Bill C-425 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to require the Minister, on application, to reduce by one year the required years of residence in Canada to grant citizenship to any permanent resident who is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who has signed a minimum three-year contract and who has completed basic training.
It also amends section 9 of the Act to provide that an individual is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship or is deemed to have withdrawn their application for Canadian citizenship, if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces.

Calgary International Airport

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Calgary International Airport, located in my riding, is the third busiest airport in Canada, contributing $6 billion to the economy.

Last weekend, I joined 12,000 Calgarians to celebrate the opening of the longest commercial runway in Canada. This is the only runway in Canada that has a 100% eco-friendly LED lighting system. It will save 60,000 kilowatt hours per year, which is the equivalent to a saving of 41.3 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.

Calgary airport is an economic driver for western Canada, and I congratulate the Calgary Airport Authority on this historic milestone.

Before my time is up, I would like to thank all of my colleagues who supported the passage of Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, yesterday, especially our hard-working Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for including provisions from my private member's bill, Bill C-425.

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24. Before I go on, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

As we know, this bill was studied in committee. Unfortunately, even though we proposed good amendments to address the major problems in the bill, the government decided to reject those amendments.

We are concerned about the constitutionality of this bill, and that is a big deal. Immigration is a significant part of our government system, and when the government brings in a bill, the least it can do is ensure that it is constitutional and will not be struck down. Nonetheless, there are some good measures in this bill and we encourage those. Unfortunately, there are also some very worrisome measures as well.

First, during the speech by my colleague from Winnipeg North, I talked about the fact that part of Bill C-425, a private member's bill, was added to this bill. The part that was added has to do with shortening the time requirement for becoming a Canadian citizen for members of the armed forces who are permanent residents.

That is a good measure and we support it. When someone provides a service to society, like a member of the Canadian Armed Forces does, then we can only encourage that. Unfortunately, this good measure probably applies to fewer than three people a year. To become a member of the Canadian Armed Forces you have to be a Canadian citizen unless you have permission from the Chief of the Defence Staff. That only happens when there is truly a shortage in a trade and someone has a specific skill. Then that person can be recruited. It happens very rarely.

When I was preparing my private member's bill, I was told it would affect only 5% of all volunteer firefighters, that that was not enough and that it did not apply to enough people. In this case, the government is bringing in a legislative measure that will apply to three people. I am glad that the government is supporting the Canadian Armed Forces, but it is still troubling to see that the government is implementing good measures that will apply to almost no one.

Now that I have talked about a good measure that applies to few people, I would like to talk about other specific aspects of the bill. What worries me the most is the possibility that the minister can revoke a person's Canadian citizenship in a rather arbitrary manner. There is no court or process, and he decides whether to revoke someone's citizenship. It could be someone who has dual citizenship, because of family ties, for example, and who has actually never set foot in the country where they hold the second citizenship.

It seems to me that this makes no sense and also does not comply with practices. When some other countries apply a similar measure, it is done in accordance with a very comprehensive process. That looks much more like a process where there are detailed explanations of the reasons why it can be done.

There is another measure that I find particularly troubling and that is the fact that people will now have to declare their intent to reside in Canada. If they make this declaration, they will obtain their citizenship, but it could be revoked.

Citizenship could be revoked if the person does not comply with the requirement of remaining in Canada. However, there are special cases. I was thinking of students, for example. Take a young person who obtains his citizenship and who intends to remain in Canada. Then, by a stroke of luck, he is accepted at Harvard or Oxford, which are renowned universities.

It would be very tempting for someone who has an opportunity to go to one of these universities, especially if they were offered a scholarship. His intent to reside is still valid, but he has an opportunity. His intention is not to leave Canada permanently; he simply wants to take advantage of the opportunity he is being given at a certain point in his life. This could give rise to a real sense of insecurity that is truly untenable for people who would have to decide between an extraordinary opportunity and perhaps losing their citizenship.

There is also the example of professional athletes, people who are here in Canada and have dual citizenship. They may have obtained their citizenship when they were young and then become high-performance athletes. If they go abroad to train and are successful at their sport, they could ultimately lose their citizenship because they did not comply with the requirement to reside in Canada, even though they said that they wanted to. In that case, they might be presented with an opportunity that they might not be able to take.

I am also very concerned about another aspect of this bill and that is the fact that it prohibits people who are convicted abroad for crimes punishable in Canada from acquiring citizenship.

We understand that a person who is accused of homosexuality in a foreign country, for example, would not be affected because that is not a crime in Canada. However, many countries have fairly corrupt justice systems. The actual guilt of a person who was accused in a foreign country may be in question. We have to be careful.

This bill does not take into account the fact that the justice systems of many countries are often lacking. The system of evidence is lacking. We may therefore be dealing with people who have been falsely accused or who may have been persecuted at some point. That is likely why they chose to leave the country that this government would be trying to send them back to.

There are some very worrisome measures in this bill. The government is talking about changing the age for language testing. The fact that the Conservatives are increasing the upper age limit to 64 is fairly reasonable, but the fact that they are lowering the age for children and adolescents is particularly worrisome.

Our immigration system currently has an unbelievable backlog. Some people wait months or even years. They come to see me in a complete panic. They say that nothing is happening with their file. They are wondering what is going on and they ask me to call to find out.

It is completely ridiculous how many people are waiting for their immigration file to be processed. The government's priority should be dealing with these excessive wait times, which make the immigration process more complex. I have seen some unbelievable cases.

The immigration file of one of my constituents was frozen because he did not have a criminal background check for his two-month-old baby.

I believe that there is cause for concern when the immigration system requires paperwork that does not make sense. The government should address many of these problems, decrease wait times and try not to make an already flawed system even more problematic.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.

If we go to the Canadian Forces website, it says that one has to be a Canadian to apply. The question is why we would allow the residency requirement to be reduced for someone to become a Canadian. There are very few this would actually apply to.

The member is quite right. Generally speaking, there may be individuals outside of Canada who might be recruited by the hierarchy within the military, brought to Canada, and offered something of this nature. There are very few. I had the opportunity to question the military directly on the issue, and I can confirm that it is a very low number.

This goes back to Bill C-425, if that is what the member was trying to get across. It is only meant as a gesture of symbolism to try to give an impression. It is not as if there is going to be a Canadian Forces recruitment banner at the airport as new immigrants come walking in.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the former minister of immigration has been waiting in great anticipation of what I might have to say, because he knows full well that when I get the opportunity to talk about immigration and citizenship, I like to reflect on not only the current minister but the past minister. I like to take a holistic approach in dealing with the issues as I see them and as many of my Liberal colleagues see them. The government often chooses to use immigration and citizenship in an inappropriate fashion, if I can put it that way, maybe putting politics ahead of what is in the best interest of good, solid, sound immigration and citizenship policy. I would not mind talking a bit about that, being afforded the opportunity to again share my thoughts.

I come to this issue because, over the last 20-plus years, I have had the opportunity of representing in a very real and tangible way a community in Winnipeg North that has allowed me to deal with immigration and citizenship issues, at one time maybe on a weekly basis. That has evolved into dealing with numerous immigration cases on a daily basis. Depending on who we might talk to and depending on the week and the time of the year, it could be anywhere from 200 to 300 or 400 cases.

There is a great deal of satisfaction in working with people and helping them on immigration files and citizenship files. I could provide the House with endless examples that will give an indication of just how off base the government of the day has been in regard to immigration policy. The government has fallen short, not in one or two areas but in a number of areas. I am hoping, by being able to provide direct input to those who are ultimately responsible, both the former minister and the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, that they will recognize that they need to start working on behalf of our immigrant community. When I say immigrant community, I am talking about the wider grouping of individuals who live in Canada, call Canada their home, and do so in a very proud fashion.

I was very pleased to have been appointed immigration critic when I was first elected after the general election, and I enjoyed it immensely. When I think of immigration policy, I can say that there has not been that much change in the government's attitude in terms of policy and the direction in which the department is going. This is something that I would like to highlight.

There are so many things I could be talking about. Let me start by commenting specifically on a bill known as “425”. Bill C-425 was a private member's bill that was introduced last year by a backbench Conservative member of Parliament. What was that member of Parliament hoping to be able to do through that legislation? He came up with an idea that we should give citizenship out to individuals who have been here for three out of four years. His idea was to allow for military personnel to acquire their citizenship after two years. This is something that was proposed by a Conservative member of Parliament, and it actually received fairly good support from all members of this House. Maybe he did not have the green light from the Prime Minister's Office. The bill passed the House and went into committee, and the arguments that were brought forward at the time were that three out of four years was a good overall policy, that it would work, and that there was nothing wrong with it.

What the member and others around the table were talking about was, in fact, reducing it for certain individuals who decide to serve in the Canadian Forces. I remember the debate well, because I was the critic at the time.

Listening to the comments in this chamber, I did not hear one member—not one Conservative, not one New Democrat, and definitely not one Liberal—make the suggestion that we needed to increase the residency requirement. No one was talking about that, not even the then minister of immigration.

When it came time to provide comment on Bill C-425, what did the then minister of immigration choose to talk about? He chose to talk about the dual citizens. He chose to talk about how important it is to be able to deport or take away citizenship from individuals who commit a crime of treason, and he cited a couple of other things. That was the minister's concern. He not once mentioned that we should be increasing the residency requirement from three years to four years.

Something happened over that late fall from October to November that triggered a thought. I do not know what triggered it, but the thought was to make it more difficult, or increase the requirements, for someone to achieve citizenship. I question why the government made that decision, because it definitely was not an issue. We know that. If it had been an issue, if MPs or the government were being challenged on the issue, it would have been brought up at the immigration committee. The minister of immigration back then would have raised the issue. However, they chose not to, because it was not an issue then. It is only the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who decided this was an issue.

I will put one caveat on that. I suspect that someone within the Prime Minister's Office might have had a say on that issue. Maybe a new minister, being eager and wanting to please the leader, decided he would do that even though there was no need. There was no need. This is what I believe has actually taken place. It is a change that is being dictated from the Prime Minister's Office, which wants to make it four years as opposed to three years, even though it was not an issue. I suggest that is bad policy.

I was not surprised when the government made the decision it would double the cost of the application for citizenship, because it hinted about that in the immigration committee. We could tell by some of the questions Conservatives were asking. We anticipated that the government was considering an increase. That was not a surprise. The surprise was the fact that it wanted to increase the residency period.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Quickly, Minister, I want to thank you once again for having my portion of Bill C-425 adopted into Bill C-24.

There was a question today on why we did not introduce this kind of bill before, and I want to remind everyone that it was the opposition who stalled the portion of this bill that I introduced last year. It's the government or individual members who have been trying to fix the broken system.

Thank you, Minister.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-425 it was very clearly said that those who would join the Canadian Armed Forces would be given credit for one year toward their residency requirement to be a Canadian citizen.

To answer his question, yes, it would be the same principle that would be applied. Those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and want Canadian citizenship would be given one year's credit toward that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the member's private member's bill, Bill C-425, and ask the member to reflect on what he was proposing there. It was to ultimately allow for a landed immigrant who chose to join the Canadian Forces to wait two years instead of three years to qualify for citizenship. Would that principle apply with the current legislation? Would a member of the Canadian Forces who is a landed immigrant only require two years to be able to apply for citizenship? That is what his bill was all about last year.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver South.

I am honoured to rise in the House tonight to speak to our government's Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. This legislation would be the first major overhaul of the Citizenship Act in nearly a generation.

While Bill C-24 touches on a variety of areas, all of which would make important changes strengthening the integrity of the immigration system and preserving the value of Canadian citizenship, there are several areas I am particularly passionate to be speaking to tonight. Those areas of the bill encompass the entirety of my former private member's bill, Bill C-425. When I first introduced my bill, I gave the reasons for tabling that legislation. My intention was to reward permanent residents for their service in our Canadian Armed Forces and to underscore the immense value of Canadian citizenship by revoking it from those convicted of terrorism or treason.

I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to our hard-working Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and member for Ajax—Pickering for keeping those provisions of my bill alive by drafting them into Bill C-24. I would also like to thank each and every one of my current Conservative colleagues on the citizenship and immigration committee for their diligent work, and also those who have contributed long hours spent keeping these ideas alive in the face of unrelenting opposition filibustering last year.

I believe the importance of this legislation cannot be overstated. It is good news for new Canadians, good news for settled Canadians, and good news for those hoping to become Canadians, and I will tell members why.

Bill C-24 would honour our Canadian Armed Forces by fast-tracking citizenship by one year for permanent residents serving Canada in our military who have stated their intention to become citizens. As members know, service in the Canadian Armed Forces is unique. We call on our soldiers to make the ultimate sacrifice, to risk their lives in faraway places away from their families in some of the worst conditions imaginable, and they do it gladly. They are willing to lay their lives down for their fellow Canadians. That is what makes service in the Canadian Armed Forces unique and deserving of the highest possible respect.

Bill C-24 seeks not only to support these brave men and women but also to strengthen and defend the values they stand for and protect. To do this, we must act to address one of the biggest threats facing Canada today: terrorism. Bill C-24 would allow for the revocation of citizenship for any dual citizen who is convicted of a terrorism offence, treason, or waging war against the Canadian Armed Forces as part of an armed group. This measure would bring Canada into line with virtually every other western democratic nation that has similar revocation laws.

Strangely enough, the opposition Liberals and New Democrats continue to strongly oppose this measure. I know what I am about to say is not new, but it seems to me that those members on the other side of the House need to be reminded once again, perhaps again and again, that the Canadian public overwhelmingly supports revoking citizenship from convicted terrorists.

If the members were to survey their own supporters or Canadians in general, they would find the following, according to a national poll conducted by NRG: over 83% of Canadians from coast to coast to coast support the idea of stripping citizenship from convicted terrorists; of those, 80% of people who identified as NDP supporters support this measure; and, 87% of those who identified as Liberal supporters also support this measure. Also interesting to note is that among those who were polled, when it comes to those born in Canada versus those not born here, 83% of immigrants support stripping citizenship from convicted terrorists versus 82% of settled Canadians.

I would like to know why it is that the opposition Liberals and New Democrats continue to choose to ignore the will of Canadians and the international community.

Some people might be surprised by the last figure I gave, but as an immigrant myself, and as the member of Parliament for the hard-working riding of Calgary Northeast, the most diverse riding in the country, I know that new Canadians as well as settled Canadians understand the need for this measure.

Canadians understand that when a dual national willingly decides to radicalize and participate in terrorist crimes, to carry out bombings, to plot the murder of his or her fellow citizens, this is damaging to the value we attach to Canadian citizenship.

We cannot wait for the terrorists to submit an application to renounce their citizenship. We must read into their actions a deemed renunciation of that citizenship. This measure is entirely consistent with our sister jurisdictions among western democracies.

I have spoken to many ethnic organizations, groups, and constituents in my riding and across Canada. The overwhelming majority support revocation of citizenship for convicted terrorists.

For example, Salma Siddiqui, president of Muslim Canadian Congress, had this to say while testifying on my private member's bill on March 26, 2013:

Canadians who are opposed to the values of our society should not be allowed to abuse the privileges that come with holding Canadian citizenship. We must act to strip Canadian citizenship from those who seek to exploit it for violent and illegal activities.

She also conveyed similar thoughts recently when she appeared at the committee to discuss Bill C-24.

Just last night I read an article in the National Post. Fawzi Ayoub, a dual Lebanese Canadian, was recently killed fighting in a terrorist group in Syria. He was a senior member of the terrorist group Hezbollah.

In fact, he has been on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list since 2009. His crimes include attempting to enter Israel in order to carry out a terrorist bombing and attempting to hijack a passenger aircraft in Romania.

Ayoub lived in Toronto for several years and mused about returning to Canada one day. Just imagine, if he had returned to Canada, what might have happened.

This illustrates precisely why we need Bill C-24 to become law. Canadians are angry that terrorists are using Canadian citizenship simply as a convenient way to fly under the radar in order to commit terrorist acts. In doing so, they are eroding the value of Canadian citizenship.

Under the provisions of Bill C-24, those convicted of a serious terrorism offence in Canada or in jurisdictions Canada recognizes as having an equivalent judicial system would no longer be able to use a Canadian passport to facilitate their terrorist activities abroad.

Revocation is not a provision I hope to see used regularly. Ideally, it would never be used. However, Canadians are increasingly concerned about the threat of home-grown terrorism. Terrorism is closer to home than we may think. Radicalization is happening in places we least expect: our cities, towns, and neighbourhoods.

Our security services are sounding the alarm bells about the dangers of home-grown terrorism. CSIS has reported it is tracking at least 80 Canadians who have gone overseas to participate in terrorist activities.

They will return to Canada further radicalized and armed with knowledge of how to carry out terrorist activities. We cannot allow radical terrorist ideologies to thrive in Canada. We must condemn these dangerous practices and give them no safe place to hide and absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever.

If we allow terrorists to keep the Canadian citizenship they have abused, we are sending a message that our citizenship is not about shared values, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, or loyalty. It sends the message that our citizenship is simply an entitlement.

I believe Canadian citizenship is much more than a piece of paper used for identification purposes. It does represent our shared values, and its value is something we need to vigorously defend.

We must let Canadians know where their elected representatives stand. I implore members opposite to set aside their politics and join me to unanimously support Bill C-24.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was June of last year when the government brought in legislation through a private member's bill, Bill C-425. We found out then that the government wanted to hijack that particular bill. I see the member across the way who was the sponsor of Bill C-425.

The government was prepared to hijack the bill by bringing in this whole revoking of citizenship and establishing a two-tier citizenship. That was when the bill ran into serious problems. It ultimately failed and was not able to get out of committee.

We need to recognize and be very clear that it was saying if one had Canadian citizenship, and no other citizenship, and committed a certain type of offence, it would be okay and one would be allowed to retain that citizenship. However, if one had dual citizenship, and the example I used back then was the leader of the official opposition who has dual citizenship, and if he committed the same sort of act, he would be deported and lose his citizenship.

I wonder if the member might want to comment on Bill C-425.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a rant from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. That was not really a speech full of any facts. I wonder whether the minister has borrowed his facts from Kijiji because we have seen that before with the Minister of Employment and Social Development with regard to the temporary foreign worker issue. However, I will leave that for today and speak to the bill.

There are quite a few holes in the bill. One of my constituents said that the holes were big enough to drive a truck through. I will try to lay it out and I would ask members to pay attention, because there may not be that many holes to drive a truck through. Maybe we could make some sensible changes to improve the legislation.

I am pleased to stand in the House today on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North to address Bill C-24, which intends to strengthen the Citizenship Act.

We in the official opposition, along with many experts and Canadians from across the country, are very concerned about a number of aspects in the bill.

We agree that changes to the Citizenship Act are greatly necessary and long overdue. This act has not been revised since 1977 and some elements of Bill C-24 would create clear injustices.

In addition, Canadians continue to face ridiculously wait times for citizenship applications.

Even though some changes are necessary, the bill is another example of the Conservative government's use of power to make secretive, arbitrary decisions by cabinet ministers.

I will first speak to a couple of good things in the bill. There are not a lot, because as I have pointed out, we could drive a big truck through the many holes in the bill.

I will be splitting my time with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, Mr. Speaker.

The bill would do a couple of things that I do agree with and they should have been addressed a long time ago. The issue of so-called lost Canadians is addressed in the bill. The NDP has fought hard for many years to get this matter resolved. We are happy the Conservatives are bringing this forward as a result of pressure from the opposition.

The other positive aspect of Bill C-24 is the part dealing with expedited access to citizenship for permanent residents who serve in the armed forces, which the NDP supported in the last session with Bill C-425. However, for a bill that is over 50 pages long, it completely fails to accomplish what it is supposedly intended to do.

Instead of addressing the current problems, Bill C-24 would arbitrarily attribute more unnecessary powers to the minister, prolong naturalization, treat many Canadians like second-class citizens and create more injustices.

Our citizenship and immigration system is flawed. We need a bill that would actually strengthen Canadian citizenship, not one that is not even constitutional. I say that because we have heard from many experts. We have heard from the Canadian Bar Association and from lawyers. They point out the unconstitutionality of many parts of the bill, and yet the Conservatives are not willing to hear all of that.

I pointed to some of the good points of the bill and now I would like to take a look at some of the points that are really worrisome. Let us take a look at the aspect of intent to reside.

Basically, under Bill C-24, if granted citizenship, a person must declare his or her “intent to reside”. The goal of this provision is to ensure Canada's expectation that new citizens live and work in the country after completing naturalization. However, this change would empower officials to speculate on an applicant's future intentions. It portrays the image of immigrants as deserving of suspicion and mistrust, and also treats naturalized immigrants as second-class citizens.

The vagueness in this provision will severely create travel restrictions. International mobility will be imperative. It allows Canadians to study abroad, see their families and become globally aware. If Bill C-24 passes, naturalized citizens will lose this fundamental right.

Citizens who travel abroad for honest reasons may face losing their citizenship because they misrepresented their intention to reside in Canada when they were granted citizenship.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could revoke citizenship under the false pretence of fraud. There would be no appeal, no hearing and no public knowledge of this, which brings me to another concern, and that is the powers of the minister. The bill would grant the minister more powers.

Bill C-24 would place unnecessary powers in the hands of the minister. If the bill is passed, the minister will have the authority to grant or revoke citizenship without public knowledge or any form of judicial process.

I am really worried about this aspect of the bill, because the minister will get to decide whether to revoke somebody's citizenship. There is no process, no hearing and the public will not even know about it. That is really worrisome.

Peter Edelmann, a Vancouver immigration lawyer who sits on the executive of the Canadian Bar Association, said:

What’s happening here is they’re proposing that citizens could lose their citizenship on a paper-based process with no hearing at all and no independent tribunal--forget about going in front of a judge to make the decision; you may not get to speak to or even see the officer...

This is clearly unconstitutional. The Canadian Bar Association is saying this, yet the government is not listening to some of the top lawyers in the country who point to the unconstitutionality of this power grab by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

It is not surprising to me, because I have been here a number of years now, that the Conservatives are using bills to grant themselves more discretionary powers. We have seen this in many other bills in the House where they are consolidating the power.

A Conservative member is chirping at me, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to ask those members to pay attention and maybe they will learn one or two things, oppose the bill and actually work for Canadians rather than chirping away when another member is speaking.

The Conservatives love power, even if it is at the cost of Canadian democracy and justice. By giving the minister these new powers, Canada is taking a step backward and opening the doors to decisions that are subjective and politically motivated.

Instead of providing solutions to the issues Canadians face every day, the Conservatives are using the legislative process to give themselves even more power than they already have. Unfortunately, they are not worried about the process because they have a so-called small majority, and they are ramming these changes through.

There are many other issues I could discuss such as the unconstitutionality of a number of things in the bill. There are fees and language testing issues. It seems that the only consultations the Conservatives have done in drafting the bill is among themselves or they have gone to Kijiji, as they have done before. We see time and time again Conservatives are not willing to take any sort of advice from neither the opposition, nor from the experts who testified before committees.

Along with my NDP colleagues, I will continue to fight for a fair, efficient, transparent and accountable immigration system. I urge the Conservatives to stop battering democracy and start listening to Canadians.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Gupta.

Ms. Siddiqui, now I'm going to ask you something on the same line, on the provisions in Bill C-24 that would revoke the citizenship of a convicted terrorist who had chosen to seek the destruction of Canada and Canadian values.

When you testified on my private member's bill, Bill C-425, on March 26 last year, you said, “We cannot be politically correct in everything and it's not about political correctness, because at the end of the day, by being politically correct we are not doing service to the immigrants who have come here and are working in an honest manner.”

I would like you to expand a little on the impact homegrown terrorism has on the vast majority of honest, hard-working immigrants who share our values and who come to Canada seeking a better life and seeking to make Canada even a better place.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To our witnesses, thank you once again for coming here and enlightening the committee with your views and your opinions.

Mr. Gupta, once again, I feel sorry about your loss a long time ago and the grief you've had to go through in your life.

I am very happy to hear from you that you know about the bill and you know that in Canada Nelson Mandela was never considered and would not have been considered a terrorist, because also under this bill, you talked about our judicial system and equivalency, so I won't put in much time on that.

But talking about lawyers, by profession I'm a lawyer. I will tell you this: lawyers have different interpretations. Different lawyers will have different interpretations, and lawyers are not judges. Judges have to decide. When they talk about this fearmongering and also the charter, lawyers said this and that. I'll leave it there, because this bill, as the minister told us already, has gone through our justice system to have a look at it about the charter challenge.

I want to be straight. I also want to put on the record that the opposition has to understand the bill. When we talk about revocation, the minister may revoke the citizenship of an individual who has already been convicted and already is either serving or has served. What this means is that when the individual is convicted or going through the court process, that individual has the right of the judicial process to go up to the Supreme Court of Canada. So when they talk about how there is no process, I just laugh.

Anyway, Mr. Gupta, let me ask you this. Actually, both of you know that part of this revocation specifically and the armed forces credit were part of my Bill C-425. Mr. Gupta, I'll quote what you said when you appeared in front of this committee on April 16 last year:

By waging war against the Canadian Forces, such persons clearly demonstrate that they have no loyalty whatsoever to Canada and attach no value to the Canadian democratic system. Thus, they do not deserve Canadian citizenship, which they are using as a matter of convenience to further their criminal and terrorist activities.

I would like you to expand a little bit on why you feel that loyalty and citizenship have a connection and why it is important to prevent citizens of convenience from using a Canadian passport to more easily carry out terrorist acts—crimes.

[Prof. Elke Winter]

Yes, okay. I have my third point, and then I'm complete.

