and necessary.

In summary, these measures, measures that I have advocated for since becoming an MP, much of which time I was on the citizenship and immigration committee, would extend citizenship to more lost Canadians born before 1947 and their children born in the first generation outside Canada who did not benefit from the 2009 changes.

It is proposed to extend citizenship to these individuals retroactively to January 1, 1947, or to their date of birth if they were born after this date.

I urge all hon. members of this House to join me in supporting the passage of this bill in order to ensure that Canadian citizenship remains strong and that we can ensure these lost Canadians are welcome and remain a part of the Canadian family.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that the issue of lost Canadians be redressed. I would like to remind the member that there was a first stab at it in 2007 when a bill was adopted that dealt with the largest part of those now-called lost Canadians. Some were left behind. Addressing that problem is worthy business of the House.

The problem is that the bill does not just deal with lost Canadians; it deals with a lot more. We could have easily dealt with the lost Canadians as an independent bill, but we have not done that. We should have redressed that years ago. The fact that the bill in 2007 did not sufficiently address the problem is a problem from 2007, so the government now seven years later is fixing a problem that has been dragging on for many years.

Now, all of a sudden, after the government first presented this legislation in February, the Conservatives are in a massive hurry to pass it before the summer recess. I do not know why they could not have brought it back to the House long before today. Again, they tabled it the first time on February 27 and now they seem to be in the biggest hurry to pass it, send it to committee, and who knows how long it will spend in committee. I tend to think that it might not last very long in committee either.

We need to have a fulsome debate on the bill if only because we are talking about the possibility of removing citizenship. Adding citizenship to lost Canadians is a worthy cause. Removing citizenship, especially in a process that seems to lack a serious amount of due process, is questionable and may very well contravene international obligations.

I would like the member's comments on the revocation of citizenship that the bill would bring in, not just fixing a problem that unfortunately the government left standing for seven years.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the hallmark of an optimist who will compliment a good deed and the hallmark of a pessimist who asks why it was not done earlier.

It is welcome news that my colleague across the way is basically saying that we are taking a good step by enacting these provisions to enfranchise the lost Canadians.

He also mentioned due process. There are at least two provisions in the bill. There will be a federal court review and there is a new level of court review through the Court of Appeal for anybody who is in the unfortunate position of having citizenship removed.

As a lawyer myself, I look at this and think that not only would we be securing the sacredness of citizenship with the bill, but we would be ensuring that people who ought to have their rights removed would have them removed only subject to due process.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the debate this evening. It is quite robust.

Bill C-24 speaks to eliminating fraud within the system.

I am proud to say that my riding of Cambridge-North Dumfries has the largest Portuguese community in all of Canada. When I speak to these folks in the Portuguese community, they tell me they are very proud to be Canadians and they are proud of the ethical process that they went through to become hard-working citizens. My first job was on an asphalt crew with a bunch of Portuguese men who were a great influence in my life.

My feeling on the bill is that it works toward preventing fraud in the system, which these hard-working new Canadians want to see happen.

My question for the member is this. Should we not improve this system to enforce and improve the integrity of the system to deal with those who are committing fraud within the system?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are several provisions in the bill that would increase the penalties for fraud and jail time. The penalties would be increased to $100,000 for fraud.

We know from investigations that there have been thousands of cases over the past years and only a minimal number of cases have been prosecuted. This is going to make Canadians feel that our citizenship is more secure.

There are other provisions in the legislation like the income tax provisions that will now be presented for the first time so that people who claim permanent residence and use it will have to present their taxes. This will ensure their connection to Canada.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off with a quote from Macbeth:

Good things of day begin to droop and drowse;
While night's black agents to their preys do rouse.
Thou marvell'st at my words: but hold thee still;
Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill.

I would like to contend that the bill presented before us is a bill bad begun. It has grown from a rotten seed that was planted as the genesis of partisan ill will to drive a wedge between Canadians by a school alumnus of the minister from UTS, Mr. Garth Turner, who coined the term “Canadians of convenience” during the Lebanon crisis.

Although it might be a popularly held belief among many Canadians that some Canadians abuse their citizenship by leaving Canada, I would contend that this is not the case and that we have to defend the rights of every Canadian citizen. No matter where their origin, no matter their choice to leave, we have to, because it is in the law of this land.

There are perils in the tyranny of the majority.

Thoreau said:

...the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice...

I believe that is the case with this bill. I believe that it is a sign of political cowardice by the leadership on the other side of this House, and I would wish that one person would stand, as another minister did, and ask pertinent questions of their own government about why it is being politically cowardly about this issue.

I would like to clarify some facts made during the debate, particularly by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. He was clearly wrong when he heckled out during one of the debates that we were arguing that they are creating a law above the law in trying to defend on this side the Constitution of this country. The minister stated that the Constitution is not a law.