Regarding those who aim to commit terrorist attacks against Canada, is it doubtful that the proposed law contains anything that would deter them from their actions? Research suggests that perpetrators seldom refrain from heinous crimes due to drastic penalties, not even the death penalty.

Further, the discourse of fear and the raising of suspicion against dual nationals have detrimental impacts upon some communities, particularly upon Muslim and Arab Canadians. With a team of researchers at the University of Ottawa, we're currently investigating the public debates that were kick-started by the honourable MP Devinder Shory's Bill C-425. While our investigation is ongoing, I can already tell you that it led to numerous rants against Muslims in Canada in the print media, online fora, and social media. Bill C-24 extends and amplifies these negative stereotypes.

I will conclude here and send you my notes.

Canadian Citizenship

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to join our hard-working Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in Toronto and Calgary a few weeks ago to announce our Conservative government's Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, which will strengthen the immense value of Canadian citizenship and ensure that a Canadian passport remains highly regarded around the world.

I also want to personally thank the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for working with me and transferring the contents of my private member's bill, Bill C-425, into his new act. Once this bill becomes law, Canada will fall into line with virtually every other western democratic nation. It will have the ability to strip the citizenship of convicted terrorists. According to a national poll, this measure has the support of over 85% of Canadians from across Canada, including 80% of NDP supporters, 87% of Liberal supporters, and 83% of those who immigrated to Canada.

I call upon the opposition to represent the will of their constituents and support this bill.

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The NDP agrees that changes to the Citizenship Act are badly needed. This act has not been revised since 1977, and some elements of our Citizenship Act create injustices. The NDP has fought a long time to correct some of these injustices. I enthusiastically welcomed the news that the government was preparing a bill to amend the Citizenship Act.

There are a number of good elements in this bill that the NDP is happy to see. We would be happy to support some of these changes that have been needed for a long time. However, true to form, the Conservatives have introduced a bill that is over 50 pages long and that amends all kinds of things and affects several aspects of citizenship.

There are so many things in this bill. Some are very positive, while others are worrisome. Civil society organizations, legal experts and other Canadian experts have already expressed some legal and human rights concerns. The public is very upset about some aspects of this bill, and I hope to explain why certain parts of this bill are worrisome and very problematic.

First, I will talk about what I am happy to see in Bill C-24. The NDP certainly supports the fact that this bill resolves the issue of people whose citizenship has been dispossessed, the so-called lost Canadians. I would like to give a practical example to show why it is so important to address this injustice.

John is two years old. He lives in the Eastern Townships in Quebec. His father is Canadian and his father's father is Canadian. Is John Canadian? No, he is not. Little John is here in Canada and lives with his Canadian father, but has only a temporary visa that will expire in May. The family's situation is rather unstable. Why does John not have citizenship? It is because his father, who is a Canadian and was born to a Canadian father, was born outside the country while his father was serving in the Canadian Forces. Instead of being proud to have a grandfather who served in the Canadian Forces, John is being penalized because his grandfather was serving outside the country when his wife gave birth to their child.

This deprives little John of medicare and day care, which is an enormous burden for the family. Little John is not the only one in this unfair situation. In fact, there are approximately 80 lost Canadians. These people are often in a tragic situation that also adversely affects many people who are close to them. The NDP fought for a long time for the government to resolve these unfair situations. From critic to critic, MP to MP, from motions to news releases, the NDP fought this battle, and we are pleased to see that, today, justice will be served for these people who should already be Canadian.

The other positive aspect of this bill is the expedited access to citizenship for permanent residents who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. In fact, this aspect, which the NDP already supported, is found in Bill C-425 from the last session. I would like to raise one issue, however. This bill will not affect hundreds or even dozens of people. It will affect only a few, perhaps five or 10. It is very rare for permanent residents to be accepted into the Canadian Forces. Usually, a person must already be Canadian to be accepted. Only in very exceptional cases are permanent residents allowed to serve in the Canadian Forces.

That being said, these people serve our country in an exemplary way. They meet important needs that only they can meet within our armed forces. In our opinion, it is therefore completely reasonable, acceptable and desirable to reward these individuals by expediting their access to Canadian citizenship, if they so desire.

The NDP also fought hard for the implementation of measures to train immigration consultants and to fight more effectively against fraudulent consultants. The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina spoke out loud and clear, as she called on the government to take action in this regard. In a news release made public in 2010, she called for the creation of a regulatory body to enforce the rules and protect the public. It was not until today that practical measures were proposed to better train immigration consultants. That is positive aspect of the bill, because many people are victims of immigration consultants who betray their trust—although most consultants are honest individuals. These are the good things I wanted to say about Bill C-24.

I would like to point out some parts of the bill that should be the subject of consultations with experts and the public because they are worrisome in some way or because people have differing opinions on them. The first is the longer term of Canadian residency required to obtain citizenship. The longer term is not necessarily a bad thing, and I understand the goal of it. It is a good idea to make sure that people with citizenship have lived in Canada for a certain period of time. This is good, but I also want to point out that this particular measure adds clarification that was not in the act before, making it very clear to people how many days they must reside in Canada before being eligible for Canadian citizenship. This measure makes sense.

However, we should talk about the ridiculously long processing time for citizenship applications. If the government is asking people to reside in Canada for a longer period of time, then it really must ensure that their applications are processed quickly and efficiently, which is what they might expect.

Increasing application fees is also a contentious issue. I will explain why. People certainly understand that the fees need to change. Fees for citizenship applications have not changed in several years. Now the processing fees will be higher than the fees people have to pay to submit their application.

However, why are these fees jumping from $200 to $400? What justifies that amount? So far, nobody has provided us with all of the information justifying that specific amount. Why not $50 more or $50 less? Does this amount really just cover the costs, or is it merely a way to get money from people who want citizenship? I would like a lot more information about that. If the government charges more, people are naturally going to expect better service.

This brings me back to the processing times, which are unacceptable. They have more than doubled under the Conservatives. Asking someone to pay more for a service is one thing, but providing a service that gets worse and worse is another. The government needs to make sure that higher fees go hand in hand with better service.

Furthermore, changing the age at which people must take the test in one of the official languages has upset many communities across the country. In the past, people aged 18 to 54 had to take the test in one of Canada's official languages. From now on, people aged 14 to 64 will have to do so.

I understand the importance of learning one of Canada's official languages. However, many people are worried. For instance, people aged 54 to 64 might have a harder time learning one of the official languages, studying for an exam or managing the related stress this could bring. Many people live within a community and could very easily get by in Canada without necessarily mastering a certain level of language. Such a change could cause a lot of stress, especially regarding the lower age limit at which people will have to take the test. Indeed, children as young as 14 will now have to take the test, and this could determine whether they get to become citizens or not.

What happens to a child who does not pass the test for some reason or another, while the rest of his or her family passes? Will that child be the only non-citizen in the family? Could this cause problems when the family wants to travel, for instance? Why impose a test with such serious consequences on children as young as 14, when we know that young people living here in Canada have to go to school in one of Canada's official languages and learn the language day in and day out? Why put that kind of pressure on a 14-year-old child? This is highly questionable. As I said, we had many discussions with a number of groups and individuals who all questioned this.

Another aspect worth debating that is upsetting people is the elimination of the use of the length of stay in Canada as a non-permanent resident. This measure is really troubling for many foreign students and temporary workers who have been in Canada for a few months, or even a few years, and who were planning on applying for citizenship in the near future. They now see that they might have to wait for many more years. This really changes their plans.

I have gotten a number of emails from my constituents and from people across Quebec and Canada. I think it is worth sharing some of them. For example, Abdoul Haseeb Awan said:

I chose and moved to Canada three years ago after being offered admission in world leading universities. I have won various prizes, grants and awards during the last three years. After graduating as Master in Engineering, I chose entrepreneurship. I was promised a PR status within 12 months, which took 19 months. [Yes, the delays are very long. I will have to wait] 2 more years for citizenship.

That person contributed, studied here, worked here, created jobs here, and does not understand why we would deny him consideration for the time he has lived and contributed in Canada.

Another example is an email from Andras Korinek. I will quote a few sentences from his email. He said:

The second issue I see with this bill is the new method of counting residence days. I personally came into Canada through a work permit and it took me 2 years to finally become a permanent resident. I think the intention of the bill to make sure applicants are supporting Canadian society and sharing Canadian values are honourable, however, the metrics used to measure this are flawed. I am contributing to Canada by working here and paying taxes. I have a Canadian spouse, Canadian friends, I joined a local sports team. I would like to be officially welcomed into Canadian society as a proud citizen.

One last example, though I have a lot of them, is from Sultan Ali Ahmed, a McGill University student, who arrived in August 2007. He says:

...there should be recognition given to students graduating from canadian universities, who were initially on study permits, started working after graduation and then applied for their PRs.

As members can see, many people are worried about seeing their plans change and are urging us to review this measure. This subject is worthy of an honest debate.

I would now like to talk about the elements that I do not even think are worthy of debate. I think they are extremely worrisome for several reasons. First, Bill C-24 increases the minister's discretionary power. Under this bill, the minister will now have the right to grant or revoke citizenship in special cases.

We have seen a lot of this from the Conservatives: using bills to grant themselves more discretionary powers. The NDP disagrees with this measure. This kind of discretionary power opens the door to turning our citizenship system into a political tool. The minister has said that he was not necessarily prepared to say to whom he would grant citizenship.

That a member of a political party could do such things behind closed doors is unacceptable. These are great powers. The citizenship process must be part of a system that people can trust because of its impartiality and transparency. I am very worried that by granting such powers to a minister we are moving in the opposite direction.

The bill raises another concern. According to the provisions of this bill, the minister can revoke citizenship—in the case of a dual citizen—when there is a suspicion of fraud. The key word here is “suspicion”. In fact, the minister has the power to revoke citizenship or to authorize a person to revoke it in his name if he is “satisfied on a balance of probabilities” that the person obtained citizenship fraudulently.

The problem is that the person will no longer be able to appear before an independent tribunal that would determine whether or not the allegations are true. That is important. A person with Canadian citizenship is a Canadian and should have access to a fair and just process under our justice system. It is worrisome in this case, and also in the case of someone who is accused of terrorism abroad and who must spend a few years in jail. Because of this charge, a person's citizenship can be revoked.

In a question to the minister, I mentioned earlier that the main concern in this case is that people can be accused of terrorism without having the right to a fair and just process in a country where the justice system is not immune to political pressure, for example.

We have already seen a number of such cases, even in Canada. People have been charged, spent several years in prison and then may have become heroes because they were imprisoned for political and partisan reasons. Someone behind me whispered the name of Nelson Mandela and, indeed, that could be one example. These are serious concerns.

In closing, this bill does not tackle the main problems with our citizenship system at present—the wait times and the backlog. The wait times are horrible. They have more than doubled under the Conservatives, who waited all these years before pretending to take an interest in the problem.

The government says that this bill will resolve the situation, but I am not so sure. Nothing in this bill can prove to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that there will be significant changes. On one hand, we are adjusting certain administrative measures to help the process run more smoothly or more quickly than before, but on the other, we are increasing the use of the residency questionnaire, which is extremely long to compile and analyze. Other criteria, such as a declaration of intent to live in Canada, are being added.

What is the point in making the system more efficient if we are asking the people who have to review the files to do extra work? How will that really help? People are fed up with being told to wait when they apply for citizenship and are entitled to it. They should get a response quickly and efficiently.

For a number of the reasons that I mentioned, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

this House decline to give second reading to Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, because it:

(a) does not provide an adequate solution for reducing citizenship application processing times, which have been steadily increasing;

(b) puts new significant powers in the hands of the Minister that will allow this government to politicize the granting of Canadian citizenship;

(c) gives the Minister the power to revoke citizenship, which will deny some Canadians access to a fair trial in Canada and will raise serious questions since Canadian law already includes mechanisms to punish those who engage in unlawful acts; and

(d) includes a declaration of intent to reside provision, which in fact gives officials the power to speculate on the intent of a citizenship applicant and then potentially deny citizenship based on this conjecture.

Citizenship Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the second motion relates to Bill C-425, which is a private member's bill that remains outstanding. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the order for consideration at report stage of Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), standing on the order paper in the name of the member for Calgary Northeast be discharged and the bill withdrawn.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to check whether it was indeed the passage that reads as follows:

I believe it's imperative to ensure that every single amendment the government has moved plays a role in this piece of legislation, which I think is timely, which I think is correct. It needs to ensure that every single one of our amendments is included in it. I cannot stress strongly enough that no words or actions can be ill-defined, and the bill cannot be either. As such, Mr. Chair, I would like to move the following motion: that the committee recommend to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425, An act to amend the Citizenship Act, honouring the Canadian Armed Forces, to expand the scope of the bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces.

Could you please confirm that is where the definition of the expression “expand the scope” came from, or does it appear elsewhere in the evidence of the April 23rd proceedings?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

First of all, this is not an argument about whether or not Bill C-425 is or is not contrary to the charter. It has to do with the process whereby legislation that is introduced by the government is required to go to the Department of Justice for a decision. They're not permitted to bring legislation to the House of Commons if they have a ruling from the Department of Justice or an opinion that this is contrary to the charter.

That matter is under debate. It is subject of debate right now, but that's a different question.

But in this case—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It may be, sir, but it has nothing to do with the motion. It may be a valid argument as to whether or not Bill C-425 should be voted yea or nay, but it has nothing to do with the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris, if I can interject for a moment, you may or may not have a correct point. It may be a valid point for a court of law. It may be a valid point for debate in the House. It may, indeed, be a valid point if this committee ever gets around to debating the provisions of Bill C-425. But getting into issues of the charter with respect to this motion—

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

Thank you very much.

When I'm talking about the extension and my reasons opposed to it, I have to reference Bill C-425. I've already covered in detail the timelines allowed for the bill, but I specifically want to talk about one component of that process, and I will link it directly to why I speak against this extension, Mr. Chair, if you give me an opportunity.

We heard witness after witness—and I've made a commitment to you that I'm going to read all that testimony into the record—say that the bill had some flaws that needed to be addressed. This is why it comes to committee, because committee is an opportunity for both the government and the opposition to get a chance to change, amend, give ideas to each other, co-opt each other's ideas. We do all of those things. That's what the committee stage is about, and you know what? We've had that opportunity, and the government still has another regularly scheduled meeting—I believe it's scheduled for Thursday from 8:45 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.—to complete the process with that bill, do the clause-by-clause, and allow a vote to be taken. We would welcome that.

When I look at this bill and the seeking of the extension for it, notwithstanding that there are elements in the bill that the opposition had no objection to in principle, though there was some wording and technical changes we would have suggested, we still are of the opinion that the government has had the opportunity to use the time allocated for PMB—that is for private members' business—and it is because of that we are going to be opposing this.

I want to thank the Chair for your consideration.

I will get myself back on the speakers list because I have some new points to be made, but I don't want to keep the floor from other members who want to speak. I heard that in the bit you read out. At no time do I want the government side to feel that they are not free to get on this list.

Please speak and take part in the debate. I welcome that.

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

I know what I said, but I'm not going to repeat it, because it was in camera.

Here we are. I am vehemently opposed to this extension of the timeline. I am opposed to it both as critic for my party and as a member of Parliament for one of the most diverse ridings in the country. It has a lot to do with the process that we have seen play out with Bill C-425. It has now been three months since we finished with all the witnesses.

We heard testimony, and I'm not going to get into reading the testimony, although I would like to do so, from both government witnesses and from witnesses put forward by the opposition parties. That's a very extensive time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. Try me. I quite frankly can't believe you can do that, but we'll start, and if we feel it's getting into Bill C-425, I will tell you.

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

I did not.... Chair, could you let me finish my thought?

At no time do I mean to debate what's in Bill C-425, but I do believe, when you look at the motion, that in order for me to speak for or against an extension, if I do not reference in some way what's in Bill C-425—the key elements in it—but not debate it, then it is very difficult for me to say why I'm opposed to this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't think so. I don't want to hear any debate on Bill C-425.

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

When I look at making arguments for seeking an extension of 30 sitting days, what I can refer to has been limited in an extraordinary way, I would say. But in order to put forward my arguments, I would argue, Mr. Chair, that I do have to refer to the contents of Bill C-425.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

So we're waiting for the concurrence debate in the House on Bill C-425?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris, this is a difficult area in terms of whether this argument should be made here or in another place. The second paragraph of the motion says:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, the Committee recommended to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the Bill.

That decision has been made. I'm interested in what you have to say about that, but I believe the decision has been made. You're getting into an area where the committee has already made a decision. I'm listening to what you're saying and some of the points I agree with, but you're getting into an area that is repetitive because the decision has already been made.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Yes, indeed, Mr. Chair. That's quite clear. We have a specific date for those 30 additional days.

But as we mentioned, Mr. Chair, not everything is clear. Things are still rather murky. The NDP will not support the 30-day extension. Without having debated the bill in question, we are now talking about a motion that involves an extension, one that will not produce any of the results we feel it should. The 30 additional days requested will merely draw out the process without producing any meaningful results as far as Bill C-425's content is concerned. When this bill was agreed to at second reading and referred to the committee, we undertook our study without anticipating an extension of that study. We did not need the 30-day extension. For that reason, we will not be supporting the extension.

The fact remains that, in our view, this motion suggests that the government is trying to keep this bill alive. The arguments to support the extension do not add up and are not acceptable, in light of what we know from all the meetings allotted to this study. On June 21, we will no doubt hit the 60 sitting day deadline initially set out. We don't want the government to corner us into approving a 30-day extension. We sincerely hope that the government will change its mind and withdraw its motion. It is our position that more time is not necessary. And since there are certain things I cannot say, words that have been as good as banned in this committee, I won't mention them.

Still on the matter of the extension, I must say that we are quite obviously of the view that it should not happen. In every case, the limits of this bill—

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

But, with regard to the 30-day extension, it is imperative that we be given some clarification on why it is warranted. We need a clear and specific explanation of the reasons behind the extension. I'm being told that my comments are repetitive, but the fact remains that we were never clearly provided with the official reasons for the extension request.

It was pointed out that Bill C-425 remained very limited, but no statement was made—

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

Here we are today debating a motion that sits before us. I'm not going to read it out to everybody. I want to thank the clerk for giving us a clean copy, because all of us have a tendency to doodle and write on them. We had motions before us with amendments and subamendments, and here we are, having dealt with the subamendments and the amendments, back to the main motion. The main motion actually asks the House for a 30-day extension in order to facilitate a request for an expansion of the scope of the bill.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to your rulings yesterday, I'm very aware I cannot talk about what that expanded scope would look like, but I can certainly talk about the fact that that's what the request is about, and that's what I'm here to do today. As far as we are concerned—and I certainly am concerned—Bill C-425 has gone through the process. The process was actually truncated—and this is a new point that I am making here—by government action. That truncation occurred when the meetings were adjourned and a motion was moved to get an expansion of the scope from the House. That's exactly what happened.

We then wasted many, many committee meeting hours and days when we did not meet because we were waiting for the House to deal with the issue of the expansion of the scope. The House still has not dealt with that, and that's why we are here now seeking a 30-day extension. I think that's where I have to emphasize the fact that this member's bill has had due diligence and will run out its timelines in committee on June 21, because of the 60-day rule that exists in the House.

What we have here now is a way to extend that June 21 date by adding another 30 working days. This request has to go before the House and has to get before the House before or on June 21 at the latest.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Fine, Mr. Chair. Obviously, you are the supreme authority over this committee meeting.

That said, we are still talking about a 30-day extension, and we can't exactly invent new words to satisfy a government that doesn't want to hear certain things. That's not possible.

Regardless, any member on this committee who opens their mouth to speak to this motion will have to use the same words. We would have to invent new ones to express our thoughts and criticisms regarding the 30-day extension to consider Bill C-425. I don't see how—

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Chair, I won't get into anything other than the matter in hand, and that is the 30-day extension. Without trying to debate it further, I was merely referring to the request that is to take place on June 21. In all cases, this 30-day extension is objectionable. We will not support it. It sets a precedent.

The idea is to rework the schedule. But why do that other than to ensure that the bill doesn't die, as our government colleagues mentioned this morning? If the reason is to keep Bill C-425 alive—that is indeed the piece of legislation we're talking about, and I hope I'll be able to discuss it a bit, since the extension concerns the debate on that bill—we're in a very unusual situation. The 30-day request restricts us, blatantly limits our debate and very patently hurts our reflection on Bill C-425.

It goes without saying, Mr. Chair—

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Chair, this is truly an all-out attack against our ability to speak. I repeat, I wasn't going into the details of what I had said previously in any way.

Let us, however, turn back to the 30-day extension. Inevitably, I won't be supporting this motion because the extension isn't necessarily tied to the content of Bill C-425. It is quite clearly tied to a procedural notion. It is a procedural tactic that has nothing to do with the discussion we should be having here, in this committee.

That said, I want to get to the bottom of this 30-day extension, given that the scope of the bill is going to be amended. In light of that, I don't think we are able to proceed or to truly base our discussion on anything real or concrete, as far as this bill goes.

Before the House makes its decision on this bill, the process that would see the committee adopt a motion seeking a 30-day extension could lead us to fast-track the processes and procedures that govern the discussion of a private member's bill. At the same time, this bill could be referred sine qua non, and we would have to vote on this motion. At that point, we would once again be forced to limit our speaking time and debate. What we would prefer is for this bill to be used when it is necessary, in a manner that builds on what we have discussed so far. For that reason, we insist that this request take place in the House on June 21, 2013, no later.

Turning back to the matter in hand—

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Chair, I wasn't trying to challenge what you made clear about the discussion on this motion. In my comments on the 30-day extension, I have no intention of mentioning the amendments or referring to them. I am simply trying to establish the link to the request for a 30-day extension. It is clear to me that a causal link exists and is at the heart of the motion, which seeks a 30-day extension to provide for the possibility of expanding the scope of the bill. I have no intention of discussing matters that pertain to the amendments as far as expanding the bill's scope goes. That isn't my intention.

That said, we are against the idea of extending the period set aside to consider this bill by 30 days, because that extension would set a precedent in this matter. Why try to rework the schedule to allow for—I repeat and stress—the possibility of expanding the bill's scope?

The 30-day extension has nothing to do with Mr. Shory's initial bill. The actual reason behind the extension is to make it possible to override the bill using other considerations that would, as a result, amend—forgive me for using the word you don't like—the bill. If those considerations are at play, the real question is why not simply use a more direct approach and put forward a separate bill containing everything the government would like. That would put an end to our debate.

It is clear to us that the extension is being used as a procedural tactic to make us reconsider a bill we have already discussed in committee and heard witnesses speak to. As regards Bill C-425—

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Chair, before I go on, I wanted to say something about the 30-day extension. It should be noted that the proposed motion could be split in two. There is indeed a cause and effect relationship between the 30-day extension and the possibility of expanding the scope of the said bill.

We can therefore consider the motion in its entirety because it does not in any way challenge your ruling as regards the discussion of the 30-day extension. That extension is being sought to allow for the possible expansion of the bill's scope. If those 30 days were not proposed or granted, it would clearly be impossible to expand the scope of Bill C-425.

Mr. Chair, aside from the fact that we are against the—

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

Well, what we're here today to debate is the extension of Bill C-425 so that the government can get an expanded scope in the House. This could have been achieved in a variety of ways, and one of them was through—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Giguère, on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, the committee recommended to the House that it be given the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the bill. The committee is awaiting the decision of the House before further considering the bill. So all of what you way, quite frankly, is not relevant.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to point out that I am opposed to broadening the scope of the bill, which objective is clearly stated in Mr. Dykstra's motion. I am opposed to it because Bill C-425 had a very clearly established legal framework on which we could work quite easily.

We are being asked for an extension on the basis of something that is unknown to us, and we do not like that uncertainty. We are refusing to do that.

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

When you look at Bill C-425 and the request for an extension, the request for an extension is here for one reason only, and that is to get an expansion of the scope.

I need to say those words again, Mr. Chair, so I can then get into why I believe that is an abuse of the parliamentary process when it comes to private members' bills. What is being sought here is an extraordinary timing allocation for a private member's bill that's had every opportunity, with many, many days of the committee not sitting, waiting for the House to decide, and what the government could not achieve in the House through getting their concurrent motion on the table, what they're trying to do is do it through this committee. I believe that this is really trying to steer around what a private member's bill is.

This government had every chance to bring forward different amendments and then go through clause-by-clause. We would have been finished it all, and Mr. Shory could have gone home happy for the summer holiday, saying, “My bill has either passed or failed, but I did my very best.” There were parts of the bill that we did agree with, so everything would have been fine. But that's not where we are at, because what's being done here is an attempt to go outside all of those parameters and to try to change what can happen in a private member's bill. That gets to the crux of why we are adamantly opposed to the extension of 30 sitting days, and we will continue to be opposed no matter how long we are sitting here, Mr. Chair.

Can you put me back on the speakers list, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to say it one more time and then I'm not going to say it any more. If you start talking about it, I'm going to move on.

There were never any amendments to Bill C-425 formally made to this committee—never.

That's my position. If you keep talking about it, I'm going to move on.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

We're here today to debate the motion before us, which is in two paragraphs, that actually requests an extension of 30 days. It requests an extension for Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

It is here before us, and we have to ask ourselves why it is here for an extension. The committee has heard witnesses. The committee has had an opportunity to move amendments, albeit they were ruled out of scope. The committee has done all of those things.

The natural process at that stage is that the bill goes to the House of Commons, which is where it will be deemed to have been reported on June 21. We are opposed to this extension because this undoes or tries to redirect private members' business through a different process.

We believe that this bill has had all the witnesses as agreed to by all the parties. We listened to them and we had our opportunities to question them. If I remember correctly, the minister came in as well, and we had that opportunity.

As far as the committee business part of it is concerned, the committee has addressed this bill through its natural rinse cycle. It's gone through that rinse cycle, so now it will be reported in the House, as you said earlier.

What this motion does is try to get enough time to achieve an expansion of scope. That, I believe, is contrary to what governs and surrounds private members' bills. As you know, when private members' bills are introduced, there are certain limitations on them. People with far greater minds than mine rule on amendments, whoever they come from, whether they come from the opposition or from government, as to their admissibility. As you know, the amendments that were brought forward were inadmissible, so I'm not going to talk about the amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

—and I'm going to now rule on it.

Mr. Lamoureux, I'm going to confirm what I ruled before, that the issue that's before this committee is dealing with the issue of whether or not this committee can ask the House to give permission to this committee for an extension of 30 days to deal with Bill C-425.

To repeat what has already been ruled, the issue of expanding the scope of the bill and the issue of the decision of the House before considering the bill go beyond that view.

We now have a point of privilege from Ms. Sims.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Freeman, I made a ruling after the break that the only issue that's before us is the issue of whether or not this committee can ask the House to grant an extension of 30 sitting days to review Bill C-425—nothing else. I made it quite clear in the ruling. You can talk about anything you like, but I'm going to rule it out of order because that's what I have already ruled. It's as if you didn't hear what my ruling was.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, I don't want to hear that. I want to know whether we should or should not give an extension of 30 sitting days for Bill C-425 to continue. I don't want to hear about anything else.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will reconvene.

I'm going to make a ruling on the point of order. I want to thank Ms. James, Ms. Freeman, Mr. Weston, Mr. Dykstra, Ms. Sims, Mr. Menegakis, Mr. Giguère, and Ms. Sitsabaiesan for their comments on this point of order.

I'm going to give you my decision on the point of order that was made. Once a decision is made by the committee, the committee cannot come back on a decision unless that is unanimously agreed by its members. I refer to the good book of Madam O'Brien and Mr. Bosc, page 582-583. On Tuesday April 23, 2013, the committee adopted a report recommending to the House that it be granted the power to expand the scope of Bill C-425. The committee already made a decision on that, so that particular matter should no longer be debated. That information in the motion is only there to outline the reason of the extension, which is required by Standing Order 97.1(1) and was referred to by Mr. Giguère in his comments.

We're not voting on that reason. The motion is asking for a 30-day extension and this is strictly what is before the committee. Mr. Giguère made reference to Standing Order 97.1(1) and pointed out that it stipulates that a reason should be included in the request.

The first two sentences of the second paragraph of the motion outline the reason for this request, so the motion is in order. Mr. Giguère's point is therefore out of order.

That is my ruling. We will proceed to the main motion.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan—

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I really do appreciate that, Chair, and I apologize that I will be repeating myself somewhat, but I was screaming over here. I understand that we're all very frustrated by this process right now. I will just go over what I was trying to say.

Basically, this motion exists only because this committee needs to ask the House to expand the bill, and we cannot do that, as we have come to see, without our then passing this motion to extend by 30 sitting days. Therefore, our committee requests an extension because we need to ask that the House grant the power during consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the bill. As a result, we cannot speak about the request for an extension without speaking about the reason we have asked for an extension. That, Chair, is because we need to expand the scope, and I think as a result we are absolutely allowed to speak about expanding the scope.

What are the things that have called this committee to be in a position where we are expanding the scope? We know as members of this committee that—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Just give me a minute.

Looking at the motion, Ms. James, I'm actually going to support what you're saying. The issue that's been read is that the committee be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the bill, and that's why we went to the House. That's why there's a concurrence motion. There's going to be a time for you to debate that—not here but in the House.

Quite frankly, the issue before us is whether the House should give the committee an additional 30 days to deal with this bill.

I'm going to rule that Ms. James and others are correct; that the statement of expanding the scope of the bill, which you want to read O'Brien on, is not in order because its effect is what we're going to be dealing with in the House, not in this committee.

Have you finished, Ms. James?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

—nowhere does it say in this motion that we are seeking to expand. It was actually a statement. It actually reads, “On Tuesday, April 23”, so it's in the past tense. We're not seeking to expand. It's in the past tense. It reads:On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, the Committee recommended to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the Bill.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion before us is requesting an extension of 30 days of further study of and debate on Bill C-425. I believe that this is not necessary at this time, given that we have given this bill its requisite 60 days, and it was the government.... This is what I was saying earlier. You specifically told me that I need to speak about this when I'm debating the main motion and not the amendment or the subamendment, so thank you for reminding me of that, Mr. Chair.

Clearly, the process in this committee is that the government members generally set the schedule because they have a majority, like they do in the House of Commons. They have a majority here, and they basically control the proceedings. If they wanted more debate on this bill, they had the ability to make sure the committee studied only this bill for the last 60 sitting days. But they chose, and they decided that it didn't need more than the number.... I don't remember the exact number of hours that we've put towards this bill. But they chose that it wasn't necessary. They set the schedule.

Now, all of a sudden, because the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said that he wants to make some changes and see some changes happen, what we're seeing is that the government members on this bill are saying, “Whoa, hold it, we want more study now, we want more time, we want to be able to debate this.” The exact quote from one of the members today is that they want “an opportunity to review it, to debate it” further. But they've had that time. They've had the opportunity. It's not necessary at this point to extend the study period another 30 days to move forward.

That's one reason, Mr. Chair. They've had the time; they've had the opportunity.

The second piece is the second half of the motion, where they're asking to expand the scope of this bill. Another reason to not continue to study—

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

Yes.

I want to remind us all of what's before us:Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), your Committee is requesting an extension of thirty sitting days to consider Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), referred to the Committee on Wednesday, February 27, 2013.

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, the Committee recommended to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the Bill. The Committee is awaiting for a decision of the House before further considering the Bill. Therefore, your Committee requests an extension of thirty sitting days.

It's the very wording of that motion that brings me to speak about the government's request for an extension. It is not to address the content of what is already in Mr. Shory's bill. It is to go before the House to seek an expansion of scope, and that, I believe, will fundamentally change Mr. Shory's bill in a significant way.

When I read that motion out and then try to relate it to what we're here to debate, it is perfectly within my rights and privileges, I would argue, to discuss what is in the motion to explain why I am against the extension.

I believe that every member of Parliament, not the cabinet or parliamentary secretaries—excluding that group—has a right to bring forward private members' business, and a right to have it go through the systems we have in the timelines we have.

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

Chair, I'm just trying to reiterate in a different way what I heard, that we were trying to circumvent private members' business.

I will add that we're here today to debate the extension motion. It's very difficult to debate the extension motion—unless you want a yea or nay vote and no debate—without referencing what happened at committee, as long as we relate it back to the bill.

I'm not going to get into the content of the amendments, as you've said, because we're not here to discuss them. We're here only to take a look at an extension for Bill C-425. That's what I will focus on, an extension for Bill C-425.

I believe at this stage the extension is being sought to circumvent private members' business so that the government can carry out its own agenda.

Mr. Chair, I'm really trying to stick to the motion that is before us. The motion before us—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

This will definitely give the proper respect to my honourable colleague, who is sitting at this committee now. As my colleagues have mentioned, I've sat beside this particular colleague, Mr. Devinder Shory, throughout every committee meeting on Bill C-425. He was there to welcome amendments and to provide his insight.

In fact, Mr. Chair, back at the end of January, when I found out that I was given the opportunity and was asked whether I wanted to speak to this particular bill in the House, I basically jumped up and down, because I think this bill is so important to Canadians and to Canada. I think it goes a long way.... The amendments that were put forward—and again, I'm not speaking directly to the amendments—are the reason we're asking for the extension of 30 days. I think 30 days is not unreasonable. If we were seeking 365 sitting days, perhaps that might be unreasonable, but so far, the amendments that we've put forward, and this particular motion addressing the need to allow those amendments to be heard, are not unreasonable.

We've been sitting here for a week. Again, in the nine and a half hour speech from the opposition, they covered absolutely everything possible that they could read from a book and from the other things that were handed to them, and I only have a few moments to speak directly to this specific motion and the need to have the extension.

I'm sitting here and speaking on behalf of my constituents and the over 80% of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, I have to say, who support Devinder Shory's bill and wholeheartedly embrace the amendments that not only did this committee put forward, but that the member himself agreed with and embraced wholeheartedly.

On that, Mr. Chair, I have to say that as I sit here and ponder what has happened in the last week, I can only look to the opposition to put a stop to this nonsense that's been going on with this filibuster, to speak for a couple of moments to this particular motion, and then to allow it to go to a vote.

There are Canadians who are watching this right now and are seeing what is going on. There is also the expense to Canadian taxpayers by sitting here around the clock debating. It's not proving a point. They would like to see the extension granted so that this can be properly debated and voted on in a very democratic manner, as I said, representing the constituents of my riding of Scarborough Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I wanted to let Ms. Sims know that when I was mentioning terrorism I was not making mention of it in reference to this bill specifically. I was trying to make the point that I'm here representing my constituents of Scarborough Centre. I want to point out that this particular bill, Bill C-425, has garnered more interest from my constituents than many of the other bills that we have done in this committee.

I actually highlighted it in my newsletter recently, and I received positive feedback on this particular bill. The resounding comments from my constituents were that they absolutely approved of this bill and they wanted it to go further. I have to let you know as well that almost a year ago our government cracked down on residency fraud—

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, I really welcome the opportunity to have a moment or two to speak in favour of this extension, in favour of the motion.

We are not actually speaking about the bill itself. What we are asking for is an extension of 30 days to allow for the appropriate period of time for debate on Mr. Shory's Bill C-425. He has made it abundantly clear from the outset that he would welcome all amendments. We have before us a number of amendments that require an extension of 30 days so that they can be properly debated, reviewed, and ultimately voted on.

I don't want to be repetitive with what my colleagues have already said, but as you know, Mr. Chair, there are a limited number of opportunities for a member of Parliament to put forward a private member's bill. This is one which Mr. Shory felt very strongly about and for which he openly solicited recommendations as to how he could make it better. I believe allowing just 30 days is giving the proper time and respect to Mr. Shory's bill so that he has the opportunity to put forth a piece of legislation which over 82% or 83% of Canadians agree with.

I don't want to get off the topic of discussion at the moment as we are only discussing the motion of a 30-day extension. Without delving into the substance of the bill itself, I think it is incumbent upon us as members of the citizen and immigration committee, and I appeal to all members on all sides in this committee and in this House, to allow an additional 30 days so that we can properly review, discuss, and ultimately exercise our right to vote on this piece of legislation, including its amendments. I think it is only fair. Any suggestion to the contrary would certainly, in my opinion, be putting procedure over substance, as Mr. Weston so eloquently put it. There is a lot of substance here that needs to be discussed and reviewed for its merit. Thirty days will allow that opportunity to happen.

Mr. Chair, I will conclude simply by saying that I am in full support of this extension as it respects the honourable member's wishes, the sponsor of this bill's wishes to move forward with this very important piece of legislation.

Thank you.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

To the extension, Chairman, it's so straightforward:

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), your Committee is requesting an extension of thirty sitting days to consider Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces) referred to the Committee on Wednesday, February 27, 2013. On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, the Committee recommended to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the Bill. The Committee is awaiting for a decision of the House before further considering the Bill. Therefore, your Committee requests an extension of thirty sitting days.

Within the context of this extension, we are not seeking amendments, nor are we seeking to change the bill. We are not seeking a confrontation with the opposition to be able to use whatever means or tools that are at their disposal in the Westminster model of Parliament to deliver or to stop a bill from moving forward.

I do find it ironic and interesting, and I had some of this frustration last week when I noticed the opposition using the tools of our Westminster model and our committee process to drive forward their agenda, or what they felt the process should have been. At the same time, I do think we have that same right as a government, not just because we are the government, but because we as individuals should respect—should respect—the private members' process for a member to move a piece of legislation forward.

At the end of the day, all of us, each and every one of us who sits in the House of Commons, will have the chance to support or to vote against Mr. Shory's bill. To take away the member's right by refusing to allow the extension motion to come to a vote is by far the worst way to attempt to stop his piece of legislation from moving forward. If members want to speak in the House against it, if they want to bring witnesses to committee who don't support it, if they want to ask the questions necessary to prove the points that they're going to make, I accept that. When we speak specifically to the issue before us today, which is the extension of the right, the extension really is the right of a member of Parliament to move his private member's bill forward, have it heard, have it brought through committee, have it go through three readings in the House, and then obviously have it move on to the Senate.

I would submit that since last Tuesday, at 8:45 a.m., we have had the ability to talk, the ability to present our issues. As those who sit on this side of the House, we've had our one opportunity to speak to this bill. I've had the opportunity to speak on behalf of my colleagues on the issue of the extension. I would submit that we have had enough discussion on the extension and we on the government side are ready to vote. We are ready to move it back to the House. Each of the opposition members has had the opportunity to speak to this. They have each had the opportunity to speak to the motion. I'm prepared, on behalf of my colleagues, to give up their speaking time if we are prepared to have a vote on this issue today. That will show that we are not here to delay, that we are not here to filibuster, that we are actually here to move this process forward.

Having said that, each and every member of the opposition has had that chance to have their say.

I would submit, and I would respectfully request, that we call the question on this and vote.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is now in day four of filibustering private member's Bill C-425 at the immigration committee. Those members are doing this because they believe that convicted terrorists should keep their Canadian citizenship. The NDP is ignoring the over 80% of Canadians who support it, including many in my own riding of Richmond Hill, who have contacted me with their support.

Could the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism please explain to the House why the government supports Bill C-425 and why the NDP opposes the vast majority of Canadians on this issue?

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

Let me get back to the timing “on or no earlier than”. When you look at “no earlier than”, it gives back to the government a way to deal with the bill, Bill C-425—and it is relevant for me to talk about that in that context because I'm now talking about the timing. It gives the government a way to deal with that bill that actually changes the rules that exist in the House.

Currently, as you know, the original amendment said that the request is to take place in the House on June 21. The subamendment fundamentally changes that and basically opens it up and gives an extension that goes way beyond that.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll be opposing the subamendment to the amendment and I'm going to take my time to explain why in detail.

Right now, as you know, the rules for private members' bills are that this particular bill, Bill C-425, would deem to be reported on June 21st, as is. What is now happening is that the government is seeking a 30-day extension to that. Then an amendment went on the floor to say that this request takes place before June 21st.

What we're dealing with right now is a subamendment to that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've mentioned how the change of the timeline from the amendment to the subamendment would make it more of a frivolous case, really, because we're just ensuring that Bill C-425 can be debated until perpetuity. To be honest, that's basically what's being proposed by the subamendment because it is to be tabled in the House not earlier than June 21.

I find it quite reckless when such an amendment is proposed to the amendment because what I tried to do with the amendment was to make it more timely and ensure that we were doing what we were supposed to be doing, and reporting back as quickly as possible. But the subamendment actually reverses that and makes it so that we are not reporting back as quickly as possible. It makes it so that we're reporting back at any later date. That's actually not responsible.

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

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I'd like to demonstrate to you, Mr. Chair, is that the subamendment is the entire wording, starting from “Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1” to the end, where it says “tabled in the House not earlier than June 21, 2013”. The subamendment is not just the five words or the 10 words that are changed at the end, but includes the entire wording of the motion that is before us.

Truthfully, Mr. Chair, and respectfully, I must say that the subamendment includes the entire wording that's in front of us under the heading “Sub-amendment of Costas Menegakis”. If I speak to the fact that there's the requesting of the 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-425, that is part of the subamendment.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

It's virtually impossible, Mr. Chair, to speak to all that we heard last week. Basically, it was just material that was being read over and over again, so as much as I'd like to think that I have such a tremendous memory that I would be able to refer back to everything I heard here, certainly that would not be possible given the amount of information that was read out here last week in an attempt to filibuster the process. But there are a number of things I have to speak about, because it is incumbent upon me to try to convince my colleagues around the table of the importance of allowing an extension so that we can properly review the amendments and allow Bill C-425 to move forward.

One of the arguments we heard repeatedly last week was that this was a PMB versus a government bill, and that somehow the PMB was being hijacked by the government. I believe that was the word that was being used by the opposition.

I want to remind all members around the table of the words spoken by the sponsor and the actions of the sponsor of the bill, who would very much like to see the subamendments go through. Mr. Shory, from the inception of the bill, from the presentation of this bill in the House, made it very clear that he was open to amendments. He was open to suggestions from all sides, including the government and the opposition, that would make this bill better.

He has repeatedly said and shown by his actions that any suggestion that would make the bill better would certainly be acceptable to him. In fact, Mr. Chair, you might recall that Mr. Shory, even when he was not being subbed in as a member of this committee, attended all committee meetings to listen very carefully, not only to what members of Parliament had to say but also to what witnesses had to say.

This is a member of Parliament who understands the process and who welcomed input from absolutely everybody. He is very amenable and accepting of the recommendations and the four amendments that have been put forward. He has been a critical player from the outset and has been more than forthright in his acceptance of any suggestion that would make his bill better moving forward.

The suggestion or the inference that the government is somehow hijacking certainly has no merit whatsoever. The importance of private members' legislation, moving forward, is something that can be debated for days and days. But in keeping with your intervention to me, Mr. Chair, I won't go into all of the details of the differences between a private member's bill and government legislation, other than to just conclude that segment of what I wanted to say by saying that any suggestion that the government can have no input whatsoever on any private member's legislation by speaking with the sponsor and making suggestions of their own is questionable at best. Certainly every elected member has an opportunity to weigh in on legislation before us, and that is exactly what everyone has done.

To Mr. Shory's credit, he has been accepting of all of the suggestions, and I might add, he has given his input on some of them, if not all of them, as well.

Mr. Chair, the subamendment asks for a period of time to be able to further evaluate the importance and the significance of these amendments to a piece of legislation that we know is something that Canadians would very much like to see. It speaks to a recognition of the tremendous sacrifice that the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces make on a daily basis. It speaks to the fact that anyone who would want to—

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome back.

We've certainly had a lot of discussion on this issue on this bill over the past week, and I'm delighted today to have an opportunity to speak to the subamendment. I think we all have the subamendment before us, and it reads as follows, just to make sure that we're on the right one:

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), your Committee is requesting an extension of thirty sitting days to consider Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), referred to the Committee on Wednesday, February 27, 2013. On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, the Committee recommended to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the Bill. The Committee is awaiting for a decision of the House before further considering the Bill. Therefore, your Committee requests an extension of thirty sitting days and that this request is to be tabled in the House not earlier than June 21, 2013.

I'm going to speak in favour of the subamendment for a number of reasons, Mr. Chair. First of all, it is my belief that legislation should not die on the table simply because of some kind of procedural tactic, if you will. I think it is important that we have an opportunity to review it, to debate it. Asking for an extension to be able to do so only affords parliamentarians the opportunity to weigh in on the subject and exercise the ultimate right that has been given to them and to all of us by the good citizens of the constituencies that we all have the honour and privilege of representing.

We heard a lot of testimony last week, extensive speeches from members of the opposition, speaking about a number of things. I have to refer to some of that so that I can support my argument for the passing of this very important subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning, everyone. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We are reviewing Mr. Shory's Bill C-425. This is the continuation of meeting number 84.

First of all, I want to thank Ms. Sims for filling in as chair.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am delighted, and I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak to this amendment. I will try to be somewhat brief in my comments, if I may, although I do want to touch on some key points that I think are pertinent to the discussion we've been having in this committee over the last few days.

I do want to say that I have been quite attentive, as you and other members here know well. I have also been somewhat touched, and at times emotional, at some of the personal stories that some of the members have shared with us. I understand when we speak about Canadian citizenship that we are evoking emotions and passion in people because of the deep respect and value that we all put on our citizenship.

From its outset, when the sponsor the bill, Mr. Shory, the honourable member for Calgary Northeast, presented his private member's bill, Bill C-425, he was very clear as to the reasons why he did it. It was based on three fundamental beliefs, key beliefs that he had: his belief that our troops deserve the highest respect, his belief in creating more pathways to integration, and his belief that Canadian citizenship is a privilege and its value should be protected.

I know from personal experience what it means to a family. Mine is a family like so many other Canadian families, a family of immigrants. My parents came to this country in the mid-fifties. In fact, my dearly departed mom, in 1956, and my dad in 1957, boarded a ship from their native country and landed on the shores of Halifax, in Canada, with a dream for a better life. I know how valuable Canadian citizenship was to my parents when I was born and my brothers were born, and how important it was for them to obtain their Canadian citizenship.

Without making this a personal story about me, because that's not what we're here to do today, I will share with you how emotional and how proud I, along with my family, felt as the first born to my family in this country, when I was sworn in as a member of Parliament in this country, so far away from my parents' native country of Greece.

The day I was being sworn in as a member of Parliament, as it was for all of us, was a very special day. I invited 34 family members and friends to attend. Unfortunately, and quite tragically, I lost my mom six months to the day before I was elected. She could not be here to witness that very special moment for me, although I confess that I felt her presence abundantly. But in those 30 seconds when were being sworn in, when we put our hand on our book of worship, I looked in the crowd at the 34 people, Madam Chair. The cameras were going and people were smiling and they were happy with this, and right there sitting in the front row was my dad. He had a red and white tie on with a maple leaf and the word “Canada” across it, and while everybody else was smiling and taking pictures, he had tears streaming down his face, because the moment was not lost on him. Certainly when I saw his face, understanding the life of the immigrant and the hardships they had when they came to this country and the life I have had, having been born in this country and having had every opportunity available to me because of my hard-working parents, that moment was not lost on me either.

The value of Canadian citizenship is something we all feel and cherish. When I heard my honourable members opposite speak about their own personal experiences, I felt their emotion, as I have felt on numerous occasions, knowing how blessed I am to be a permanent member of this particular committee of this House of Commons.

When I heard Mr. Shory in that very first reading speak about his bill—and I've had many opportunities to speak with him about it since then—I was struck by how open and welcoming he was in soliciting input in the form of information and amendments from everyone in the House. He was really eager to make something that he felt so strongly about even better.

I have been very cognizant of this because of the personal attachment I feel to this particular piece of legislation. I've been very cognizant of how Mr. Shory has felt about some of the amendments and the changes to his bill since that very first reading. He has in every instance demonstrated his pride of the ownership of this bill and, equally, has accepted the recommendations and amendments that he felt made this piece of legislation even better.

I was also touched by the fact that Mr. Shory, not being a permanent member of the citizenship and immigration committee, attended every single meeting while this bill was being debated. He heard every single witness, he heard every single comment from every member of Parliament who had an opportunity to participate and speak, and in some instances was subbed in when someone could not come.

Further, the fact that he has been present in this marathon of hours in which we have been meeting and discussing this particular amendment testifies to his pride of ownership in this piece of legislation. At no time has he indicated or demonstrated that his member's privileges have been in any way impeded. Therefore, I feel wholeheartedly supportive of the fact that this private member's bill is indeed a private member's bill by a member of Parliament who welcomed any and all input as valuable input to him in moving forward.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Chair, forgive me for insisting, but this is very important to me. I understand that you have been here for a long time and we very much appreciate the efforts you make as well as those of all the people around the table. I congratulate you on your insight. However, with a new perspective—I came in from the outside—it seems to me that my colleague on the other side was raising a point of order on my colleague's statement. Her statement was about the content of Bill C-425. She was comparing the various countries referred to every day as federal countries.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Let me clarify that it is to do with seeking an extension for Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. If you're speaking on an extension for that bill, you can refer back to the bill as you are speaking to the extension. It's the same about the scope. My colleague Rick Dykstra, the parliamentary secretary, did not question that when I explained that earlier, and it has been accepted by the committee.

Let's move on and have Ms. Sitsabaiesan continue her discourse.

Ms. Sellah.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

So, it's fifty-fifty

I understand that it is a broad umbrella. We aren't just referring to the motion, but everything that relates to Bill C-425, correct? Forgive me for insisting on that, but I want to make sure I understand that clearly, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

What I have said is that in order to either say whether you support or oppose the extension motion.... The extension is not about nothing. It's not about a bus. It's not about a train or the timing thereof. It is about Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, and it's also about seeking expansion of the scope of the bill. Therefore, as long as your comments fit within that umbrella then you will not be ruled out of order. That is the chair's position.

Is that a new point of order?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your clear explanations which I understood from the start. I was very happy to hear you say that we have the right to return to discussing the content of Bill C-425. Is that correct, Madam Chair?

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I have given the same clarification a number of times, but I will do it one more time.

We are here to discuss an extension, to give the committee a chance to go to the House to seek an expanded scope to the bill and then for the committee to deal with that. That's what we're here to debate.

In light of that, I have said that as long as a person is speaking to that.... As I said, when you're speaking to a motion like this, it's not a yes or a no; otherwise we would not be here to debate. You can make reference to the content of Bill C-425, as long as it is relevant, and in the same way to the expanded scope. Both those rulings have been made. Clarification is given and has been given again. This particular motion has been read into the record a number of times by me. I am pleased that you had me hear it in French. I did follow the English version because it is right here in front of me.

For any member who speaks on this motion before this committee today, as long as it relates to what is in this motion, it is admissible. There is no time limit on how long they can speak. However, if they use either Bill C-425 or the Citizenship Act or the expansion of the scope as a stepping stone to talk about something totally unrelated, and do not relate it back to these issues, then the chair will gently remind members that it's time to come back to dealing with the motion. That is what the chair has clarified a number of times.

Ms. Sellah.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Let me finish, Madam Chair, please.