The definition of a constitution, according to Merriam-Webster, is:

The basic principles and laws of a nation...that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it.

Now, the minister should know from his father, Bruce Alexander, who served under Bill Davis, the Ontario premier who was responsible for the patriation of the 1982 Constitution, that the Constitution is in fact the highest law of the land and that it frames our whole nation and the way that the government should act. It frames limits for the government so that it does not abuse its majority.

Everyone knows that the current government has problems with aspects of the Constitution, particularly the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now, there are two charter rights that go against this whole popular notion of Canadians of convenience. One of them is section 6, which states:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

I would contend that the genesis of the bill is this whole popular idea of Canadians of convenience. There are no Canadians of convenience. If someone who is a Canadian citizen decides to leave, that is their fundamental right in this country.

The other one would be section 15, which outlines the principle of equality before the law, regardless of national origin. It does not matter if people are from China, France, the U.K., Turkey, or Lebanon. It does not matter where they have come from in the world; once they come here to Canada and become Canadian citizens, they are Canadian citizens, no matter what.

It is disappointing that this railing against the Constitution or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms comes from a man who has enjoyed a privileged life, a man whose father was a prominent lawyer who worked under someone who was arguably one of the greatest premiers in Canada, although I might disagree with that. He served under Bill Davis, who was responsible for the patriation of the 1982 Constitution with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which we know this side does not always agree with.

It is disappointing that the member cannot defend the highest law of the land, our Constitution. When one rails against the Constitution, there is a term for this. When one tries to subvert a constitution, there is a term for this and it is called sedition. It is seditious to try to subvert a country's constitution and to incite people to rebel against the highest law of the land. To sow divisions between Canadians is seditious behaviour.

I would argue that through presenting this particular law, Bill C-24, in the House it is sowing divisions among Canadians. It is attempting to subvert the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it will end up having constitutional challenges that will entail costs for Canadian taxpayers. Every time there is a challenge to the Constitution, lawyers are hired. There are lots of costs involved and the government, which so much likes to defend the taxpayer, would in fact be footing the bill through the Canadian taxpayer in fighting all these cases that will arise out of this badly thought-out bill.

I would like to conclude by saying that I have a personal interest in this debate. I am the father of a dual citizen and I have been through this system. I have seen how it tears families apart and keeps families apart. I could not see my daughter for at least 12 to 13 months after she was born simply because of the immigration process and the length of time that it took to reunite families. I can tell everyone that this causes stress for families. It personally bothers me that my daughter who is a dual national would not have the same rights as I would.

Some future administration might decide that she is treasonous for whatever reason, because the concept of treason is there in history, say in the case of Brown v. Virginia, where a person wanted to abolish slavery. At the time if the majority does not agree with this person, the person is judged to be treasonous and hanged. Let us consider what we are doing here because sometimes the majority and the popular sentiment of a country is not always the right thing. It is not always the right thing that is being done. We have to look at this and consider it.

I would seriously ask the government to retract the bill. There are so many elements in it that are problematic. It is shooting off in all different directions. I think it has been badly thought out. It is a poorly thought-out bill that has its genesis in ill will of popular sentiment. I would ask the minister and the ministry to reconsider the bill because it will have serious effects on numerous Canadians.

There are good aspects in the bill. The part that is trying to rectify the problems with lost Canadians is one of the better aspects of the bill, but there are troubling aspects when we explore the concept of revoking citizenship, and not citizenship of someone born here, but citizenship of someone who has dual nationality.

That is a problem. When I look at my daughter, she is as Canadian as everyone in this room. She may not have been born on Canadian soil, but when she sings O Canada, when I see the pride she has in her country, I believe that she is 100% Canadian. If she left this country and spent 27 years such as the minister did outside of this country, whether it was serving Canada or serving another purpose, I believe that in her heart she would be Canadian. We should never remove citizenship from a Canadian citizen, no matter what.

We have recourse to justice for people who have committed crimes. I think it is an easy solution in the minds of the government to take away someone's citizenship. There are already judicial rules in place that make sure that if people have committed a crime, they are punished. We have a justice system that is robust and can deal with this.

It is disappointing that the government is using legislation to divide Canadians. I would contend that the bill would be seditious, because it would subvert the Constitution.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we had to wait until midnight to be accused of sedition on this side. It must be the witching hour.

I would like to express sympathy to the member opposite for the difficulty he clearly faced in the immigration system. We are aware that separation of family members causes stress. We are working very hard to reduce backlogs to try to make sure that families can be together as quickly as possible. We have made a lot of progress in that direction.