It's An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), referred to committee on Wednesday, February 27, 2013.

Madam Chair, I'm not going back to my first point. In my humble understanding, every time I have come to the committee, points of order on the motion have not held up because, in fact, this motion talks about the bill. So she can cite examples and talk about this bill as much as she wants.

I would like some clarification on this and correct me, Madam Chair, if I'm mistaken.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

You are correct, it is Bill C-425 that we are here to consider, but also, at the same time—

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Yes, it concerns this motion.

If I understand correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, according to Standing Order 97.1, the committee is requesting an extension of 30 sitting days—and I repeat—to study Bill C-425. Is Bill C-425 actually on this sheet, Madam Chair?

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

Actually, Madam Chair—if I don't get interrupted to say that I am off the point again—that was perfect. You've said my last name perfectly. Thank you for your efforts.

This government wants to expand the scope of the bill, and doing that is outside the powers of committee especially when a private member's bill comes to the committee. That was just a response to one of the comments I heard from a member in this committee who seemed uncertain as to whether that was the goal of this. So I just wanted to make it clear that what the government, through the government members, is trying to do is to expand or change the scope of this bill.

Nevertheless, I would like to continue on how the issue of statelessness has been hammered home by witnesses and how we don't need to hear more from witnesses. We don't need to expand the length of study of this bill. As you mentioned, Madam Chair, there are two parts of the motion, the first part being the extension of the time to continue the study another 30 days and the second part being that there has been an application for the extension of the scope. So far I've only touched on the first piece. I have much more to go on the first half before I even comment on the second half.

I just finished showing you that the evidence already put forward to the committee has clearly demonstrated how Australia, another country that we compare ourselves to quite regularly, has safeguards to prevent statelessness with its voluntary renunciation of Australian citizenship. So let's move on to the revocation or the deprivation of citizenship in Australia and what they have in place to ensure that safeguards are available.

I'll let you know that for those who have citizenship by descent or by conferral, the minister may revoke a person's Australian citizenship if the minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen. So that was basically capturing the sense of paragraphs 34(1)(c) and 34(2)(c) instead of reading them all to you here. This provides the ability to revoke one's citizenship. The safeguards that they have to prevent statelessness here are within subsection 34(3), which reads that:

However, the Minister must not decide under subsection (2) to revoke a person's Australian citizenship if... (b) the minister is satisfied that the person would, if the Minister were to revoke the person's Australian citizenship, become a person who is not a national or citizen of any country.

So, clearly, in their legislation in the Citizenship Act of 2007 they have a safeguard mechanism to prevent Australian citizens whose citizenship is revoked from becoming stateless. Once again, this is a country we like to make sure we're on a par with or we like to make sure we have better laws than in order to protect people. Yet, witnesses have demonstrated to us that if we move forward with this bill we will be creating situations of statelessness in Canada, which is, of course, in contravention to the convention that we are signatory to. We don't need to debate this further.

We don't need to discuss Bill C-425 further to learn this, because it's already been made quite clear in the comparison between Canada and Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

I've gone through all three of these countries that we like to compare ourselves to regularly. This is yet another reason, Madam Chair, why I believe we don't need to extend the time of this study for another 30 days, and it's another reason why, Madam Chair, I will not be voting to support this motion.

Another country is, of course, our biggest neighbour and friend, the United States of America. They also have their legislation, and let's look at the U.S. immigration legislation. I can go quite into detail, but I have a feeling that the members may not want me to go into ultra detail. Much of the evidence that I am reiterating here, Madam Chair, is evidence that all the members of this committee have already read.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I want to draw everybody's attention to the second part of the motion. That is where it says: On...April 23, 2013, the Committee recommended to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the Bill. The Committee is awaiting for a decision of the House before further considering the Bill. Therefore, your Committee requests an extension of thirty sitting days.

That's what it is, and it does capture the question of scope. But debate still has to be relevant. I will stress that.

Please carry on.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Chair, I just want to suggest that the member is now speaking again about the scope of the bill rather than the relevant motion that's on the table regarding the extension of the private member's bill, Bill C-425.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Australian Citizenship Act of 2007, subsection 33(7) reads: The Minister must not approve the person renouncing his or her Australian citizenship unless the Minister is satisfied that the person: (a) is a national or citizen of a foreign country immediately before the Minister's decision on the application; or (b) will, if the Minister approves the application, become a national or citizen of a foreign country immediately after the approval.

So in Australia, another country we like to compare ourselves with, one cannot voluntarily give up Australian citizenship unless, before the minister approves—of course, through the official forms, format, and processes that they have, and I'm not going to talk about those—the person can clearly demonstrate to the minister that they have already received citizenship of another country or will receive citizenship of another country as soon as the minister signs that application or declaration or form or whatever it's actually called, and approves that application for renunciation of citizenship.

With the voluntary renunciation of citizenship in Australia, the prevention of statelessness is clear. We want to make sure—and I'm going to keep hammering this home—that Canada is not in contravention of the convention that we are signatory to. We signed the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

As legislators, as people who have been given the responsibility to ensure that we are doing our due diligence, we in this committee who provide advice to the other members in the House need to ensure that we are not giving them wrong advice, and that we are listening to the advice that has already been presented to us by witnesses.

We don't need to hear more from witnesses on this topic, because it's clear that if we continue with Bill C-425, we will be creating stateless people in this country. We don't want to do that. This has already been made clear to us by witnesses, Madam Chair. That's why we don't need to study this bill further. This bill has been studied. It's a private member's bill and it has received the due process that is warranted, based on the schedule that the government members of this committee set as to when we would study this bill in this committee.

The evidence I'm presenting to you—and I have much more to present to you, Madam Chair—is very clear. We have heard much testimony, and it is clear that we don't need to study this bill further. That's why, Madam Chair, I will continue presenting evidence to you that will demonstrate to you further that we don't need to study this bill any further.

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

Okay. Fantastic.

I was just trying to help. I'm going to move forward, Madam Chair.

The reason I'm speaking of the countries that we like to compare ourselves to on a regular basis—that is New Zealand, Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom—is that on a regular basis in our committee we like to compare our practices and policies to these four countries. Bill C-425 has already been made clear to us by the witnesses who have presented themselves in front of this committee and presented testimony, reports, or follow-up, which they've sent to our committee and that all of the members of the committee have read. We already know what we've heard from the witnesses.

So the reason I'd like to make sure that I'm putting this to you now, Madam Chair and to the members of the committee, is to prove—to demonstrate—that we don't need another 30 days of extension of study because the witnesses have already proved it to us. If we were to invite them again after extending this study period for another 30 days, they're going to come and make very similar arguments. We already have very clear arguments that have been made by witnesses.

That's why I'm providing this evidence to you, that these arguments have been made, the ones that I've been making to you. These arguments have been made and they're very clear. These are the reasons why we don't need to extend our study period. It's why I will not be supporting this motion that is on the table in front of us right now. I hope that's clear for the members opposite.

When I was speaking of statelessness there were actually a few members of the committee who wanted to hear the evidence of these countries because they felt it was important to make sure that this evidence for the countries that we like to regularly compare ourselves to is actually put on the record.

Let's talk about safeguards against statelessness in Australia, which they have in their legislation with respect to the voluntary renunciation of citizenship. In case we've now forgotten which legislation I'm quoting from, it is the Australian Citizenship Act of 2007.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The motion is to extend our study period of Bill C-425 for another 30 days. I'm making arguments as to why the discussion we've already had on this bill in committee is sufficient, that the consideration we've had of this private member's bill was thorough, and that we do not need more time to study it. It seems the members of the Conservative Party seem to be of the same mind, that they don't need me to continue to prove to them that we don't need more study time on this.

Since they also seem to feel that we don't need to extend the time, I now move, Madam Chair, that the committee adjourn until June 21, 2013.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I just want to remind people of the motion that is before us.

The second part I did not read, and I want to read that now:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, the Committee recommended to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the Bill. The Committee is awaiting for a decision of the House before further considering the Bill. Therefore, your Committee requests an extension of thirty sitting days.

So when you look at that, and when you look at the scope of the bill within it.... I would now turn to Ms. Sitsabaiesan and urge her to make sure that the comments she makes relate to what is before us.

Please make sure it is relevant. If it's not, make sure you do not say it.

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

Thank you. I very much appreciate you, Madam Chair. You have been following the rule of the law, the rule of procedures in this place, and have been extremely respectful to the speakers. So I appreciate you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your fair chairing of this meeting.

The point that I was just about to end there.... You just made your point where, when a speaker is interrupted, they lose their train of thought.

I think where I was at was that we regularly speak with bureaucrats in New Zealand, Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. about their experiences with immigration policy and how they do business in immigration, to try to make sure our laws are on par, or better, because we want to make sure we are doing the best and making the best legislation that we possibly can.

On the topic of voluntary renunciation of citizenship in New Zealand, I think the case has already been made very clear, and I don't believe we need further study on this topic, Madam Chair. That's why I don't believe that we need further time to study BillC-425. This is yet another reason that we don't need further time to study this bill, another reason why we don't need to extend the study period for another 30 days, and another reason why I will not be supporting this motion that is before us today, Madam Chair.

Because my colleague wanted to hear about our countries, I'll speak of the deprivation of citizenship in New Zealand—I'm still speaking about New Zealand—particularly to demonstrate to you that it has actually been made clear already, by the witnesses who have already appeared before the committee, so we don't need further extension of time again.

In New Zealand, once again, section 16 of the Citizenship Act reads that:

...the Minister may, by order, deprive a person of his New Zealand citizenship if he is satisfied that the person has, while a New Zealand citizen and while of or over the age of 18 years and of full capacity,—

(a) acquired the nationality or citizenship of another country by any voluntary and formal act, and acted in a manner that is contrary to the interests of New Zealand; or

(b) voluntarily exercised any of the privileges or performed any of the duties of another nationality or citizenship possessed by him in a manner that is contrary to the interests of New Zealand.

So here we know, it's clear. It has been presented to us by witnesses to this committee, that there are ways in the New Zealand Citizenship Act to deprive a New Zealand citizen of their citizenship if they have citizenship of another country and they have done something contrary to the act, to the interests of New Zealand. So we know that's there already.

They were one of the countries that made a declaration when they signed the convention. Under article 8 of the convention, and that, of course, is the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. New Zealand made a declaration, and their declaration reads as such:

...in accordance with paragraph 3 of article 8 of the Convention New Zealand retains the right to deprive a person of his New Zealand citizenship on the following grounds, being grounds existing in New Zealand law at the present time: the person has, while a New Zealand citizen and while of—

I don't want to read it again because it's the same piece of the New Zealand Citizenship Act of 1977. That doesn't make any sense because 1977 is the newer version. So let me read what they actually wrote in the declaration:

...the person has, while a New Zealand citizen and while of or over the age of 18 years and of full capacity,

(a) Acquired the nationality or citizenship of another country by any voluntary and formal act, and acted in a manner that is contrary to the interests of New Zealand; or

(b) Voluntarily exercised any of the privileges or performed any of the duties of another nationality or citizenship possessed by him in a manner that is contrary to the interests of New Zealand.

Truthfully, with regard to the New Zealand law, when they wrote the declaration under article 8 of the convention, this article is actually the same. It is what I mentioned earlier. They ensured that a New Zealand citizen wouldn't become stateless, when they signed the declaration. When they were signatories to the declaration, they made sure people wouldn't become stateless. That's pretty clear from this testimony. I have further testimony that I can provide to you, Madam Chair.

We have already heard enough from the witnesses. We don't need to extend the study for another 30 days to hear more of the same testimony from witnesses saying, “We, in Canada, will be creating a situation of statelessness. Oh look, New Zealand has ensured that they have created safeguard mechanisms, and we should make sure we have safeguards.”

We already know this, Madam Chair. We don't need to study Bill C-425 for another 30 days. We don't need that. This New Zealand case proved that to us.

I'll continue, Madam Chair. Let's talk about Australia and how the evidence already shows what we have heard about Australia—another country we like to compare ourselves to. The pieces I will be quoting are from the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Once again, Madam Chair, I will be breaking it down into the voluntary renunciation and then the deprivation of citizenship.

Let's look at the voluntary renunciation in Australia. Subsection 33(1) reads, “A person may make an application to the Minister to renounce the person's Australian citizenship.” Of course, this renunciation is only through application—the formal procedure that Australia has set up. The person can make an application using a specific form to renounce their citizenship. I don't want to go through the exact details. Neither you nor the members of the committee need to hear me go through the exact details of that legislation.

I would like to move a motion, if I may, Madam Chair.

At this point I move that the committee do now adjourn.

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

You'd like me to. Okay then, I will. There are so many examples that have already been put forward before our committee, and I can give you all those examples, Madam Chair.

If we're going to look at countries and examples, maybe I should...let's look at the United Kingdom.

In the British Nationality Act of 1981, and the Immigration, Asylum, and Nationality Act, 2006, which is where some of these citations are coming from for anybody who's following, for their edification and ability to follow. On the topic of renunciation of citizenship, renunciation being, of course, voluntary relinquishment, it reads in article 12(1):

If any British citizen of full age and capacity makes in the prescribed manner a declaration of renunciation of British citizenship, then, subject to subsections (3) and (4), the Secretary of State shall cause the declaration to be registered.

That's somebody volunteering to give up their citizenship.

Another example is in article 12(2):

On the registration of a declaration made in pursuance of this section the person who made it shall cease to be a British citizen.

The secretary of state declares it registered and then accepts that renunciation. The prescribed manner consists of completing a declaration form, which will be registered by the home secretary and renunciation is only through that application process.

So in the U.K. it's a formal application process. Once a person has voluntarily requested to relinquish their citizenship and put in their application, the Secretary of State will accept it and register it, and then they lose their British citizenship because they chose to. Of their own volition, they are losing their citizenship.

However, the safeguard in the British legislation that prevents statelessness is subsection 12(3), which reads:

A declaration made by a person in pursuance of this section shall not be registered unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person who made it will after the registration have or acquire some citizenship or nationality other than British citizenship; and if that person does not have any such citizenship or nationality on the date of registration and does not acquire some such citizenship or nationality within six months from that date, he shall be, and be deemed to have remained, a British citizen notwithstanding the registration.

So their legislation ensures there are safeguards in the legislation to prevent people from becoming stateless, and Bill C-425 will do the opposite. That's what our witnesses have already demonstrated to us in the committee, so we don't need to discuss this further. We don't need this extra 30 days of discussion and study and debate on this bill, because this has already been made clear to the committee members.

Of course, because my honourable colleague wanted to learn more about what's happening with immigration in the UK legal system, I'll continue. With respect to wartime measures, subsection 12(4) continues and says:

The Secretary of State may withhold registration of any declaration made in pursuance of this section if it is made during any war in which Her Majesty may be engaged in right of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom.

This makes sense because you don't want people to say they're not British citizens anymore just because they don't want to fight in a war. So that was a nice protection measure for the United Kingdom to ensure that people aren't just upping and leaving because they don't want to participate in a war.

So far I've only been talking about the subject of statelessness with respect to the presentation made to us by the UNHCR, and with respect to the United Kingdom and the topic of deprivation of citizenship. We just spoke of renunciation and how renunciation can be stopped by the safeguard against statelessness, or in view of wartime measures, but the deprivation of citizenship is what is being presented to us in Bill C-425. Let's look at some of the parallels with the U.K. system.

In subsection 40(2) of the British Nationality Act, on the topic of deprivation of citizenship, it reads, and I'm not reading all of it, just part of it:

The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.

The safeguard against statelessness there is subsection 40(4), which says:

The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.

Even in the case of depriving somebody of their citizenship because the deprivation is conducive to the public good in the U.K., they ensure that a person will not be made stateless. This was already articulated to us in committee.

Canada right now is a signatory to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Our laws right now don't create a situation of statelessness for people. It would be we, as parliamentarians, who are required to do the due diligence and it would be our responsibility, in breach of our fiduciary duty to our constituents and Canadians as a whole, if we were to create a situation where we were in contravention of the convention to which we are signatories.

This has been made clear to us by witnesses in the last 60 days' study period that we've had on Bill C-425. This is why we don't need another 30 days of study time of this bill in committee. We have studied this bill thoroughly and we've heard many examples of why we have studied this bill thoroughly already and why we don't need to continue the debate and the study of this Bill C-425 in committee.

I'll continue because I know my colleague wanted to hear of the other countries that we generally like to compare ourselves to. I've only spoken to you so far about one, so I still have New Zealand, Australia, and the United States to get through as well to show how those countries are ensuring that people are not becoming stateless persons and how we need to make sure as Canadians that we are not going to create stateless people in our country.

Let's look at the case of New Zealand. With respect to New Zealand, I will be quoting you pieces from the New Zealand Citizenship Act 1977. Madam Chair, I will adopt the same style and speak of the renunciation of citizenship and how statelessness is being guarded against. Then I will speak of the deprivation of citizenship and how statelessness is being guarded against there.

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

Exactly. They don't have the passport of their country of birth.

I use one country as an example, but we know there's a plethora of countries that are in a state of conflict, whether it's armed or not, though armed conflict is usually what leads to many people fleeing a country and seeking asylum in another. So Canada would create a state of statelessness for these people and that is, of course, in contravention of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness to which we are signatories. We can't let this happen, Madam Chair.

This was discussed very much. Many of our witnesses who came before the committee during the time we've had to study this bill spoke about this.

I will continue to explain a little more on this same topic of statelessness, Madam Chair, and prove to you, show to you, demonstrate to you, that these topics have been discussed in committee and that witnesses have provided their testimony, and this is why we don't need another 30 days of study on this bill, because the same topics are going to come up again and again in committee when the witnesses appear. If we do grant another 30 days, then these same issues are going to come up. That's why, Madam Chair, we don't need another 30 days of study time on this bill.

Let's look at New Zealand's case. We like to compare ourselves to these countries all the time, so I'll do that here as well.

New Zealand entered a declaration in their legislation itself. They entered a declaration under article 8.3 of the convention at the time of a session pertaining to the right to deprive an individual of New Zealand citizenship when the person acquires nationality or citizenship of another country, or performs duties of another nationality or citizenship that may act in a manner that is contrary to the interests of New Zealand.

The Government of the United Kingdom declared, in accordance with article 8.3—the same article in the convention when they signed it—that the U.K., and I'll read so it's clearer, “...retains the right to deprive a naturalised person of his nationality...inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to Her Britannic Majesty, the person....” I don't want to read all of it.

Nevertheless, when the United Kingdom and New Zealand signed the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, they maintained some ability to continue their practice of being able to deprive individuals of their New Zealand or United Kingdom citizenship for naturalized citizens. What's a little odd is that they actually don't mention anything about citizens of those countries who are born.... Those countries have a two-tiered citizenship system is what I'm learning from this.

Canadian citizenship is valued so much, by my family anyway. I can only speak of my personal experience, and I can speak of the experiences of other constituents who have spoken to me. Every few months, Madam Chair, I have a gathering of new citizens and we share what it means to be Canadian and why they chose to become a Canadian citizen. Time and again it's on the faces of my constituents, who simply light up and want to talk about their Canadian citizenship, because they're so proud. They're so proud that they were able to leave whatever situation they were in and become Canadian, because Canada is a country that treats everyone equally, that treats everyone equitably. People say they know that when they become Canadian citizens....

I vividly remember what one little girl told me. I think she was about nine years old. She said, “When I become a Canadian citizen, it means that I get to go to school. It means that I get treated the same as the boys. It means that I can become a doctor when I grow up.” For her, it meant that she was going to have opportunity, that she was going to be treated as equal to every other Canadian, every other person who is a Canadian citizen. She would have that same treatment.

We don't want to get to a point where we are creating two, three, four tiers of citizenship in this country, Madam Chair. Right now, we have one Canadian citizenship and it is that you are a Canadian citizen. That's it.

Madam Chair, what comes to mind again is something that you hammered home to all of us. You're either a citizen or you're not a citizen. It's like being pregnant or being not pregnant. There's no opportunity to be half-pregnant. If there's a fetus in you, then you're pregnant. There's no, it's a fetus of two months, so it's a half-pregnancy. The gestational period is generally nine months. A fetus of four-and-a-half months is not a half-pregnancy. There's no such thing.

You had very clearly articulated that you're either a citizen or you're not a citizen, and that once you become a citizen you are a citizen. There are no levels to that citizenship. That's the beauty of Canadian citizenship.

The UNHCR representative's report to us mentioned that other countries have made sure that they're able to have those multiple tiers of citizenship, but Canada doesn't have that. We don't want to go there, and we've discussed this in our committee. We've heard evidence on this. That's why, Madam Chair, I think that we've had enough discussion on this in our committee. I'll continue to provide evidence that we've had enough discussion on Bill C-425 in our committee and that we don't need to have another 30 days of discussion on this same bill, because we've had much debate. I will continue to give you examples of the debate that we have had in our committee to clearly demonstrate to you and all of the members of this committee that we don't need another 30 days of study on this bill. We just don't.

Let me continue. I almost want to continue with statelessness. I could go into each country's example, but I won't do that right now.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll try to remember not to apologize for actually wanting to participate in the debate and to explain why I am not going to be supporting this motion that's before us to extend the time of debate on Bill C-425 here in our committee.

The topic I'd like to discuss now, Madam Chair, is the fact that Bill C-425 before it was amended—this bill as it is—would actually create people who become stateless. We heard from many witnesses. I'd like to first discuss what we've heard from the UNHCR. I have high respect for the United Nations and I thank them for coming to help us in our deliberations and study of this bill. I'm going to read to you from the actual bill. It says that there is a deemed application for renunciation of Canadian citizenship where that citizen engages in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces and that same citizen is also a citizen or legal resident in a country other than Canada.

That's clause 2 regarding proposed subsection 9(1.1) of the Citizenship Act. I had already touched on, but didn't speak in depth, the fact that “act of war” is not defined in our laws so we don't know what that means. Legal experts who came in front of this committee don't know what that means. I did touch on that, so I don't want to go into it right now. Possibly later I might want to come back to the act of war topic, Madam Chair.

We've learned that there are two ways of losing citizenship. One is voluntary revocation, voluntarily relinquishing one's citizenship, and the other is having it revoked or taken away from you by the state that gave it to you. We're not talking about voluntary relinquishment of citizenship here when it says that there is deemed to be application for renunciation of Canadian citizenship.

I want to make sure I read the words correctly so that I don't get interrupted again, Madam Chair.

In this case what we learned from the representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was that renunciation is the voluntary act of relinquishing one's citizenship or nationality while deprivation is carried out by the authorities of the state. So those are the terms I'll use to go back and forth: renunciation of citizenship and deprivation or revocation.

I'd like to look at the countries that we generally compare ourselves to. When we do many of our studies we like to compare our laws to those of the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia, and sometimes also the U.S.A. because the United States is our next-door neighbour and is very similar to us with respect to also being an OECD country and being the global north in the western hemisphere.

The UNHCR had mentioned that the renunciation of nationality or citizenship in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia is carried out through the initiation of a formal procedure by the individual wishing to renounce their citizenship. In the case of the U.S.A., six of the seven methods of renouncing citizenship require that very similar filling out of a formal procedure along with an application to the court.

Also, they mentioned that in the U.S., if you serve in the armed forces of a foreign state that's engaged in a conflict against the U.S, then you are deemed to have renounced your citizenship.

They also helped us understand what deprivation of citizenship is, and that deprivation of citizenship is possible in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. This concept is possible in these three countries we compare ourselves to.

In the United States of America, Congress has no power under the U.S. Constitution to revoke a person's U.S. citizenship, unless of course that person voluntarily relinquishes it. When we speak of the forced deprivation of somebody's citizenship or nationality, the U.S. Congress does not have that power under the U.S. Constitution.

We have seen this happen in Canada, so we know that in Canada, the minister.... I mentioned very briefly the increased discretion for the minister in this bill and how much we've spoken about that. That will be another reason, Madam Chair, that I will not be supporting the motion before us to extend the debate on Bill C-425. I do believe those topics have been studied sufficiently in this committee. I'll make that very clear later on in my speech. I think ministerial discretion is number seven or eight on my list of items I'd like to go through. I'm on number two right now, Madam Chair.

Once again, coming back to the concept of statelessness and looking at the three countries we are talking about, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia, all of them contain provisions within their nationality law that provide—I'm going to read this really slowly—“One of the most important safeguards against statelessness is that...”.

Of course, all three of those countries are signatories or parties to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Of course, I should point out here, Madam Chair, that Canada is also a signatory to that convention..

This convention provides an international framework to ensure the right of every person to a nationality by establishing safeguards to prevent statelessness, whether it's at birth or later in life. What we've learned will happen and what we've debated in committee already in the 60 days that were allotted, is this bill would create a state of being stateless later in life for Canadian citizens. If they are citizens of another country, then Canada would deprive them of their citizenship. If their citizenship in another country is not recognized by that state because of that conflict or whatever it might be....

A great example is that many people I have spoken to in Scarborough—Rouge River have fled instances of conflict, have come to Canada as asylum seekers or as refugee claimants, and have lived as refugees or permanent residents, and then have moved on to become Canadian citizens. They're from the country I was born in, Sri Lanka. People who have left the country and have been active and have spoken out loudly, or who have spoken out about the state-sanctioned human rights violations in that country, generally there have been examples where their passports have been taken away because it's been said they are not a true national. They've conducted or said things that are contrary to the state, and so they can't travel or be recognized as a national.

According to Canada, one would think they still have their citizenship from that country, and if Canada were to revoke their Canadian citizenship for any reason, the person would be left in limbo because they've now lost their Canadian passport—

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, yet once again for passing the floor back to me.

I believe, from our experience over the last 60 days, that the consideration of Bill C-425 at our citizenship and immigration committee was thorough and that it does not need further study, Madam Chair. I'd like to identify some of the reasons why I believe that the study was thorough and that we do not need further study.

I was at the point of speaking of pathways to integration, because the presenting member, Mr. Shory, had mentioned in his remarks to us as the committee that his goal through this bill was to increase pathways to integration for newer immigrants and permanent residents. However, many problems were identified with this, and these are reasons why I believe the discussions we've had are sufficient.

I'll tell you some of what our discussions were, Madam Chair.

I already spoke about the fact that only citizens can qualify for recruitment. I don't want to go back into that, Madam Chair, but what I do want to move on to is how a permanent resident can actually be recruited. When we had members of the armed forces present to us, they did say it does happen in an extremely rare number of cases.

I might say the name wrong, but Professor Grazia Scoppio said:

In order to be eligible for enrolment in the Canadian Forces as an officer or non-commissioned member, a person must: (a) be a Canadian citizen...

—I'm not going to read the entire quote, but she said that they must be Canadian citizens—

...except that the Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may authorize the enrolment of a citizen of another country if he is satisfied that a special need exists and that the national interest will not be prejudiced thereby.

When she presented this testimony to us, she explained to us how citizens foreign nationals, citizens of another country, can actually serve with the Canadian Armed Forces, wearing the red maple leaf on their uniform, though they don't have Canadian citizenship. I felt that this was important for us because in the deliberation of the bill, the presenter himself said that one of the very important pieces of the private member's bill that he was putting forward was to increase recruitment of permanent residents. But we heard, and it was very clear, that there aren't very many permanent residents who are recruited, and there's only one way that it can be done, and that's through the Chief of the Defence Staff.

On this point, Madam Chair, I think it's very clear that the discussion we had already in the committee was sufficient and that we don't need to continue the discussion on this point. That's another reason that we don't need to extend the study period of this bill in committee and, once again, the reason I will not be supporting this motion moving forward.

Another item, Madam Chair, is that members of the committee were concerned whether this measure in Bill C-425, as it was presented to us, would have a real effect on the people it's actually targeting, given the backlog that already exists with Canadian citizenship. We know that wait times for Canadian citizenship are extremely long.

Constituents in Scarborough—Rouge River have contacted me time and again, through Twitter, Facebook, writing me an e-mail, coming into the office, calling me, responding to mail-outs, whatever it might be, or just speaking to me at the grocery store.By whatever method it might be, many residents of Scarborough—Rouge River have spoken to me about their difficulties with the length of time it takes to go through the residency questionnaire and then, after completing the residency questionnaire requirements, how long it takes while they're waiting for their citizenship. The citizenship application process is such a lengthy process. It's not that you just come here and are a permanent resident for three years and then qualify to apply and there is a quick and dirty application and you're done, and then there's the test, of course. This is not the case anymore.

When I became a Canadian citizen, I didn't have to take the test, because I was a child. Because my mother took the test, my young sisters and I were part of the group with her, so I didn't have the same experience that new Canadians have today. But we know that becoming a Canadian citizen means a lot to many people.

Considering the extremely long wait times to become a Canadian citizen, we asked experts whether Bill C-425 was going to achieve the results the member was trying to achieve and would actually reach the targeted groups.

Once again we heard from the professor, who said that the intended outcome was quite unclear. If the intent is simply to expedite the citizenship process for a few select immigrants who happen to have the unique skills to fulfill a special need of the Canadian Forces, then the bill if passed would be accomplishing this outcome and would have a small-scale impact. If, however, the intent is to open the doors of the Canadian Forces to greater numbers of qualified landed immigrants with permanent residency in order to provide—and the professor quoted Mr. Shory, the sponsor of the bill—“new Canadians with more pathways to integration”, as Mr. Shory mentioned, this bill would actually not accomplish that broader outcome.

Looking at the amendments that the government has already put forward and looking at this testimony provides another reason that I will not be supporting the motion that is before us today, Madam Chair.

I want to also tell you some of what one of the colonels who spoke to us mentioned. When we spoke to the colonel, we spoke about the air force and becoming a pilot, and he mentioned that many people want—everybody wants—to become a pilot. You yourself, Madam Chair, mentioned earlier in the debate on this specific motion your wish to join the armed forces and what your experiences were like in that regard. I have also had the wish to become a pilot. What the colonel said is very true; this is a wish that many people have. He said it seems that in the Canadian population everybody wants to fly. He mentioned an airplane, but I think many people just want to soar also.

That said, there are some very severe selection criteria that might prevent many people from joining the forces even if they have their permanent residency. Another factor that he mentioned is that the training is actually very long and demanding.

If the goal of this bill was to reduce the wait time for applying for citizenship from three years down to one year, the colonel mentioned that the training is so long for somebody before they can serve that they won't actually be reducing to that one-year time, because they won't be serving by the time the two-year period has lapsed. They would just qualify under the regular citizenship process and wouldn't really need to have their application expedited, because they already would have met the three-year requirement.

Once again, that is another reason that I will not be supporting this motion to extend the debate here on Bill C-425, Madam Chair.

He went on and spoke of examples of pilots from the U.K. and noted that we have some of them. I have a friend who is a major in our air force—

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

You would like to hear it so I will read it out again:Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), your Committee is requesting an extension of thirty sitting days to consider Bill C-425, An Act to amend the CItizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), referred to the Committee on Wednesday, February 27, 2013.

This motion does not say it's a discussion of an extension about nothing. This motion is seeking an extension of 30 days on Bill C-425 which amends the Citizenship Act. Therefore, the chair has urged, and will keep urging members that when they speak to this it should relate to the extension of 30 days for this particular act. The content of your comments has to relate to the act. That's how you will justify whether it goes forward. And whether you're going to speak one way or the other, it could also be related to process.

If the purpose of this motion were a simple yes or no, we would not be here to debate it. I want to remind my colleagues that we have been debating this since 8:45 on Tuesday morning, in one form or another. I find it interesting, and I must admit that as chair I'm perturbed by this as well. This particular member has shared with this committee, in an open meeting, about the kind of discomfort she has felt at the committee, the kind of targeting, I would say, that she has felt at the committee.

I'm finding it really unfortunate that not one of these points of order has related to relevancy. I have not found anything so far with the previous speakers that has been relevant.

I would urge colleagues on all sides to remember to be respectful, to have decorum. We've had a lot of emotion at this meeting. We've actually had a member who has had to leave another meeting in tears. I don't want to go through that. I'm telling you that as long as I'm in this chair, that is not going to happen. I would remind everybody that we are here to deal with this motion, but it does not mean you only get to say yes or no. I would ask that you be relevant and discuss the issue. If you meander too far, this chair will pull you back to the motion.

Thank you.

Mr. Morin, is it a new point of order?

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

The chair would remind Mr. Dykstra that this is not a point of order.

There has been some question as to what's being debated on the floor. To add clarity for everybody who is at the meeting, I am going to read the motion. I'm going to ask everybody to keep that in mind when they speak and when they bring up their points of order. The motion reads:

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), your Committee is requesting an extension of thirty sitting days to consider Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), referred to the Committee on Wednesday, February 27, 2013.

That is what we are here to debate. There were different pathways that this could have taken. This is the one we are here to debate. When people are debating, as goes the experience of this committee ever since I've been here and it was ruled on by the regular chair, when somebody is speaking on an issue, they must be able to link back the comments they make to the motion that's there. In other words, they can't go off on an isolated topic.

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

Thank you. It's always a pleasure to work with you.

Madam Chair, page 1049 of Bosc and O'Brien states:

In addition, the Chair may, at his or her discretion, interrupt a member whose observations and questions are repetitive or are unrelated to the matter before the committee.

I appreciate my colleague's comments, but the motion is pursuant to Standing Order 97.1 (1), and the committee is requesting an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-425. The argument I believe my colleague opposite is making is that an extension would be relevant in order to see further debate of the content.

I therefore challenge the relevancy of her claim and would challenge you to ask her to move to her next topic or close her debate.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Calgary Northeast for his bill that would strip citizenship from convicted terrorists and traitors.

Eighty percent of Canadians agree that if someone violently demonstrates their disloyalty to Canada by committing a serious act of terrorism, this should be understood as a renunciation of their loyalty to Canada and their citizenship.

Only 6% of Canadians strongly disagree with that proposition. Regrettably, that includes 100% of the NDP caucus who are leading a bizarre filibuster against Bill C-425 at the immigration committee. We call on them to listen to Canadians, let the bill go to a vote so there are consequences—

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

Madam Chair, I'm happy to have an opportunity to speak to this motion. This motion asks for an extension of 30 days to study private member's Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces). Though its title refers to “honouring the Canadian Armed Forces”, we have learned through the 60 days of study we have already had on this bill that it is not really about honouring the armed forces. There is a small piece that honours some people who served in the armed forces, but there are other parts of the bill that go far beyond that.

I don't think at this point it is necessary for us as a committee to give that time extension as we've already spent the 60 days allotted for the study of a private member's bill in committee. As we know, a private member's bill has two hours of debate in the House at second reading stage. After second reading stage it is sent to committee for further study and to be reported back to the House.

When we did that study, we learned of the many flaws and the many different aspects in the bill, and I don't even know whether the sponsor of the bill intended them to be part of the nature of the original bill.

We know that many government members and the minister himself have spoken about the bill and have suggested amendments to it. We know that the government's amendment proposed changes to the private member's bill that made it something absolutely new, something very different. It changed the scope of the bill. The amendment proposed by the government members changed the bill dramatically. They knew it was flawed because of what was presented to us by all of the witnesses who came before the committee.

Let me go through some of the items that the witnesses and the government's own members identified as containing flaws, or some of the facets of this bill that they wanted to change, or that weren't appropriate, that may not have been in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or may not have been in compliance with the Constitution. Whatever it may be, let's have a look at what our expert witnesses had to say, and let's have a little bit of a discussion about some of those things.

I'll just list a few for now, and I'll try to get through as many as I possibly can.

First of all, in the bill itself, the sponsor of the bill refers to “act of war”. Many have identified that this is not a term that Canadian law understands or recognizes. The sponsor spoke of “pathways to integration” and increasing pathways to integration for permanent residents and newer immigrants to this country. Issues of statelessness were introduced and outlined for committee members by many people.

The concept of revocation of one's citizenship, which is clearly part of the bill, was highlighted by many of the witnesses who appeared before us.

Another issue is that this bill casts the net far too wide. Too many people get caught up in this bill. Even the sponsor of the bill himself mentioned that he recognized that maybe some people were getting caught in the cracks of the legislation, for example, people who were child soldiers or people who had foreign convictions.

Another thing is that if this bill went forward, it would actually create multiple tiers of Canadian citizenship. I'll make sure to go through that as well in as much detail as I can to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to understand what our experts have told us.

Another topic that was brought forward is the concern that was raised about ministerial discretion and accountability. What we've seen with this current government, especially in immigration-related bills and others, is that more and more powers are being given to fewer and fewer people, so rather than have a tribunal or a group of experts make decisions on things, it's actually the one minister who has more and more discretion on many more topics.

Another problem that was identified was with respect to citizenship wait times and the government allowing queue jumping for asylum seekers and refugee claimants in this country. The government was very clear that it didn't want people to jump the queue, but when there's a citizenship wait time of years in this country, the government is trying to have people jump the queue.

One more topic that I will be touching on is how we can actually honour people who have served in our armed forces.

These are some of the topics, Madam Chair, that I will be delving into throughout my discourse.

Pardon me, Madam Chair. I think I just made a French-to-English bad translation. I used the French word instead of the English word.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Very well.

Madam Chair, I will address and compare the provisions that have been made by this government. They concern the three mammoth bills of the current legislature, the lack of transparency in the matter of the resignation of the Prime Minister's chief of staff, the numerous ethical scandals and many other things. We cannot trust this government. So why should we put forward this motion?

Canadians are not fools. They know that the Conservatives will not hesitate to benefit from a potential flaw in the legislative process to bypass the current verification and monitoring mechanisms. The worst thing to do would be to support this motion, which would give them free rein.

Moreover, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism's proposals are not at a dead end. If he wants to table such a range of measures concerning the revocation and renunciation of citizenship, he is free to do so through a government bill. At that point, we would be able to spend more time debating it in the House of Commons and in committee, which is important.

We know just how important it is to have a lengthy debate on these issues, which involve profound changes within our country. We will then be free to ask witnesses about the content proposed by the minister, which is unfortunately not the case now, in the context of the study of Bill C-425.

More checks will be done on the constitutionality of the legislative initiative. A number of times, I highlighted just how central constitutionality was. I also stressed the need to look into it to determine whether the bill and the amendments truly fit with our constitution.

Lastly, the members of this House will be in a position to do their job properly and effectively. Our duty and our job, as parliamentarians, is to carefully study bills submitted to Parliament, be they government initiatives or private members' initiatives. In this case here—I will end on this, if I may—I would say that we need to say no to this motion because it clearly limits our duty and our work as parliamentarians.

Since citizenship is at the heart of the minister's amendments, we must do our work in a rigorous and transparent manner. We must be able to handle these issues, but through a government bill, so that the debates are longer and the issue is studied much more in depth.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has reached a new low. It is defending the interests of terrorists rather than protecting law-abiding Canadians. The NDP has been instructed to try to block my private member's bill, Bill C-425, in committee and prevent it from moving forward.

Bill C-425 would strip convicted terrorists of their Canadian citizenship. Eighty per cent of Canadians support strong measures like this to combat terrorism.

The leader of the NDP and his party are completely out of touch with Canadian.

Our Conservative government is committed to strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship. We do not think convicted terrorists deserve the privilege of calling themselves Canadians.

I urge the leader of the NDP to stop trying to dilute the values of Canadian citizenship and standing up for the interests of terrorists, and let us move forward with my bill.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will summarize what I've said. Obviously our witnesses' arguments are telling. They provided some clarity and clarification by sharing certain concerns and by discussing where problems may arise.

In fact, we truly believe that it is essential to pay significant attention to those comments. Obviously, in terms of what I have presented, we think it is important to consider all these guidelines I have presented, be they national guidelines under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or international guidelines established by the UN or by other international conventions we have signed and ratified. It is essential that we put forward bills that take into consideration these warnings, if I may call them that, that must provide a democratic and fully responsible framework for the measures put forward in certain bills.

We have seen that the amendments proposed by the minister went beyond this initial bill and led us down a path where we are creating, as I said, differences between citizens in a country that, let's remember, is a land of immigration. We know that a lot of people flee their countries and choose to come to Canada and become Canadians so they can benefit from the democracy and freedoms offered by our great country. This bill will create two classes of citizens and, by the way, it will make a distinction between someone with sole citizenship and people with multiple citizenships. Those people may be at risk of losing their Canadian citizenship, even if they were born in Canada and have never been to the other country where they hold citizenship. Canadian citizenship must not be viewed as a driver's licence that could be taken away at any time.

I would also like to come back to what I was saying—I'm not sure if it was yesterday or earlier this morning, but that doesn't matter—about the decision by the Speaker of the House, in response to the question of privilege raised regarding the tabling of the committee's eighth report, which covers expanding the scope of Bill C-425.

The Speaker of the House ruled that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was admissible, strictly speaking. However, he had significant reservations about broadening the scope of the bill. He referred to the absence of explicit jurisprudence in the matter and the dangers related to that.

Therefore, Bill C-425 cannot necessarily be amended in this manner, and we had to be very careful. However, the government does not seem willing to be careful, since it came back with this new motion requesting a 30-day extension to study Bill C-425 in order to broaden its scope.

Clearly, the fact that a private member's bill is being turned into a government bill does not respect the tradition that goes on in Parliament. If the minister wants to implement a legislative agenda, he should do it directly through a government bill, not through a private member's bill.

At the end of May, after their first setback from the chair, the government came back with a new motion presented in committee. This new manoeuvre is a big concern for us, Mr. Chair, because it leaves room for major slip-ups and it especially would set a precedent that might be damaging for the jurisprudence relating to how bills are handled by Canada's Parliament.

Mr. Chair, these practices that aim to bypass the customary procedures and processes are becoming particularly worrisome and require constant vigilance.

Let's go back over a few facts that deserve particular attention.

On March 21, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism appeared before the committee. During his testimony, he literally dictated numerous amendments that broadened the scope of Bill C-425 considerably and radically changed the meaning of the initial version.

It should be noted that these amendments fit on two pages per official language, while the document tabled by the member for Calgary Northeast fit on a single page, including the French and English versions. Already, without even taking the time to read the proposed amendments, we can see by the number of pages that these amendments will really distort the bill in question which, itself, fit on only one page.

These amendments, which were the only ones proposed by the Conservatives, were then tabled by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at the very end of the process of studying the bill. Therefore, the members of the committee were not able to ask witnesses about what could have become the very essence of the bill.

Let's remember that the legislative text tabled by the member for Calgary Northeast, in addition to being significantly broadened, was completely changed. In the end, less than 10% of the final document came from the initial bill. Even the title of the bill no longer had any purpose because the section on honouring the armed forces became purely secondary and was really swept aside. In fact, the amendments were no longer in line with honouring of the Canadian Forces.

That shows you just how imposing the amendments were, so imposing that the amendments proposed by the minister were rejected by the chair. Indeed, the chair had no choice but to reject the amendments. There was no other solution. The chair had to make that choice and say, pure and simple, that the amendments proposed by the minister could not be received. Since they went against the initial principle of the bill, they were deemed inadmissible by the chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

As a result, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had to table a report in the House. Mr. Chair, the report tabled by the government was quite worrisome. It requested that the scope of the bill be broadened to include aspects that had nothing to do with the Canadian Armed Forces, when that formed the very basis of Mr. Shory's bill.

Two related problems stem from that.

First of all, the minister has just skirted around the work done by the committee members by imposing his amendments on his parliamentary secretary and, obviously, the committee. Then—and this is the heart of the matter—the bill…

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm now at point B of the B'nai Brith brief:

B. Statelessness The bill as it stands applies to both citizens and legal residents of a country other than Canada. It would potentially remove Canadian citizenship from either. A person who is a legal resident of another country but not a citizen of another country, on losing Canadian citizenship, would become stateless. Canada is obligated by international treaty to avoid statelessness, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness to which Canada acceded in 1978. The obligation has an exception worth nothing, that a person may be deprived of nationality even if it creates statelessness where the nationality has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. This exception means that the revocation provisions in the current law conform to the dictates of the convention. The possibility of loss of Canadian citizenship now in the bill for someone is a permanent resident of another country but not a citizen of another country should be excised. We note that Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney on March 21 asked this committee to consider an amendment so that only those with dual citizenship would be deemed to have renounced their Canadian citizenship under the provisions proposed in the bill. … We note the observations of former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler in the parliamentary debate on Bill C-425 at second reading on February 15 that a private member’s bill does not go through the same constitutional scrutiny as a government bill before it is tabled in the House of Commons. The right to citizenship is a constitutional right.

It’s important to remember that. The way I see it, these are very important observations that MP Irwin Cotler has made, but it is clear that they are not made unanimously.

Pursuant to section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to citizenship is a constitutional right. Later, I will probably compare the bill and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which will let us consider from that perspective the amendments that we want to make to this private member’s bill.

Revoking citizenship for whatever reason of a person born in Canada, raised in Canada, whose primary connection is Canada is arguably a violation of the constitutional right to citizenship.

These remarks, like many others I have read so far, are really crucial. This involves a direct violation of the constitutional right to citizenship, according to section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which stipulates that the right to citizenship is a constitutional right.

A person born in Canada who has a connection primarily with Canada and has little connection with the country of dual citizenship should not become subject to deemed renunciation/revocation of Canadian citizenship under this law.

We are again at the very heart of amendments that some want to make to the bill and that ensure that acquiring and maintaining citizenship is completely overhauled. By the way, if I may say so, these measures are going to create two-tiered citizens. We need to say that the right to citizenship is a constitutional right that can and must be respected.

I will now address the part of the B’nai Brith brief that covers foreign convictions:

d) Foreign convictions The fourth category raises the question of the appropriateness of taking into account a foreign conviction. Many repressive governments label their opponents, particularly their armed opponents, terrorists. We must not take that labeling at face value.

Obviously, we know some democracies, which claim to be democracies but are not, that do this. We have seen it already. Unfortunately, every day certain people are labeled terrorists because they simply wanted to oppose a repressive government in a particular way. So be careful.

Not every act of rebellion against a repressive government is an act of terrorism. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act denies refugee protection to those subject to “lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards”. There needs to be a similar caveat here. The bill should say that a person could have his citizenship revoked for a foreign conviction for terrorism, “unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards”. ii) Additional grounds Beyond that, once Parliament is expanding the grounds of revocation, as it is with this bill, why limit the grounds to acts of war, treason and terrorism even more broadly encompassed?… This anomaly, at first glance, may not seem that significant since a person complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism or genocide is unlikely to disclose that complicity on application to enter Canada and, if he or she did so, would likely be refused entry. However, the Nazi war criminal experience has shown us that sometimes it is easier to establish complicity in massive criminality than misrepresentation on entry, since entry records may have been destroyed and memories of entry officials unreliable. If we can prove complicity in massive crimes, but not lying on entry, that complicity should be enough for revocation. Right now the war crimes unit in the Department of Justice has a policy for Nazi era cases that the department would not seek revocation unless the department is satisfied that the person is complicit in war crimes or crimes against humanity. However, that is an internal policy only and not a legal requirement.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will continue, even though I have lost my momentum. I am very passionate about these issues because they fundamentally and strikingly change the Citizenship Act, as I have mentioned in my comments so far. We are completely distorting the precepts that have applied so far when it comes to citizenship.

The proposed amendments send a message that Canadians are not all equal and that the loyalty of some Canadians is called into question. Yes, it is an essential issue and argument. Some of our fellow Canadians have already expressed their concerns. In fact, they felt in some way that they were being maligned by the messages being conveyed. They were concerned. Sometimes, as I mentioned, Canadians do not know they have dual citizenship and might become stateless persons.

There is another important aspect. I truly believe that we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to ensure that the Canadians who make up our country, the builders, the immigrants who came to build Canada, are truly regarded and considered as full-fledged Canadians. That is not what the bill's proposed amendments say, which raises the following question: are all Canadians equal? Is there discrimination when a person belongs to a certain category? These are vital questions, and they need to be asked. We need to find some real answers.

This negative message affects some Canadians in particular, including Muslims and Arabs, who have been persistently and unfairly associated with terrorism. Unfortunately, some Muslims or Arabs have suffered from the direct impact of this hatred toward these communities, something we have unfortunately seen since the 2001 terrorist attacks. It's appalling.

We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to pay attention and ensure there are no differences. When certain citizens are singled out, it further stirs up these disparities and this hatred that, unfortunately, we know exist. It's our responsibility to see to that.

I will now share with you the brief from B'nai Brith on Bill C-425, which was prepared for the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and tabled for the April 18, 2013 meeting:

Bill C-425 proposes that those who are citizens or legal residents of a country other than Canada and who engage in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces would be deemed to apply for renunciation of Canadian citizenship. The government has indicated that it would propose amendments to the bill. These amendments have not yet been tabled.

I need to clarify that at that point, these amendments had not yet been tabled.

The absence of the text of the amendments has both an advantage and a disadvantage. The disadvantage is that their absence makes it difficult to be specific about matters of potential concern. The advantage is that the situation is now fluid. The government may well be more flexible before the amendments are introduced than afterwards. A. Acts of War The first question is: what is intended by the phrase “an act of war”? The member of Parliament who introduced the bill, Devinder Shory, said to this committee on March 19 that what he intended “was to address those individuals who are either members of some armed forces or armed group who attack our men and women in uniform.” So for him, an act of war was an attack on Canadian men or women in uniform. In terms of international law, an act of war is an act which justifies a military response. An act of war permits going to war in response without the response being considered an act of aggression. An act of war against Canada can be committed in a number of ways. One way, to be sure, is to attack the Canadian armed forces. However, it is not the only way. Other ways are to attack a Canadian merchant vessel, blow up public buildings, assassinate the political leaders or diplomatic representatives, bomb civilian centres and so on. Why would there be a deemed application of renunciation of citizenship for an act of war in one way but not another? Surely, if an act of war justifies a deemed application of renunciation of citizenship, that justification stands no matter how the act of war was committed. The bill suggests that there is a right way and a wrong way to commit an act of war against Canada, or perhaps more accurately, a bad way and a worse way and that the worst way of all is to attack the Canadian armed forces. We are reluctant to rank acts of war against Canada in terms of their gravity. We consider them all bad. How could one possibly say that an attack on a civilian centre of any of the major Canadian cities ranks less in gravity than an attack on the Canadian armed forces? We recommend that this bill, instead of mandating revocation of citizenship for those who committed acts of war against the Canadian armed forces, mandate revocation for those who have committed acts of war against Canada pure and simple. We note that Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney stated to this committee on March 21 that there is no clear definition of what constitutes an act of war and suggested that the committee amend the bill by replacing that term with other acts that are more clearly defined in law. The phrase the minister suggested at the committee to replace “war” was “armed conflict”. Our position is that, whatever…

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we need to clarify something. At the outset, I suggested going back over certain testimonies. I will now say that these testimonies are at the heart of Bill C-425 and of what the amendments have in relation to its expansion.

I will continue to provide clarification that I feel is essential. It will make it possible to fully understand our position and the arguments that explain why today we are opposing a motion that was tabled by the government and that we do not agree with. I would therefore like to be able to continue to present those arguments in the manner I see fit.