In our earlier exchange about the Constitution versus laws, my point was that the Constitution is not sufficient to provide for the rule of law in our country. We have a Constitution, yes. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are important, but we need laws, like the law on citizenship, and we need revisions and modernizations of those laws to tell us what the rules are to make sure that our country is well governed in every sphere. That is why we sit in the House of Commons.

Some of his colleagues were implying that it is enough simply to have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it is all we need to define our citizenship. That is not the case, and it is not the case in other countries.

Is the hon. member really implying, though, that there should be revocation of citizenship for citizenship fraud, yet not for cases as serious as sedition, like treason, espionage, and terrorism? In fact, they are much more serious crimes.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my contention is that we have a law. We have laws touching on treason and on terrorist acts. Our justice system is robust enough to deal with these acts. If Canadian citizens commit these acts, we should take them to the courts and punish them. They are citizens. As Canadian citizens, they have rights, and those rights have to be protected.

One has a right to a fair trial in our country. That is one of the rights. This is another problem that would be created by the bill, because it would put in jeopardy the whole notion of having a fair trial.

My question is for the minister. Does he not trust our justice system enough? Does he not think it is robust enough to punish criminals who have done criminal acts of espionage, treason, and terrorism?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a very impassioned speech. It was very well researched, with lots of literary references. I really appreciated that, being an English teacher.

Most of all, I wanted to say to him how much I appreciated that he shared his personal story on the difficulties he experienced. We have seen those reflected from coast to coast to coast, almost every one of us.

I live in Surrey in Newton—North Delta, one of the most diverse communities. My office often feels like the local hospital, where we do triage on immigration issues, and then we send people away feeling very frustrated. I actually have constituents who have been waiting 30 months, or four years, or as long as five years to get their spouses over. Sometimes the child, even after DNA tests are passed, is in kindergarten and grade 1 before the families are united.

However, what we are here to discuss today is really two-tiered citizenship, which my colleagues across the way have done everything they can to avoid talking about.

My question is very simple. If people are born in Canada or become naturalized and become Canadian citizens, under this legislation, could they have their citizenship stripped from them?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that for Canadians born here, citizenship cannot be stripped from them. For both, they can be stripped. It is not right. If people are Canadian citizens, they are Canadian citizens. They should not have their citizenship stripped from them. It is just not right.

I thank the member for highlighting my personal story. It was a bit too emotional to describe to the House, but yes, it is quite an ordeal to go through the immigration process and to try to be reunited with family members. From what I have heard anecdotally, as a member in this place, I have heard worse stories than what I experienced, as the member just said. I was lucky enough to understand the political system and went to the member for Vancouver East and requested her assistance in that case, and she did an excellent job.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to add my voice to support Bill C-24, which would help prevent fraud and protect the citizenship program from abuse. Our Conservative government will not turn a blind eye to citizenship fraud and those who cheapen the value of Canadian citizenship.

Because Canadian citizenship is so valuable, many people are prepared to misrepresent facts to make it appear that they qualify. For example, they may pretend to live in Canada when they are really living abroad, often with the help of crooked citizenship consultants, those who would take money to help permanent residents circumvent the law and gain citizenship by fraudulent means.

As of October 2013, the RCMP had conducted investigations involving more than 3,000 citizens and more than 5,000 permanent residents. The majority of the investigations were related to residence. There are also reports that nearly 2,000 people linked to these investigations have withdrawn their citizenship applications.

Even the small number of crooked consultants who facilitate this type of fraud represents a substantial problem, as this undermines the program's integrity and the value of our citizenship. That is why this legislation would help combat fraud and protect the citizenship program from further abuse.

These measures include permitting only authorized representatives to represent individuals in citizenship matters, increasing penalties for fraud, refusing applicants because of misrepresentation at any point in the citizenship process, and barring them from reapplying for five years. This bill proposes to do this through several amendments to the Citizenship Act.

The current Citizenship Act does not include any means to regulate citizenship consultants. New provisions under Bill C-24 would allow the minister to designate a professional body authorized to represent individuals in citizenship matters. This means that the government could monitor and collect information concerning citizenship consultants, require applicants to declare the use of a consultant, and return applications from people using consultants who are not registered.

These changes would be in line with amendments introduced in 2010 to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the IRPA, to crack down on crooked immigration consultants.

I see that my time is wrapping up. I would just like mention one last item, if I might.

The current penalty for citizenship fraud is a mere $1,000 maximum fine or a one-year prison term; it would move to $100,000 or five years in prison. This is extremely appropriate in this matter.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 12:15 a.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, 2014, the division stands deferred until Thursday May 29, 2014, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The hon. Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification is rising on a point of order.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether, if you sought it, you would find the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock at 12:30 a.m.