When the government members take the floor and present arguments to justify their position, I never question that. I simply listen and provide counter-arguments when necessary. I do not question what any of them say on any issue. That is why I would like them to extend the same courtesy to me.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will continue then. I was talking about the shortcomings of Bill C-425 and the repercussions of the provisions in the bill.

I would first like to go back to the two classes of citizens, which I mentioned. Clearly, according to this bill, Canadian citizenship can be considered a privilege and can be revoked just like a driver's licence can. However, we are not talking about a traffic violation for which someone's driver's licence may be suspended. We are talking about people's citizenship, after all.

Let us look at the legal aspect. Bill C-425 imposes a double penalty on those affected by the initiative, because a legal penalty might be combined with a revocation or withdrawal of the Canadian citizenship. That is commonly known as a double penalty. Obviously, people with dual citizenship would be subject to a harsher ruling than those who solely have Canadian citizenship.

To substantiate my comments, I would like to refer to some presentations that were given at our committee meetings. They clarify in a very relevant and meaningful way all the discussions that we had in committee regarding Bill C-425. They also provide additional information on whether this bill is appropriate and whether it is appropriate to expand its scope.

I will start by reading the comments made by the Canadian Bar Associations regarding Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces):

Dear Mr. Tilson: I am writing on behalf of the National Immigration Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA Section) regarding Bill C-425, Citizenship Act amendments (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces). The CBA is a national association of over 37,000 lawyers, notaries, students and law teachers, with a mandate to promote improvements in the law and the administration of justice. The CBA Section comprises lawyers whose practices embrace all aspects of immigration and refugee law. Citizenship and the rights and obligations that flow from citizenship are the fundamental cornerstones of a democratic society.

I think those comments are fundamental because they really place the concept of citizenship in a context of paramount importance for our democratic societies.

Bill C-425 would amend the Citizenship Act to deem dual citizens who “engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces” to have applied to renounce their Canadian citizenship. The CBA Section opposes such a significant alteration of the nature of Canadian citizenship without a greater opportunity for discussion and participation in the drafting process.

As you can see, the section emphasizes that we are dealing with a major amendment to the very nature of Canadian citizenship. As I said earlier, it is not the same thing as having your driver's licence suspended because of an offence. We are talking about a fundamental precept of our society.

The Bill proposes to create two classes of citizens. Dual citizens would risk losing Canadian citizenship in certain unclearly defined circumstances, even if they were born in Canada and had lived their entire lives here.

What is this bill trying to do? As the Bar noted, someone born in Canada who committed any wrongdoing would lose their citizenship de facto. As a result, this type of designation would create a category of first-class citizens, if you will, and a category of second-class citizens. This principle is completely and utterly in disagreement with the very concept of citizenship, according to which, in principle, an individual who is a member of a nation is a full-fledged member.

Although it is implied in some of the public discourse on the Bill that it targets naturalized citizens, it does not in fact make that distinction. A naturalized Canadian who does not have another nationality or had renounced their other nationality would be protected from loss of Canadian citizenship. A citizen born in Canada who had acquired another nationality through their parents or other means would, however, be at risk of losing their Canadian citizenship even if they had remained in Canada since birth.

Earlier, I mentioned that some people were not even aware that they had dual citizenship. This means that they would be caught off guard if this provision of the law would inadvertently left them without their Canadian citizenship.

The CBA Section is troubled by comments from the government suggesting that substantial additions could be made to the Bill in the review by this committee. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has suggested that the Bill may be expanded to include loss of citizenship for individuals connected to certain acts of terrorism. Without these proposed amendments, it is difficult for the CBA Section to comment, although our experience with the breadth of the “terrorism” sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act gives reason for concern.

In the opinion article, the Minister says ”there should be a high legal threshold for triggering deemed renunciation of citizenship, with appropriate legal safeguards.” We agree. However, the Bill provides neither protections nor clarity. The concept of “act of war” is not defined in the Bill, nor is there a clear reference to a definition elsewhere. Given the nature of contemporary warfare, defining the limits of an “act of war” could prove to be a challenging task. Considering that even the most egregious criminal offences would not put Canadians at risk of losing their citizenship, the precise nature of activities that might carry such a penalty should be very clearly defined. Should the government wish to make a critical change to the nature of Canadian citizenship, it would be more appropriate to do so by presenting its own Bill to Parliament...

Mr. Chair, this relates to the key issue that we started with a private member's bill that was expanded only to become a government bill. Our questions and concerns have also been shared by our witnesses. As illustrated in what I just read, the Canadian Bar Association also refers to this aspect. In addition, the CBA feels that:

...it would be more appropriate to do so by presenting its own Bill to Parliament and providing the time and opportunity for adequate consideration and public discussion.

Mr. Chair, in this context, the legislative procedures that usually take place must be followed. In other words, debate must take place and the same amount of time should be allocated to debating this issue as the amount of time usually allocated to debating a government bill. That would make it possible for everyone in the parliamentary precinct, for every member of the House to debate a very sensitive and important concept and dimension of our society. As a result, the debate, in this case a public debate, can be conducted properly, as the Canadian Bar Association suggests:

Informed debate and discussion are at the core of the democratic process of legislating.

Mr. Chair, let us remember that the democratic process is an essential process for our House of Commons without which we would not have a reason to exist or we would not be able to represent our constituents. Without this process, we would not be able to make public some important changes that are part of such a broad context that, democratically speaking, we need to be able to discuss them freely.

Yours truly,

I will continue by reading the very enlightening comments sent to us by the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG). The comments were submitted to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on April 17, 2013.

The ICLMG is a pan-Canadian coalition of civil society organizations that was established in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. The coalition brings together 39 NGOs, unions, professional associations, faith groups, environmental organizations, human rights and civil liberties advocates, as well as groups representing immigrant and refugee communities in Canada. Active in the promotion and defence of fundamental rights within their respective sectors of Canadian society, ICLMG members have come together to share their concerns about the impact of new anti-terrorism legislation and other anti-terrorism measures on civil liberties, human rights, refugee protection, minority groups, political dissent, governance of charities, international co-operation and humanitarian assistance.

Mr. Chair, that shows the magnitude of the issue and all the ramifications of these new legal provisions that could be implemented. They could have a major impact on the granting or retention of Canadian citizenship.

In the introduction, the monitoring group says:

Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces) is a private member’s bill, introduced by Devinder Shory, MP. The bill would allow permanent residents who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces to obtain Canadian citizenship more quickly, and would provide for Canadians to be stripped of their citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces. Bill C-425 is currently before committee. On 21 March, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration told the committee that he is proposing a number of amendments to the bill. Among these is an amendment to have the power to strip citizenship of people who have been convicted of various terrorism offences.

Mr. Chair, the monitoring group provides the following explanation in a footnote:

The exact wording of the amendment was not tabled, but the Minister proposed that citizenship could be stripped from “those who've served as a member of an armed forces of a country or as a member of an organized armed group that was engaged in an armed conflict with Canada; or have been convicted of high treason under section 47 of the Criminal Code; or have been sentenced to five years or more of imprisonment for terrorism offences, as defined in section 2 of the code, or equivalent foreign offences for terrorism; or have been convicted of offences under sections 73 to 76 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life because they acted traitorously; or have been convicted of an offence under section 78 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life; or have been convicted under section 130 of the National Defence Act for committing high treason punishable under section 47 of the Criminal Code or for committing a terrorism offence and it is defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to at least five years in prison.”

The comments I just read indicate that the minister also proposed that citizenship be stripped only from dual citizens so that people would not be left stateless.

Here are some concerns raised by the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. First of all, according to the ICLMG, all citizens must be treated equally. I was just talking about this fundamental issue and about not discriminating between a permanent resident and a Canadian citizen. Yet this type of rhetoric is brought forward and the monitoring group is concerned about that:

1. All citizens must be treated equally It is unfair and discriminatory to have citizens face different consequences for committing the same crimes. Creating separate rules for dual citizens creates a two-tier citizenship, with lesser rights for some citizens.

That is where we are at, Mr. Chair. We are faced with an important decision in light of the amendments that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism brought forward to expand the scope of this private member's bill. In so doing, instead of pursuing the initial objective of the bill, we would replace it with considerations that are basically not consistent with fundamental human rights.

The second concern expressed by the ICLMG is as follows:

2. Vagueness of terrorism definition The term “terrorism” is problematic because it is vague, broad and politicized. In fact, there is no consensus on its definition at the United Nations, nor are there any definitions of the concept in any important international instruments such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

That means that there are benchmarks and we cannot legislate based on a concept that would make us ignore those restrictions or pretend that they no longer exist. We would be interfering with the issue and proposing changes to the Citizenship Act that go far beyond those national and international benchmarks.

Earlier, I referred to the charter that no longer limits our laws in a meaningful and necessary way. The definition introduced...

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will continue then. Perhaps I should first remind you of what I have been saying this morning, since I was interrupted.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I will go back to Bill C-425, which is a private member's bill. I will first remind you of its purpose and provide you with a little background. In this context, I will also talk about its substance and remind you of the bill's title, which is quite telling in terms of the bill's scope. If the bill were expanded to include the amendments introduced by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, even the title would no longer fit the proposed content. Let me remind you that the title of this bill is An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

The bill introduced by our colleague Mr. Shory was definitely talking about acts of war, not of terrorism. In fact, the minister's amendments are so broad that they would have a significant impact on Bill C-425, by creating two classes of citizens. I think that is an important point we need to keep in mind. However, that will have little or no impact on terrorism. Actually, if we include the additional amendments, Mr. Shory's bill will no longer promote citizenship, but it will devalue the fact of having dual citizenship. Quite clearly, that goes against the principle of fairness in law and it brings in an arbitrary component, as well as an idea of discrimination, as I mentioned before.

In terms of the context of this bill, let me remind you that Mr. Shory wants to reduce from three to two years the required years of residence in Canada for a member of the Canadian Armed Forces wishing to obtain citizenship. In so doing, the bill proposes that a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada who has another citizenship and who engages in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship. In addition, a permanent resident of Canada who engages in such an act of war is deemed to have withdrawn their application for Canadian citizenship.

I will therefore read what the bill says:

1. (1) Subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (e) and by adding the following after that paragraph: (e.1) is not a person to whom subsection 9(1.2) applies; and (2) Subsection 5(4) of the Act is replaced by the following: (4) In order to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, (a) the Governor in Council may, in his discretion, direct the Minister to grant citizenship to any person and, where such a direction is made, the Minister shall forthwith grant citizenship to the person named in the direction; and (b) in the case of any permanent resident who is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who has signed a minimum three-year contract and who has completed basic training, the Minister shall, on application, reduce by one year the required years of residence in Canada for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c) or subsection 11(1). 2. Section 9 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1): (1.1) A Canadian citizen who is also a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces. (1.2) A permanent resident of Canada who has made an application for Canadian citizenship is deemed to have withdrawn their application if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces. 3. Subsection 11(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after that paragraph: (c.1) is not a person who has ceased to be a citizen by virtue of subsection 9(1.1); and

Mr. Chair, if we take a look at Bill C-425, we see that the first page is the cover page that mentions the title of the bill. On the second page, there is a short summary. On the third page, we see the subsections of the Citizenship Act and the desired amendments.

Mr. Chair, when this private member's bill was referred to the committee, we quickly reached a unanimous conclusion about its scope and limitations, as well as the need for clarifications and amendments to improve it. That is actually why it was referred to committee before second reading. Of course, we had no idea then that the amendments that the committee and various parties were ready to bring to this bill would go beyond its scope and purpose, which is to honour the Canadian Forces.

We discussed it and listened to witnesses before reaching the unanimous conclusion to appropriately recognize our armed forces. One way to recognize and honour the armed forces is to make it easier for permanent residents to obtain citizenship so that they can strengthen the number of our military men and women serving our nation.

That said, Mr. Chair, when the minister himself appeared before us and told us that he might propose additional amendments to Bill C-425, we obviously wondered about the new scope of the bill. Mr. Chair, I stress and reiterate that we were concerned right away about the possibility of new amendments being added to the bill to include measures that no longer corresponded to the initial bill at all. That is why we in the official opposition have expressed our deepest concern and clearly pointed to the magnitude of the changes made to the initial bill through these new amendments. We are simply noting that, by continuing down this path, making additional amendments will distort the bill to such an extent that this bill will no longer be a private member's bill, but rather a government bill altogether.

I would like to remind you that, since this bill is no longer a private member's bill, but rather a government bill, from a minister in this case, the minister could himself prepare a government bill with the amendments he wants to make to Bill C-425.

So concerns and questions definitely come to mind. The motion we are debating today dealing with the 30-day extension of the bill is not in order. In that context, I will continue to refer to some of our discussions in committee on Bill C-425.

Initially, we supported this bill with good will. We actually voted to have it sent to committee to be amended and to move forward the way it was supposed to in the beginning, with a view to honouring the Canadian Forces. The goal of the bill was to create another pathway to integrate permanent residents, to underscore the incredible worth of Canadian citizenship and to honour the contribution of our brave men and women in uniform. Clearly, we could not be against the intent of a bill like that, on the contrary.

This diversity is one of our country's characteristics. Canada's diversity is incomparable to other countries and I think we are fortunate because of that. Initially, this bill was supposed to specifically allow permanent residents, who represent this diversity, to enrol in the Canadian Forces. Under those circumstances, we were in agreement. We were all for bringing this diversity to our military. We actually supported the idea of fast-tracking Canadian citizenship to reward the dedication of permanent residents who serve in the Canadian Forces. We were also in favour of Canada's diversity being reflected in the Canadian Forces.

But now some aspects of the bill dealing with applications for renunciation of Canadian citizenship and the withdrawal of applications for Canadian citizenship are problematic. As stated, the bill proposes that a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada who engages in an act of war against the Canadian Forces is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship. Similarly, a permanent resident who engages in an act of war will be deemed to have withdrawn their application for Canadian citizenship. However, the bill does not clearly indicate whether legal proceedings are needed to determine whether someone did engage in an act of war and does not specify who would make that decision. That is one of the bill's shortcomings. We talked about that issue in committee. We were supposed to explore it further and decide on amendments that would address this shortcoming.

In addition, some key terms were not defined. For instance, the term “act of war” is not defined in Canadian law. Likewise, the term “legal resident of a country other than Canada” is not defined.

We still had to deal with a bill that, as I have just described, had a great deal of limitations and shortcomings. In a way, we had to take a second look at the bill and its limitations in light of its purpose of honouring the Canadian Forces, instead of extrapolating under the pretext that the minister wanted to make amendments to this bill. But there was so much extrapolation that the initial bill clearly became a government bill. Let me remind you that the minister will have full latitude to introduce a bill like that if he wants.

I also wanted to stress the fact that the major changes made by the Conservatives to the Canadian immigration system have not made it more effective or fair, unfortunately.

The NDP supports the idea of Canada's diversity being better reflected in the Canadian Armed Forces. However, the circumstances under which Canadian citizenship could actually be revoked or an application for citizenship withdrawn must fully comply with the law and follow the normal legal process. Yes, it is true that some witnesses talked about the concept of natural justice, where anyone can have an opportunity to defend their own situation or case, since that is provided for under the law. Since many aspects of Bill C-425 had limitations, the justice system would not be allowed to have a say in a measure dealing specifically with the potential withdrawal of citizenship.

Witnesses clearly told us that this was an arbitrary way of doing things. This is really a situation where the rule of law has no place, which is not normal. Let us not forget that, constitutionally speaking, we have the charter to give us the necessary benchmarks so that every individual has a right to a defence and to an appeal under any circumstances.

In addition, we must not forget that this bill will create two classes of citizens, those with only one citizenship and those with more than one citizenship. Those with more than one citizenship would quite simply run the risk of losing their Canadian citizenship, even if they were born in Canada and have never gone to those other countries whose citizenship they have.

If we take into account those considerations, it is clear that statelessness is a possibility. When we talked about the implications, witnesses told us that we really had to be rigorous and pay attention to potential situations of statelessness resulting from a bill like this, since it makes it possible to withdraw the citizenship of people who, for whatever reason, would not be able to establish their second citizenship.

They also mentioned that there were similar measures in other countries that could also lead to statelessness. One of the witnesses clearly mentioned that this was likely to lead to a race between countries to revoke citizenship. It would simply be a matter of which country would be first to revoke the citizenship of a person who committed a particular act. As a result, we were told that an actual bidding war for withdrawing citizenship could take place between various countries.

Another very important dimension is the risk of children being forcibly enlisted in the army by adults who give them weapons and allow them to play soldiers in the same way an adult enlisted in the army would. Those child soldiers can therefore also be affected by a bill like that. Actually, their citizenship could be revoked for having participated in acts of war in the past, while they are not responsible for being forcibly enlisted in the armed forces.

Statelessness was therefore at the heart of our debates on Bill C-425.

I would also like to go back to the issue of citizenship. By having two classes of citizens, those with Canadian citizenship only and those with dual or multiple citizenship, this bill imposes an additional penalty, which is not related to the crime, but rather to the fact of having dual citizenship. That creates an arbitrary and discriminatory concept. As a result, individuals could be charged with crimes they have not committed, just because they have dual or triple citizenship.

I found the comments of one of our witnesses very wise. He drew a parallel and said that citizenship was not like a driver's licence that could be revoked from any offender who went over the speed limit or caused an accident. We really must keep that in mind. Citizenship is much more than a driver's licence, and our role is not to revoke it from offenders in any way, shape or form.

In addition, this bill is discriminatory since some people are not even aware that they have dual citizenship. What will we do with all those people? In this case, witnesses told us that some people don't know that they have dual citizenship.

This bill is arbitrary because it imposes a penalty that cannot be applied to everyone, by stripping some people of their citizenship. This bill is also dependant on what other countries in the same situation as ours do and on many other factors such as the number of citizenships that people have.

As I said, distinctions are being encouraged between individuals. Of course, the content of Bill C-425 is not complete. The limited scope of the bill means that there are a lot of gaps that need to be filled. However, by making additional requests and proposing amendments to completely change the bill, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism seems to go beyond the mandate of this committee.

The bill also provides for discretionary powers. Once again, we find a provision in a bill that allows for additional discretionary powers. In fact, appeals will not be governed by specific rules and will depend on a political will.

Granting discretionary powers through a bill means ignoring all our legal and court benchmarks, which I think is dangerous. The government will grant itself the power to interfere in decisions, to take the position of a judge or a court and to decide whether or not to revoke the citizenship of a given individual. In addition, the right to appeal, which is a legal procedure, is not even proposed in this case. Under these circumstances, clearly, the line between politics and the law is being completely erased. We are at a point where the minister can give himself the power to make rulings on cases, which should be the responsibility of the courts.

I would also like to turn to what witnesses told us about the scope of Bill C-425. Clearly, we applauded the possibility of fast-tracking the citizenship applications of permanent residents. However, the remarks of some witnesses enabled us to understand that the number of permanent residents affected by this bill would be minimal.

It goes without saying that questions come to mind. Given that approximately 15 permanent residents are recruited annually by the Canadian Forces, why would we have a bill that has a negligible impact? Its purpose is to honour the Canadian Forces and to give them an opportunity to be more open to diversity, but given those numbers, we are wondering whether the objective actually corresponds to the intent expressed in this bill.

It was important to look at that together in committee. The bill being limited in its application, the honouring of the Canadian Forces became purely symbolic. So are we still talking about symbols, are adjustments being made or are we going to continue to debate the substance of this bill? Our witnesses told us nonetheless that, with a limited scope, the result would be a symbolic honouring of the Canadian Forces rather than a genuine honouring, which was the intended effect.

The government keeps throwing around the possibility of making Canada safer and the deterrent effect of this bill. Mr. Chair, we know full well that this bill will not have any real deterrent effect on terrorist acts or any other crimes. Witnesses told us so. We also know that, in the U.K., for instance, 13 revocation procedures have been brought forward since 2002. Basically, there is no real reason for making those amendments to the bill.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I mentioned the Speaker's ruling, which takes us back to the very heart of Bill C-425. I would now like to continue talking about the whole process, not just the procedure, that led to what happened with Bill C-425 during our committee discussions and witness testimony. Clearly, expanding the scope of this bill has raised various questions and concerns.

As I said, this is not the first parliamentary manoeuvre brought forward to expand the scope of Bill C-425. In the spring, the government submitted a committee report to the House that was not unanimous in order to expand the scope of Bill C-425 at that time. That first attempt was subject to a point of order, to which I will probably come back later.

The fact remains that today's manoeuvre is not the first one to unilaterally expand the scope of Bill C-425. As I mentioned, on May 21, the Speaker of the House ruled that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was in order, strictly speaking.

However, he expressed major reservations about expanding the scope of the bill and he pointed out that there was no explicit case law on the matter. He reminded members of the dangers associated with this situation.

Before I continue, I would like to go back to the substance of the bill and therefore provide you with the content.

First, I will start by putting things into context. As was mentioned before, Bill C-425 proposes three main reasons for granting or revoking the citizenship of members of the Canadian Armed Forces, under the Citizenship Act. The bill provides for the following two points. First, it provides for a new ministerial power to reduce the length of residency in Canada required for members of the Canadian Armed Forces to obtain citizenship. Second, it provides for the following two things:

(1.1) A Canadian citizen who is also a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces. (1.2) A permanent resident of Canada who has made an application for Canadian citizenship is deemed to have withdrawn their application if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces.

To turn to the explicit content of Bill C-425, I will read amendment G-1, which proposes:

That Bill C-425, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 29 on page 1 with the following: e.1 is not a person to whom subsection [9(1.2)] applies: [...] (2) Section 5 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.1): (1.2) Paragraph (1)(c) does not apply to a permanent resident who, within the period referred to in that paragraph, completed a number of years of service in the Canadian Armed Forces that is equal to the length of residency required under that paragraph less one year. However, that paragraph...

I am sorry, Mr. Chair; I think I made a mistake.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So I will continue to read the Speaker's ruling:

In raising this matter, the hon. member for Toronto Centre explained that during its consideration of Bill C-425, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted a motion recommending that the House grant the committee the power to expand the scope of the bill in order to allow for the consideration of what he called “amendments that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has asked be added to the list”.

This is the crux of our current debate. We are genuinely concerned about the expansion of this bill.

I will continue:

This led to the presentation on April 23, 2013, of the committee's eighth report. He found this approach to be problematic in two respects. First, he argued that pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, committees examining private members' bills are restricted as to the types of reports they can present to the House. He argued essentially that since the eighth report falls outside these parameters, it is out of order. His second argument centred on the impact such a manner of proceeding could have. Specifically, he expressed concern that if committees examining private members' bills were to be allowed latitude to proceed in this fashion, the effect of this practice “will be that the government could, by extrapolation, even add an omnibus feature to a private member’s bill...”

This is one of our concerns, Mr. Chair. Another concern raised by the possibility of turning it into an omnibus bill is, as I said at the beginning of my speech, all this latitude handed en masse to the minister to take over a bill, thereby making it a government bill.

I will continue reading the Speaker's ruling:

The Government House Leader explained that, in view of the differences of opinion expressed in the committee as to whether the amendments proposed were within the scope of the bill, the committee was seeking guidance from the House on the matter. In making this observation, he pointed out that this process would result in a number of hours of debate in the House on the committee report before a decision was taken. In his presentation the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that Standing Order 97.1 does not preclude a committee from seeking an instruction from the House in relation to a private member's bill. He further explained that the committee remains seized of Bill C-425 and that its eighth report in no way supersedes the 60-sitting-day deadline to report the bill back to the House. At the outset the Chair wishes to clarify what appear to be certain misconceptions about the nature of private members' bills. The first of these has to do with the arguments made by the House leader for the official opposition and the member for Saint-Lambert in reference to the constitutional compliance of legislation sponsored by private members.

As pointed out by the member for Saint-Lambert, constitutional compliance is among the criteria used by the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business to determine non-votability of private members' bills. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, describes these criteria at page 1130, including one requirement that “bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. The Chair is not aware of further constitutional compliance tests that are applied to any kind of legislation, whether sponsored by the government or by private members, once bills are before the House or its committees. In addition, hon. members will recall that in a recent ruling delivered on March 27, I reminded the House that as Speaker I have no role in interpreting matters of a constitutional or legal nature. Another apparent source of confusion has to do with the difference between private bills and public bills. Virtually all the bills that come before the House are public bills, whether they are sponsored by private members or by the government. As O'Brien and Bosc explains at page 1178: Private bills must not be confused with private Members' bills. Although private bills are sponsored by private Members, the term “private Member's bill” refers only to public bills dealing with a matter of public policy introduced by Members who are not Ministers. Thus both government and private members’ bills are subject to the same basic legislative process, namely introduction and first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage and, finally, third reading. At the same time, the House has seen fit to devise specific procedures for dealing with public bills sponsored by the government and private members alike. For example, Standing Order 73 allows the government to propose that a government bill be referred to committee before second reading after a five-hour debate. The purpose of this rule is to allow greater flexibility to members in committee by enabling them to propose amendments to alter the scope of the measure. The procedures in place for dealing with private members’ bills are likewise many layered, and have evolved in response to particular situations faced by the House in the past. This is the case with the provision for a maximum of two hours of debate at second reading, which came about to allow the House to consider more items and thus to allow more private members to have their measures considered. Similarly, Standing Order 97.1 was originally brought in to ensure that private members’ bills referred to committee would be returned to the House and to the order of precedence in a timely fashion.

In the present case, it appears to the Chair that the essence of the procedural question before me is to determine whether the House has the power to grant permission to a committee to expand the scope of a private member's bill after that scope has been agreed to by the House at second reading and, if so, whether this can be achieved by way of a committee report. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, is helpful in this regard. It states at page 752: Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill, consolidating two or more bills into a single bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. Clearly then, by way of a motion of instruction, the House can grant a committee the power to expand the scope of a bill, be it a government bill or a private member's bill. An example can be found at page 289 of the Journals for April 27, 2010, where an opposition member moved a motion of instruction related to a government bill. Having established that the House does have the authority to grant permission to a committee to expand the scope of a bill through a motion of instruction, the question becomes whether a committee report is also a procedurally valid way to achieve the same result. The member for Toronto Centre is correct in saying that the explicit authority to present this type of report is not found in Standing Order No. 97.1, which exists to oblige committees to respect deadlines for reporting back to the House on private members' bills. In that respect, Standing Order No. 97.1 continues to apply. However, Standing Order No. 108(1)(a) does grant committees this power under their more general mandate to: …examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House [and] to report from time to time… In describing the three broad categories of reports that standing committees normally present, O’Brien and Bosc, at page 985, describe administrative and procedural reports as those: in which standing committees ask the House for special permission or additional powers, or those that deal with a matter of privilege or procedure arising from committee proceedings.

An example of a committee reporting on a matter related to a bill may be found in the Journals of April 29, 2008, where, in its sixth report, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development felt compelled to provide reasons why it did not complete the study of a particular private member’s bill. Finally, O'Brien and Bosc, at page 752, further state: A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House. This undoubtedly could be done only through the presentation of a committee report to the House. What this confirms is that the authority of the House to grant permission to a committee to expand the scope of a bill can be sought and secured, either through a motion of instruction or through concurrence in a committee report. O’Brien and Bosc summarizes this well at page 992: If a standing, legislative or special committee requires additional powers, they may be conferred on the committee by an order of the House—by far the most common approach—or by concurrence in a committee report requesting the conferring of those powers. Later, O’Brien and Bosc explain, at page 1075: Recommendations in committee reports are normally drafted in the form of motions so that, if the reports are concurred in, the recommendations become clear orders or resolutions of the House. Just as the adoption of a motion of instruction to a committee would become an order of the House, so too would the adoption of a committee report requesting the permission of the House to expand the scope of a bill. Of course, it has always been the case that instructions to a committee must be in proper form. According to O’Brien and Bosc, at page 754, such instructions must be “worded in such a way that the committee will clearly understand what the House wants”. It is nevertheless clear to the Chair that there is genuine disquiet about the impact of this attempted procedural course of action.

At this point, Mr. Chair, the Speaker of the House is acknowledging well-founded and potentially genuine concerns about this course of action and about a request of this nature when made through a committee report.

Going back to the words of the Speaker of the House:

The Chair is not deaf to those concerns and, in that light, wishes to reassure the House that this manner of proceedings does not obviate the need for committees to observe all the usual rules governing the admissibility of amendments to the clauses of a bill, which are described in detail at pages 766 to 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition.

He mentioned the admissibility of amendments, Mr. Chair. The Speaker of the House made this clarification in order to reply to the concerns raised by the tabling of the eighth report with reference to the expansion of Bill C-425.

Going back to the Speaker's ruling:

In particular, granting a committee permission to expand the scope of a bill does not, ipso facto, grant it permission to adopt amendments that run counter to its principle. Were a committee to report a bill to the House containing inadmissible amendments, O’Brien and Bosc at page 775 states: The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative. For all of the reasons outlined, I must conclude that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is in order. I thank all hon. members for their attention.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to continue with the reminder that the constitutionality of private members' business is studied only at the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business before the bill is debated at second reading, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1).

In attempting to expand the scope of the bill after second reading, the government is quite simply bypassing the constitutionality test and seeking to be able to amend private members' bills as it wishes instead of presenting its ideas in the form of government bills that must, as a requirement, go through the Department of Justice's constitutionality test.

The difference is huge, when one works on the assumption that a private member's bill does not necessarily have to go through the constitutionality test and is revised and studied by a subcommittee. But the principle for a government bill is quite different.

So I will conclude by urging you to pay particular attention to the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration which, in the opinion of the New Democratic Party, should be declared out of order. A motion of instruction like this is much too broad for the House to be assured that subsequent changes made by the committee will not include concepts that are foreign to the bill and will not conform to the charter.

Earlier, I was talking about conformity with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and I feel that it is also an essential point in the debate we are having about this motion. Giving so much latitude to a committee will create an extremely dangerous precedent, which will most certainly used by this majority government in a partisan and antidemocratic way.

Thank you for your attention to my remarks. To help you with your study of this important question, I am going to make available to you the testimony that resulted from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's study of Bill C-425. I feel sure that, when you examine this testimony, you will also agree that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is out of order.

So I will now move to the reply given to that point of order by the Speaker of the House of Commons. That reply makes us aware of the legislative principles behind the introduction of a government bill and a private member's bill. The reply also shows us the extent to which it will be necessary to define those two categories of bills, categories that differ in part.

So here is the Speaker's reply to the point of order.

Before moving on to questions and comments, I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 25 by the hon. member for Toronto Centre regarding the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, recommending that the scope of C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces)be expanded. I would like to thank the hon. member for Toronto Centre for having raised this issue, and the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, and the members for Winnipeg North, Saint-Lambert and Calgary Northeast for their interventions. In raising this matter, the hon. member for Toronto Centre explained that during its consideration of Bill C-425,…

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to clarify that it really is an interpretation problem, I feel, because I did not say that they were playing the victims.

Madam Chair, if we needed proof that this bill is no longer what it was at the outset, a private member's bill, that is, we had that proof yesterday evening. We certainly have confirmation that it is now a government bill. The 30-day extension in order to expand the scope of Bill C-425 shows the same thing.

Let us tell those who are listening to us that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is perfectly capable of introducing a government bill himself. It will give him all the freedom he needs to include his own amendments that he wants to make to Bill C-425 and, not to put too fine a point on it, that he wants to impose on this committee.

Before resuming the remarks that I was making last night, or, perhaps I should say, very early this morning, I would like to insist once more on the importance of the level of decorum and respect to which we as parliamentarians are held.

As a result of this request for the extension and the amendments submitted during the study on the amendments introduced during the discussion on Bill C-425, this became a question of privilege. I would like to share the matter of privilege with the committee and also the decision made by the Speaker of the House in reply to that request:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the question of privilege—which is not truly a question of privilege—raised by my colleague from Toronto Centre. The question has to do with the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which recommends to the House that it: ...be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces) to expand the scope of the Bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces.

Clearly, a question of privilege had to be raised so that we could see if the eighth report could make a claim for Bill C-425 to be extended.

From the outset, Bill C-425, the bill the committee has been dealing with, was a private member's bill, and I can never remind you of that enough. With the request to expand the scope of the bill, here we are again discussing the procedure.

I would like to review for you the reasons why the request should be ruled out of order. However, before I do so, I would like to set the record straight about what my colleagues have said up to now.

When the honourable government House leader, the member for York—Simcoe, spoke last April 25, he misled the House by insinuating that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was asking for:

…the House to debate it for a number of hours and decide whether we think it is within the scope…

As you know, Madam Chair, that is not the case at all. The report does not ask us to judge whether the suggested amendments are within the scope of the bill. On the contrary, as I will explain later, the committee has clearly demonstrated that it knows the proposed amendments go beyond the scope of the bill. In fact, the bill, which was really limited to recognizing and honouring the Canadian Forces, was all of a sudden fixed up with amendments that clearly went beyond its scope and changed it into a different bill entirely. The report asked the House to empower, or not empower, the committee to expand the scope of the bill, not to pass judgment on amendments that could subsequently be introduced at committee.

I must also add that the honourable member for Toronto-Centre clearly did not do his homework by hastily talking about adopting the report before a motion to adopt it had appeared on the Order Paper. Procedure follows procedure and things are moving quickly, but they did not really conform to the legal procedures of the House. This caused some problems and led us to turn to the Speaker of the House.

So a committee is within its rights to ask for instructions from the House about extending the scope of a bill. In the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O'Brien and Bosc are clear on the matter:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example:…consolidating two or more bills into a single bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

That is precisely what the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is seeking to do through its eighth report. However, and I am now getting to the point of my comments, there is a limit to the instructions that the House may give to a committee. Once again, I quote O'Brien and Bosc:

A motion of instruction will be ruled out of order if it does not relate to the content of the bill, if it goes beyond the scope of the bill (for example, by embodying a principle that is foreign to it …)

Madam Chair, this passage is critical and fundamental, because it indeed states that the main essence of the original bill will be transformed. I will continue to quote my comments on the matter of privilege:

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that you must intervene and rule that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's request for instruction is out of order. This request is far too broad and does not allow the House to determine if the committee is likely to include a principle that is foreign to the bill. There is some precedent where motions of instruction were deemed to be in order and were debated in the House. However, in each of those instances, the instructions were far clearer than those sought by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration today.

When I mention amendments that are far clearer, it simply means that, when making amendments, attention must be paid to the nature of the original bill; amendments must be restricted so that they cannot alter the nature of the original bill. We have an example on April 27, 2010, when my colleague, the honourable member for Nanaimo—Cowichan proposed the following motion of instruction:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, that it have the power during its consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs) to expand the scope of the Bill so that a grandchild born before 1985 with a female grandparent would receive the same entitlement to status as a grandchild of a male grandparent born in the same period.

Madam Chair, that motion was very clear and was rightly ruled to be in order. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was therefore given permission to expand the scope of the bill, but within very precise limits on the way in which the committee could do it. There were clear and precise instructions to prevent the scope of the original bill from being transformed and diverted away from its original intent. By stating its position on the bill, the House could be assured that the committee would not include in the bill a principle that would be foreign to it.

Conversely, the motion of instruction that we have before us comes right out and asks the House for the power to expand the bill to the extent that it would not just apply to the Canadian Forces. Exactly what does that mean? How does the committee want to amend the bill so that it would no longer apply solely to the Canadian Forces?

As it currently stands, the bill allows, among other things, permanent residents who are members of the Canadian Forces to obtain citizenship more quickly. Of course, we are in favour of that. By asking that the bill apply not just to the Canadian Forces, is the committee hinting that it would like to amend the bill to allow permanent residents working in professions that have no relation to the Canadian Forces to obtain citizenship more quickly?

In our discussions at committee, in the presence of the witnesses we called, we have actually brought up the possibility of extending Bill C-425 to others, not just those who want to enlist in the Canadian Forces. Clearly, this private member's bill was limited to the Canadian Forces and our suggestion was ruled out of order.

Madam Chair, this is not clear at all. How can the House make a decision about a motion of instruction like this when it is impossible to know how the committee will proceed and whether or not it will try to include in the bill a principle that is foreign to it?

I would also add that, if this motion of instruction to the committee were to be deemed in order, it would create a dangerous precedent. If we allow a standing committee to expand the scope of a bill without precise instructions, we will be opening the door to very sensitive issues, given the current context. Let us not overlook this majority government's propensity for using private members' business to promote its own agenda. When used like that, private members' bills become a way for the government to get round the rules.

Catherine Dauvergne, a professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia appeared as an individual when the committee was studying Bill C-425. She could not have more clearly expressed the danger of asking for this kind of instruction:

Second, such a profound change to our Citizenship Act such as the one the minister is proposing must not be done by a process like this, by a private member's bill. That process reduces the time allowed for debate and for this committee to do its work and it protects the changes that the minister is proposing. This is controlling democracy.

We do indeed find ourselves in a situation where debates are scheduled as if the process were for a private member's bill. Those debates will not have the same breadth and scope as they would if we were dealing with a government bill or a departmental bill to which additional hours of debate had been assigned. This would not be the case for a private member's bill.

The question of citizenship is essential; it goes so deep that it affects all Canadians. We cannot decide on a whim that we are going to change the Citizenship Act so quickly and with such little regard for the constitution as we would be doing with the expansion that the minister is asking for in order to get his amendments through.

For the sake of our democracy and our work as parliamentarians, we must have democratic control over our procedures and over the way in which they are used. Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Examination Regulations stipulates the following:

3. In the case of every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown, the Minister shall, forthwith on receipt of two copies of the Bill from the Clerk of the House of Commons: (a) examine the Bill in order to determine whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;…

These examinations allow us to establish and keep our bills within a legal framework, so that we can be sure that the provisions are not going beyond the limits prescribed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The examinations are necessary and fundamental.

By asking standing committees to expand the scope of bills to include suggestions by ministers, the government is avoiding its responsibility to examine legislation as prescribed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Examination Regulations. With the amendments suggested by the minister, we are in a situation where a private member's bill will be expanded. This makes the bill lose its original nature and turns it into a departmental bill.

With the legal procedure associated with a government bill, we have a legal rationale that allows us to identify the content of any government bill. That is a principle of Parliament and a principle of our democratic roots in the House of Commons.

The constitutionality of private member's business is studied only at the Subcommittee on Private…

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As you have just reminded us, we are dealing with this Conservative motion that is at the heart of our deliberations at this committee. The motion asks for an extension of 30 days to the time allowed within which to submit a request to Parliament to expand the scope of Bill C-425.

A little later, I will come back to the topic of what may have raised this issue of expanding the scope of Bill C-425. However, I will just point out that this government has been showing us for weeks the extent to which it is possible to use procedures for ideological purposes. In the House, they have introduced a record 46 time allocation bills in order to reduce debate and stifle members of Parliament and Canadians. Once again, at this committee, they are showing an attitude that is inconsistent with our democracy and our work as parliamentarians.

After going in camera right at the start of the meeting, here they are asking for the meeting to be televised. It is just a trick that I find deplorable: last night, it would have served only to show a blatant lack of decorum and of respect on their part. As my colleague pointed out in her remarks, they went as far as to say that she was playing the victim. That is going too far, in my opinion, and it did not happen here.

After constant comings and goings, who should appear, at 2:00 in the morning, but the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. If there was ever need for evidence that this bill…

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I'd like to call the meeting back to order. I remind everybody that we are being televised—I know you all wanted to know that—and to let you know that we are here discussing, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), the committee's request for an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces) referred to the committee on Wednesday, February 27, 2013. The committee requires additional time to consider the bill. Therefore, your committee requests an extension of 30 sitting days. That's what we are here to debate.

Before we broke to go live on television so that all our loved ones could watch us, the person who had the floor was Madame Groguhé, so we'll go back to Madame Groguhé.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you for giving me the floor, Madam Chair.

Once again, we are gathered here this morning for a public discussion about the motion that the Conservatives have introduced. The motion proposes an extension of 30 days to the time allowed within which to submit a request to Parliament to expand the scope of BillC-425.

Madam Chair, I feel that it is important to point out once more that this government has shown, and, for two weeks. has continued to show, the extent to which it is possible to use procedures for ideological purposes. Canadians have seen this in the House, where a record number of 46 time allocation motions have been introduced in order to reduce and stifle debate…

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

I was mentioning the question of privilege I had raised before the Speaker of the House, to see about the relevance of tabling the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

So I will resume my reading of this question of privilege raised in the House:

[...] be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces) to expand the scope of the bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces.

I want to share why I think this question should be ruled out of order. However, before I share my arguments, I would like to correct what has been said so far. When the Honourable Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the member for York—Simcoe, spoke on April 25th, 2013, he misled the House. In speaking about the amendment, he implied that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is:

[...] asking the House to debate it for a number of hours and decide whether we think it is within the scope of the bill [...]

As you know, Mr. Speaker, that is not at all the case. This report does not ask us to determine whether the proposed amendments are within the scope of the bill. On the contrary, as I will explain later on, the committee clearly showed that it knows the proposed amendments are outside the scope of the bill. The report asks the House to give the committee the power...

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Chair, the broadening of the scope of this bill has been a grave concern to us, because it would radically alter the original bill. As we have mentioned, the initial bill should have been reviewed and revised. And because it imposed certain limits in its wording, we worked on the issues together as a committee for several sittings to finally propose some amendments.

In the meantime, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism decided to broaden the scope of the bill, as I have just stated, and he proposed his own amendments. However, the minister's proposed broadening distorts the very nature of the initial bill. Now, we cannot even refer to this bill as a private member's bill because it is actually a government bill as moved by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

That said, let us get back to the question of privilege I raised in the House. I will start by reiterating the content of the question and then read the speaker's reply. My question was the following:

Mr. Speaker I rise today on the question of privilege — which is not truly a question of privilege — raised by my colleague from Toronto Centre. The question has to do with the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which recommends to the House that it:

[...] be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425...

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to remind members of the purpose of Bill C-425 and its background, and to draw a parallel with the motion that has been introduced in order to show how incongruous this motion to go ahead with the bill is.

Bill C-425sets out three major reasons for granting or revoking citizenship to members of the Canadian armed forces, pursuant to the Citizenship Act.

Clause 1(2) of the bill replaces section 5(4) of the act by providing in subsection (b) new ministerial authority to reduce residency requirements in Canada for Canadian armed forces members who wish to acquire citizenship. The bill gives this power to the minister in order to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada, and, on application, to reduce from three to two years required residency in Canada for Canadian armed forces members seeking citizenship, on condition that the members have signed a minimum three-year contract and completed basic training.

Clause 2 of the bill adds two subsections to section 9 of the Citizenship Act. Section 9(1.1) would provide:

That a Canadian citizen who is also a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces.

Clause 9(1.2) would provide the following:

A permanent resident of Canada who has made an application for Canadian citizenship is deemed to have withdrawn their application if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces.

This bill's purpose is to further integrate permanent residents and underscore the exceptional value of Canadian citizenship, thereby highlighting the contributions of our brave military members. Obviously, we were in favour of that part of the bill, because it is very important to value the contributions made by our military and to underscore their engagement and courage in the defence of our country.

We are in favour of the idea of expediting the process to obtain Canadian citizenship in order to reward permanent residents for their dedication to serving in the Canadian armed forces. We were also in favour of the Canadian armed forces reflecting, in a significant way, the great diversity of Canada, and this bill would contribute in part to that objective.

Unfortunately, some aspects of the bill relating to applications for renunciation and withdrawal of applications for Canadian citizenship are a problem. According to the wording, the bill provides that a citizen or an authorized resident of a foreign country who commits an act of war against the Canadian armed forces is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship. Similarly, a permanent resident who would have committed the same act would be deemed to have withdrawn their application for Canadian citizenship. The bill does not state clearly that legal proceedings are necessary to determine whether someone has committed an act of war or who would be making the decision. Moreover, certain key terms are not defined. “Act of war” is not defined in Canadian law. There is no definition for the expression “legal resident of a country other than Canada” either.

Broad changes brought about by Conservatives to the Canadian immigration system have unfortunately not made it more effective nor fair. We New Democrats are in favour of the idea that Canadian armed forces should better reflect Canadian diversity. However, the circumstances under which Canadian citizenship could indeed be revoked or an application for citizenship withdrawn should be entirely legal and subject to regular judicial proceedings.

This bill contains notions that are not very clear and parts that are limited in scope. I would like to get back to an idea mentioned in this bill which will create two classes of citizens, on the one hand, individuals with a single citizenship and on the other, those who have more than one. The latter may risk losing Canadian citizenship, even if they are born in Canada and have never been to the other country they are citizens of.

Canadian citizenship should not be considered a privilege that can be withdrawn like a driver's licence can be revoked. It is useful to point this out. Indeed, this is undeniably discrimination. It creates two-tier citizenship whereby people are not treated fairly. Several witnesses have appeared before this committee to discuss the arbitrariness of these measures and the potential for discrimination towards citizens who may be considered different.

I would like to get back to the question of privilege I raised in the House and that the Speaker replied to. This will also shed light on the procedure to broaden the scope of this bill. This motion, I would remind members, provides for 30 additional days and a broadening of the bill. TheMinister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism wants to pass amendments to broaden the scope of Bill C-425.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

As I was saying, Madam Chair, further to the request to broaden the scope of Bill C-425 in order to impose the amendments of the minister, we had to submit the eighth report to the House and to the Speaker. The Speaker then ruled on a point of privilege that I had raised on April 30.

However, before coming to said point of privilege, I would first like to come back to the content of Bill C-425, remind people of its purpose and put it into context.

The question before us concerning this motion to extend the deadline by 30 days in order to broaden the scope of Bill C-425...

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will thus go back to what I was saying about the imposition of an in camera meeting, which, coming from this Conservative majority, is certainly regrettable but not surprising. It is perfectly representative of the attitude that prevails both in the House and in committee, especially during the study of Bill C-425.

This study has been hampered by the government's will to considerably amend the content and scope of the bill, which was orchestrated by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, who dictated his amendments to the committee, and these amendments were then introduced with no changes by his parliamentary secretary. The main consequence of this was to transform a private member's bill into a government bill, and that is the gist of the matter, which is why we were so concerned about this procedure. Indeed, the procedure seeking to broaden the scope of this bill raised many questions.

Given the refusal of the committee chair to recognize that these amendments were in order, the committee thus had to submit a report, without the consent of the opposition, calling on the scope of Bill C-425 to be broadened in order to be able to impose the amendments of the minister. A point of privilege was raised concerning this report, and this is what I stated at that time, that is, April 30. But for...

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to raise a point of order. I think that it is important and necessary to genuinely insist on decorum. This is often done in the House. So I think that this reminder is very important, because we need to respect decorum once and for all in this committee.

This committee meeting is currently being held in public, and the image being conveyed to Canadians by the attitude of certain members is quite deplorable. Bill C-425 nonetheless raises a very important question.

Madam Chair, decorum must be respected, and I would ask you to ensure that this is done.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Chair, with your permission, I would like to come back to the important matters that I have just mentioned, so that they can be recorded clearly once and for all, and I hope that I will not be interrupted.

It is certainly unfortunate that the Conservative majority is forcing us to meet in camera, but it is certainly not surprising, because their attitude is absolutely consistent with what is going on both in the House and in committees, especially during the study of Bill C-425.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As concerns your observation to the members of this committee, I would just like to mention that I was particularly referring to the process used by the government regarding in camera meetings. I am certainly not going to address the content of the in camera meeting. This imposition of an in camera meeting by the Conservative majority is certainly regrettable, but not at all surprising. It is perfectly representative of the attitude that prevails both in the House and in committee. It was particularly clear during our study of Bill C-425.

This study was hampered by the government's will to considerably amend the content and scope of Bill C-425. All of this was orchestrated by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, who dictated his amendments to the committee. These amendments were then introduced word for word by his parliamentary secretary.

The main consequence of this was to transform a private member's bill into a government bill. Given the refusal of the committee chair to recognize that these amendments were in order, the committee produced a report, without the consent of the opposition, calling for the scope of Bill C-425 to be broadened. The purpose of this was to impose the minister's amendments.

Obviously, this is the aspect that I am talking about today. We expressed our concerns, which were echoed by the Speaker of the House of Commons when the request concerning the adoption of the eighth report was submitted to him. A point of privilege was raised concerning this report. This is what I stated at that time, that is, on April 30.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is just a reminder and a nod, if I may say so, to the incoherence of this government that is forcing us to spend impossible hours in the House for debates.

Let us come back to the issue at hand. I would like to point out that we have gone from an in camera meeting to a public meeting, which will allow us to resume debate on this Conservative motion which, I might remind you, seeks to extend the deadline by 30 days in order to submit a request to Parliament to broaden the scope of Bill C-425.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

No, I know, but we had agreed to deal with these things at the beginning of the meeting.

I can move a motion to go in camera and we can deal with both of these. It's not midnight, actually, at any one of these places, so that's actually not true.

I'm sure the witnesses understand that committee business does from time to time arise, and we did have agreement to deal with this issue at the beginning of the meeting, both the motions. I'm only asking to deal with one. I'm happy to deal with the second in the manner that you've suggested.

But the request for a 30-day extension on Bill C-425 is a very simple procedure. It's not complicated. We're not dealing with the essence or the guts of the bill. All we're saying is that the bill hasn't been dealt with and it needs a 30-day extension to be able to deal with it sometime in the fall. That's like a two-minute, not even, vote to determine whether or not we're going to give a 30-day extension. That's all I'm asking for at the beginning of this meeting. We can do that, or I can move a motion to go in camera and we'll deal with both the motions there.

Scope of Private Members' Bills--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before moving on to questions and comments, I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 25 by the hon. member for Toronto Centre regarding the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, recommending that the scope of Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), be expanded.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Toronto Centre for having raised this issue, and the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, and the members for Winnipeg North, Saint-Lambert and Calgary Northeast for their interventions.

In raising this matter, the hon. member for Toronto Centre explained that during its consideration of Bill C-425, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted a motion recommending that the House grant the committee the power to expand the scope of the bill in order to allow for the consideration of what he called “amendments that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has asked be added to the list”.

This led to the presentation on April 23, 2013, of the committee's eighth report. He found this approach to be problematic in two respects. First, he argued that pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, committees examining private members' bills are restricted as to the types of reports they can present to the House. He argued essentially that since the eighth report falls outside these parameters, it is out of order.

His second argument centred on the impact such a manner of proceeding could have. Specifically, he expressed concern that if committees examining private members' bills were to be allowed latitude to proceed in this fashion, the effect of this practice “will be that the government could, by extrapolation, even add an omnibus feature to a private member’s bill and say it is using its majority to add everything, the whole kitchen sink, into the measure.”

The Government House Leader explained that, in view of the differences of opinion expressed in the committee as to whether the amendments proposed were within the scope of the bill, the committee was seeking guidance from the House on the matter. In making this observation, he pointed out that this process would result in a number of hours of debate in the House on the committee report before a decision was taken.

In his presentation the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that Standing Order 97.1 does not preclude a committee from seeking an instruction from the House in relation to a private member's bill. He further explained that the committee remains seized of Bill C-425 and that its eighth report in no way supersedes the 60-sitting-day deadline to report the bill back to the House.

At the outset the Chair wishes to clarify what appear to be certain misconceptions about the nature of private members' bills.

The first of these has to do with the arguments made by the House leader for the official opposition and the member for Saint-Lambert in reference to the constitutional compliance of legislation sponsored by private members.

As pointed out by the member for Saint-Lambert, constitutional compliance is among the criteria used by the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business to determine non-votability of private members' bills. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, describes these criteria at page 1130, including one requirement that “bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.

The Chair is not aware of further constitutional compliance tests that are applied to any kind of legislation, whether sponsored by the government or by private members, once bills are before the House or its committees. In addition, hon. members will recall that in a recent ruling delivered on March 27, I reminded the House that as Speaker I have no role in interpreting matters of a constitutional or legal nature.

Another apparent source of confusion has to do with the difference between private bills and public bills. Virtually all the bills that come before the House are public bills, whether they are sponsored by private members or by the government.

As O'Brien and Bosc explains at page 1178:

Private bills must not be confused with private Members' bills. Although private bills are sponsored by private Members, the term “private Member's bill” refers only to public bills dealing with a matter of public policy introduced by Members who are not Ministers.

Thus both government and private members’ bills are subject to the same basic legislative process, namely introduction and first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage and, finally, third reading. At the same time, the House has seen fit to devise specific procedures for dealing with public bills sponsored by the government and private members alike.

For example, Standing Order 73 allows the government to propose that a government bill be referred to committee before second reading after a five-hour debate. The purpose of this rule is to allow greater flexibility to members in committee by enabling them to propose amendments to alter the scope of the measure.

The procedures in place for dealing with private members’ bills are likewise many layered, and have evolved in response to particular situations faced by the House in the past. This is the case with the provision for a maximum of two hours of debate at second reading, which came about to allow the House to consider more items and thus to allow more private members to have their measures considered. Similarly, Standing Order 97.1 was originally brought in to ensure that private members’ bills referred to committee would be returned to the House and to the order of precedence in a timely fashion.

In the present case, it appears to the Chair that the essence of the procedural question before me is to determine whether the House has the power to grant permission to a committee to expand the scope of a private member's bill after that scope has been agreed to by the House at second reading and, if so, whether this can be achieved by way of a committee report.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, is helpful in this regard. It states at page 752:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill, consolidating two or more bills into a single bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill.

Clearly then, by way of a motion of instruction, the House can grant a committee the power to expand the scope of a bill, be it a government bill or a private member's bill. An example can be found at page 289 of the Journals for April 27, 2010, where an opposition member moved a motion of instruction related to a government bill.

Having established that the House does have the authority to grant permission to a committee to expand the scope of a bill through a motion of instruction, the question becomes whether a committee report is also a procedurally valid way to achieve the same result.

The member for Toronto Centre is correct in saying that the explicit authority to present this type of report is not found in Standing Order No. 97.1, which exists to oblige committees to respect deadlines for reporting back to the House on private members' bills. In that respect, Standing Order No. 97.1 continues to apply.

However, Standing Order No. 108(1)(a) does grant committees this power under their more general mandate to:

examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House [and] to report from time to time

In describing the three broad categories of reports that standing committees normally present, O’Brien and Bosc, at page 985, describe administrative and procedural reports as those:

in which standing committees ask the House for special permission or additional powers, or those that deal with a matter of privilege or procedure arising from committee proceedings.

An example of a committee reporting on a matter related to a bill may be found in the Journals of April 29, 2008, where, in its sixth report, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development felt compelled to provide reasons why it did not complete the study of a particular private member’s bill.

Finally, O'Brien and Bosc, at page 752, further state:

A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

This undoubtedly could be done only through the presentation of a committee report to the House.

What this confirms is that the authority of the House to grant permission to a committee to expand the scope of a bill can be sought and secured, either through a motion of instruction or through concurrence in a committee report.

O’Brien and Bosc summarizes this well at page 992:

If a standing, legislative or special committee requires additional powers, they may be conferred on the committee by an order of the House—by far the most common approach—or by concurrence in a committee report requesting the conferring of those powers.

Later, O’Brien and Bosc explain, at page 1075:

Recommendations in committee reports are normally drafted in the form of motions so that, if the reports are concurred in, the recommendations become clear orders or resolutions of the House.

Just as the adoption of a motion of instruction to a committee would become an order of the House, so too would the adoption of a committee report requesting the permission of the House to expand the scope of a bill.

Of course, it has always been the case that instructions to a committee must be in proper form. According to O’Brien and Bosc, at page 754, such instructions must be “worded in such a way that the committee will clearly understand what the House wants”.

It is nevertheless clear to the Chair that there is genuine disquiet about the impact of this attempted procedural course of action. The Chair is not deaf to those concerns and, in that light, wishes to reassure the House that this manner of proceedings does not obviate the need for committees to observe all the usual rules governing the admissibility of amendments to the clauses of a bill, which are described in detail at pages 766 to 761 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition.

In particular, granting a committee permission to expand the scope of a bill does not, ipso facto, grant it permission to adopt amendments that run counter to its principle. Were a committee to report a bill to the House containing inadmissible amendments, O’Brien and Bosc at page 775 states:

The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative.

For all of the reasons outlined, I must conclude that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is in order. I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Scope of Private Members' Bills

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be somewhat brief, but it is important that we be perfectly clear about what is happening here.

I sit on the citizenship and immigration committee. I am very familiar with the motion that has been proposed by the government and I want to make two quick points.

It is interesting to note that both the mover and the parliamentary secretary who spoke to this issue are implying motives in one sense. We are not using this in any form to filibuster or to prolong debate on Bill C-425, and that is important to note. We raised it as a point of privilege a couple of weeks ago because we believe it is important that private members' bills be respected for what they are as they go through the process, and you, through your office, Mr. Speaker, will be reviewing that. This is not a delay tactic in any way.

The parliamentary secretary made reference to “perfect and complete”. He is suggesting that the amendments that the government wants to propose at committee stage are going to make it “perfect and complete”, and he cites Beauchesne's and other rules of order to substantiate that comment, but what is clear is that the government, and particularly the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, intends to change the scope of the legislation.

The legislation can be best described as proposing two things. First, it would reduce the amount of time that a landed immigrant would be required to be here in Canada in order to receive his or her citizenship. As opposed to waiting three years, the individual would only be required to wait two years to acquire citizenship if that individual is a member of the Canadian Forces. That is the number one reason behind Bill C-425. Second, if a Canadian citizen commits an act of war against the Canadian Forces, that individual would be deemed to have denounced his or her Canadian citizenship.

Those were the two issues related to Bill C-425. Then guests were invited to participate in the committee hearings, and individuals started to change the focus of the bill. Then we found out that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration wanted the principle of the bill to be about terrorism as opposed to the issue of citizenship and the act of war on the Canadian Forces.

As a result, government members on committee recognized that they were attempting to change the scope of the private member's bill, and that was the reason government members put forward a motion for the bill to be brought back to the House before we went into clause-by-clause consideration: it was because they recognized that they had to change its scope.

I cannot tell the House how many times I have sat in a committee or in caucus where there has been a discussion about members not being allowed to change the scope of legislation. That is very clearly what is happening here. My concern is that the government wants to use its majority in the House to override a very important principle of private members' bills as well as the process involved with them.

Let me talk about the process of a private member's bill very briefly. First there are two hours of debate in the House, and then the bill goes to committee. The bill can be discussed for 60 hours at committee stage; it then comes back to the House, where it is debated for two hours and then ultimately voted on.

We do not want to use private members' hour as a back door for government legislation, and that is what we would be opening it to.

I caution all members of the House to review what has taken place and what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration hopes to do. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should be bringing in his own piece of legislation.

My advice to all members, and particularly to you, Mr. Speaker, is to protect the rights of individual members to bring in their own bills without having them hijacked by the government making changes to their scope.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the interventions made by the hon. members for Toronto Centre and Saint-Lambert concerning the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

This report contains the request that the committee be granted the power to expand the scope of Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), such that the provisions of the bill not be limited to the Canadian Armed Forces.

One member suggested that the report itself is out of order, while the other suggested that the recommended instruction is deficient and, therefore, out of order.

I disagree with both of these assessments.

Let me address the first of these objections, the one put forward by the hon. member for Toronto Centre.

At the core of his presentation, he argued that Standing Order 97.1 excludes the possibility of a committee seeking an instruction in relation to a private member's bill, because that Standing Order enumerates three reports—not two as the honourable and learned member said—that a committee may present within 60 days of an order of reference.

The hon. member made reference to one approach to legal interpretation in support of his view. On the other hand, I would offer a different school of thought on interpretation, the mischief rule; in other words, what problem or mischief was being remedied when a law was enacted.

To this end, I would refer members to the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented during the first session of the 36th Parliament, back in 1997.

In the section on the disposition of bills by committees, the report observes:

A number of private Members' bills that have received second reading and been referred to committee have unfortunately disappeared and never been heard from again.... We are not in a position to comment on specific cases, but we do wish to prevent this situation from arising in the future.

There you go, Mr. Speaker. The intent was not to interfere with or restrict the manner in which a committee can consider legislation, but just that a committee cannot sit on a private member's bill indefinitely.

This was echoed in the Private Members' Business Practical Guide, 9th edition, which was published in October 2008 under the authority of the Clerk of the House of Commons. At page 16, under the heading of “Committee Consideration of Bills”, one reads that:

A votable Private Members' bill follows the normal procedure for a bill: if second reading is agreed to by the House, the bill is referred to a committee for the hearing of witnesses, clause-by-clause study and possible amendment.

The guide then discusses the rules that are particular to private members' bills: deadlines to report and proceedings on recommendations not to proceed further.

Nothing is suggested in this publication of the House to suggest that these types of bills are exempt from procedure on instructions.

I would further argue that Standing Order 97.1 has also not been circumvented by the eighth report. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration remains seized by Bill C-425, and it remains subject to the 60-day sitting deadline established by that standing committee to dispose of the bill. Indeed citation 684.1 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 6th edition, advises that:

The Instruction should not be given while a bill is still in the possession of the House but rather after it has come into the possession of the committee.

Therefore, it follows that the committee remains seized with Bill C-425 and, consequently, has not made, yet, any of the reports required by Standing Order 97.1.

Having demonstrated that Standing Order 97.1 does not exclude the ability of the House to give an instruction to a committee on a private member's bill, as argued by the hon. member for Toronto Centre, I will now turn to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Saint-Lambert about the requested instruction itself.

Instructions are not common in our contemporary practice, which page 752 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice explains:

Motions of instruction derive from British practice during the second half of the nineteenth century. They were carried over into the practice of the Canadian House of Commons, although they have rarely been used.

Therefore, I will be referring to some of our older texts and United Kingdom authorities in addition to our contemporary procedural books.

Page 752 of O'Brien and Bosc states:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as...expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

Then at page 992, the manner for committees to obtain additional powers is described. It states:

If a standing, legislative or special committee requires additional powers, they may be conferred on the committee by an order of the House...or by concurrence in a committee report requesting the conferring of those powers.

Indeed, the chair of the citizenship committee cited this at the committee's meeting on April 23, and then added, “That's what...[the hon. member for St. Catharines] is doing with his motion”.

Citation 681(2) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, observes that:

The purpose of the Instruction must be supplementary and ancillary to the purpose of the bill, and must fall within the general scope and framework of the bill. It is irregular to introduce into a bill, by an Instruction to the committee, a subject which should properly form the substance of a distinct measure, having regard to usage and the general practice of enacting distinct statutes for distinct branches of law.

Citation 222 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, traces that proposition to an 1893 ruling of Mr. Speaker Peel of the United Kingdom House of Commons.

In the present instance, we are considering a proposal for the extension of the objects of Bill C-425. These types of instructions are explained in citation no. 686(1) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition. It states:

An Instruction is necessary to authorize the introduction into a bill of amendments, which extend its provisions to objects not strictly covered by the subject-matter of the bill as agreed to on the second reading, provided that these objects are cognate to its general purposes.

This statement, as distilled from citation 226(2) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, quotes at length pages 398 and 399 of the 13th edition of Erskine May. There is one portion of that passage that I would like to add to the record. It states:

The object of an instruction is, therefore, to endow a committee with power whereby the committee can perfect and complete the legislation defined by the contents of the Bill, or extend the provisions of a Bill to cognate objects....

Page 559 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 24th edition, offers the same abbreviated advice we saw in Beauchesne's sixth edition. The British text then goes on to recite several examples of instructions to this effect. The first bill on that list offers a compelling parallel. It states:

The Public Bodies (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Bill 1959-60 was limited to the single purpose of admitting the press to meetings. An instruction was necessary to extend the bill to the general public.

The Chair may be interested in knowing that the bill was also a private member's bill. In fact, many of the bills on that list, as I understand, were private member's bills.

As a historical aside, members may be interested in knowing that the sponsor of that 1959 bill was a then young, up-and-coming member of Parliament by the name of Margaret Thatcher. To be clear, though, the text of the instruction in relation to Mrs. Thatcher's bill bears similarities to the case now before us. The British motion is found at column 1,064 of volume 619 of the United Kingdom House of Commons Debates for March 14, 1960. It states:

...That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provision in the Bill for requiring members of the public other than representatives of the Press to be admitted to meetings of bodies exercising public functions, and for matters arising out of their admission.

In the case of Bill C-425, we have legislation that proposes to make two changes to the Citizenship Act with reference to the Canadian Armed Forces. The eighth report simply proposes that the citizenship committee be empowered to consider amendments that extend the application of those two objects to circumstances not involving the Canadian Armed Forces specifically.

As I understand the context, it became apparent at committee that the “act of war” is not defined clearly in either our domestic law or international laws, so that those references in Bill C-425 needed to be clarified. Amendments were to be proposed to address and clarify this.

Moreover, the committee heard suggestions about convicted terrorists in the context of the provisions for deemed applications for renunciation of citizenship. Amendments were also to be proposed in this vein.

I am further informed that there was an interpretation by the committee clerk that these amendments could be outside the scope of the bill. I am also told that the 8th report, which is now before the House, was drafted with the assistance of one or more committee clerks.

This report specifically addresses what committee members have been grappling with through their study of the bill, while at the same time being careful not to hamstring their own deliberations or to risk bringing forward a report with inadmissible amendments, as contemplated at pages 775 and 776 of O'Brien and Bosc.

Additionally, there was a view that this action was consistent with the intentions of the sponsor of Bill C-425, the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

Ultimately, it is up to the House to decide what to do with Bill C-425. The discretion of the House and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration remains unfettered. Should a motion to concur in the 8th report be moved, the House would have a concurrence debate and vote in which all members would have an opportunity to have a say on the proposed instruction. Should the report be concurred in, the instruction to the committee would be permissive; that is to say that the committee is not mandated to amend the bill in such a manner.

Should the committee report the bill with amendments consistent with the instruction, it remains up to the House to accept the amendments, reverse them or propose further amendments when Bill C-425 is considered at report stage. Alternatively, the House retains the option of defeating the bill.

In summary, the intention of the instructions sought by the citizenship committee is not overly broad and results in an intelligible outcome. It is consistent with instructions authorizing the extension of the objects of a bill. It is for a purpose cognate to Bill C-425. It does not import a different subject matter into the bill or seek to amend other parent acts.

Finally, it does not propose an alternative scheme contradictory to the principle of the bill adopted at second reading.

Therefore, I respectfully submit that the 8th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is admissible.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel I need to address the question of privilege raised by my hon. colleague opposite regarding my private member's Bill C-425, which amends the Citizenship Act. From the time I tabled my bill, I have been clear in saying that I am open to friendly amendments that are in line with the aims and intent of my legislation, which is to create more pathways to integration, reward those who put their lives on the line for Canada and underscore the immense value of Canadian citizenship.

The second part of my bill revokes citizenship from a person who demonstrates deep disloyalty to Canada and Canadian values. My colleagues opposite want the House to believe that amending my bill to articulate acts of terrorism is not in line with the original intent of my bill. I can tell the House, as the author of the bill, that strengthening it to include acts of terrorism in addition to treason is well within my stated aims and intentions.

I also want to remind my colleagues opposite that as feared, the threat of terrorism has become very real to Canadians in recent days and months. I believe we, as members of Parliament and members of the committees of this House, have an obligation to take these threats seriously and need to be able to deal efficiently and effectively with the issues that touch the lives of Canadian citizens in a timely manner.

The members opposite perhaps forgot that a national poll conducted on this matter showed that over 80% Canadians agreed that the citizenship should be revoked of those who commit acts of terrorism. I hope my colleagues opposite are not using delay tactics to thwart the will of Canadians, but from this side of the House I am afraid that it looks as though they are. Perhaps they should be clear about their intentions. Do they oppose stripping citizenship from convicted terrorists? If they do, they need to come clean and say so.

Adding serious convicted terrorists to my bill wholly conforms to the spirit and intent of my legislation. I have been talking about stripping the citizenship of those who act against our Canadian values and commit violent acts of disloyalty. Being a terrorist is absolutely against our Canadian values and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

I would hope the opposition members would appreciate an extra three hours to debate my bill and make their case. Perhaps they could use the extra time to clarify their position. Do they support removing citizenship from convicted terrorists or not? Canadians need to see their Parliament able to act and act quickly in the interests of safety and security of its people.

I urge opposition members to stop playing politics with this issue as it can have dire consequences. Or they should tell Canadians why we need to keep convicted terrorists in Canada. The House should be allowed to have a debate regarding the scope of my bill, especially in the light of recent, timely events that have put homegrown terrorism front and centre in the minds of Canadians and have put Canada's reputation at stake at the international level.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the question of privilege—which is not truly a question of privilege—raised by my colleague from Toronto Centre. The question has to do with the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which recommends to the House that it:

...be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces) to expand the scope of the Bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces.

I want to share why I think this question should be ruled out of order. However, before I share my arguments, I would like to correct what has been said so far. When the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the member for York—Simcoe, spoke on April 25, 2013, he misled he House. In speaking about the amendment, he implied that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is:

...asking the House to debate it for a number of hours and decide whether we think it is within the scope [of the bill]...

As you know, Mr. Speaker, that is not at all the case. This report does not ask us to determine whether the proposed amendments are within the scope of the bill. On the contrary, as I will explain later on, the committee clearly showed that it knows the proposed amendments are outside the scope of the bill. The report asks the House to give the committee the power to expand the scope of the bill and not to make judgments about amendments that could be made in committee.

I must also add that the member for Toronto Centre clearly did not do his homework before he spoke prematurely on the concurrence of this report before a motion to concur even made it to the order paper. A committee may seek an instruction from the House to expand the scope of a bill. In the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O'Brien and Bosc are clear:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example...expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

That is exactly what the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is trying to do with its eighth report.

However, and this is the reason for my speech, there is a limit to the instruction that the House can give to a committee. I would like to quote from O'Brien and Bosc once again:

A motion of instruction will be ruled out of order if it does not relate to the content of the bill, if it goes beyond the scope of the bill (for example, by embodying a principle that is foreign to it...

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that you must intervene and rule that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's request for instruction is out of order. This request is far too broad and does not allow the House to determine if the committee is likely to include a principle that is foreign to the bill.

There is some precedent where motions of instruction were deemed to be in order and were debated in the House. However, in each of those instances, the instructions were far clearer than those sought by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration today. One example is from April 27, 2010, when the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan moved the following motion of instruction:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, that it have the power during its consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs), to expand the scope of the Bill so that a grandchild born before 1985 with a female grandparent would receive the same entitlement to status as a grandchild of a male grandparent born in the same period.

This motion was very clear and was ruled to be in order with good reason. It gave the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development permission to expand the scope of the bill in question, while providing strict limits as to how the committee could do that. By voting on this motion, the House was assured that the committee would not include a principle that is foreign to it in the bill.

In contrast, the motion of instruction that we have before us is simply asking the House for the power to expand the scope of the bill so that it is not limited to just the Canadian Armed Forces. What does that mean exactly? What amendments does the committee want make to the bill so that it applies to more than just the Canadian Armed Forces?

As it currently stands, the bill allows permanent residents who are members of the Canadian Armed Forces to get their citizenship more quickly. By asking that the bill apply to more than just members of the Canadian Armed Forces, is the committee suggesting that it would like to amend the bill so that permanent residents who are working in professions that are not related to the Canadian Armed Forces can also get their citizenship more quickly?

It is not at all clear. How can the House decide on such a motion of instruction when it does not know how the committee will proceed or whether the committee will try to include a principle that is not foreign to it in the bill?

I would also like to add that, if the committee's motion of instruction were to be found in order, it would set a dangerous precedent. By allowing a standing committee to expand the scope of a bill without specific instructions, we would be going down a very dangerous path under the current circumstances. Given this majority government's tendency to use private members' business to forward their own agenda, private members' business would be used as a way for the government to get around the rules.

Catherine Dauvergne, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, appeared before the committee as an individual during the examination of Bill C-425. She could not have provided a better explanation of the danger associated with such solicitation of instructions. She said:

...such a profound change to our Citizenship Act such as the one the minister is proposing must not be done by a process like this, by a private member's bill. That process reduces the time allowed for debate and for this committee to do its work and it protects the changes that the minister is proposing. This is controlling democracy.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Examination Regulations states:

In the case of every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown, the Minister shall, forthwith on receipt of two copies of the Bill from the Clerk of the House of Commons, (a) examine the Bill in order to determine whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...

By asking standing committees to broaden the scope of bills to include suggestions from ministers, the government is not fulfilling its responsibility to examine the bills, as stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Examination Regulations.

Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1), the constitutionality of private members' business is studied only by the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, before a bill is debated at second reading.

By trying to expand the scope of the bill after second reading, the government is avoiding the constitutional test and will therefore be able to amend private members' bills as it sees fit, instead of presenting those concepts in government bills that must pass the constitutional test of the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by urging you to pay particular attention to the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which the NDP feels should be ruled out of order.

Such a request for instruction is much too broad for the House to be able to ensure that the changes subsequently made by the committee will not include concepts that are foreign to the bill and will not violate the charter.

Giving such latitude to a standing committee will set a very dangerous precedent that this majority government will certainly use in a partisan and anti-democratic fashion.

Thank you for your attention. To help you with your study of this important issue, I will provide you with the evidence from the study of Bill C-425 conducted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I am convinced that, once you look at the evidence, you will also agree that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is out of order.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a fair bit of discussion in code here about what is being discussed.

In its original form, the private member's bill, Bill C-425, intended that if individuals with dual citizenship, those with citizenship in another country and in Canada, were to commit an act against a member of the Canadian military, they would be subject to the sanction of losing that citizenship. This was very much inspired by events in Afghanistan in particular, where the Canadian military were constantly exposed to these kinds of acts by people from all kinds of places.

As we have seen in recent events, such as the situation at the Algerian gas plant where Canadians were involved in a terrorist act and the recent events that have gripped us across North America, including the recent arrests in Canada, there is a concern that the kind of terrorist act that was captured by the original drafting of the bill perhaps could be worded a little differently to capture the full intent of what was intended. I understand that is the purpose of the amendment, so let us understand what we are talking about here.

The member for Toronto Centre and the opposition House leader are trying to find a way to prevent that particular definition that members of the committee thought they would like to have. There may be a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether it is beyond the scope of the bill or not; some believe it is within the scope of the bill, some believe it is not. Therefore, they are asking the House to debate it for a number of hours and decide whether we think it is within the scope, whether it should be within the scope and whether it is important for Canada to have the ability to provide that sanction against those who decide to take up arms as terrorists as well as those who take up arms against the military. It is part of the same thrust.

It is important for everyone to understand that this is what the member for Toronto Centre and the opposition House leader appear to indicate they wish to defeat on this kind of a technicality. They are raising it so that if they are successful in the arguments they are making to you, the consequence will be that the genuine will of members who are observing events and dealing with legislation in front of them to try to address this terrorist threat will be frustrated.

The easy answer to that is to say that it does not matter, so let us just go back and do another bill and take time and delay, because we do not really need to respond to these things quickly and in a decisive way. That is reminiscent of the theme from the Liberal Party for the past week and a half, so it does not surprise me that it is coming from them. We also saw how the New Democrats voted this week on the bill to address terrorism, so we clearly know how lacking their view is on how urgent and important it is to be able to address these threats.

That said, I would like an opportunity to explore this issue fully, because I did not anticipate this. Frankly, I must say that I am quite surprised that those parties would take this position on an issue of such contemporary urgency to Canadians, the issue of protecting us from terrorism, and I was unprepared for these kinds of procedural arguments. I would like the opportunity to come back and fully discuss the procedural aspects.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege that I want to raise. I know it will shock you to hear this, but I actually think it has some merit.

It stems from the private member's bill, Bill C-425, which was moved by the member for Calgary Northeast and which was being considered in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Last week the parliamentary secretary moved that the committee should recommend to the House that it be granted the power during the consideration of Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), to “expand the scope of the bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces”. That is going to be reported to the House of Commons.

This is an issue that affects the rights and privileges of all members, and indeed the very structure of the relationship between private bills, public bills and private members' bills.

My argument is quite simple. It is that if we were to allow the government majority to do this in order to allow for the consideration of other amendments that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has asked be added to the list, we would basically be allowing the government majority to completely expand the nature of private members' bills, which deal with a specific subject, and in fact to change their very nature from being private members' bills to being public bills.

However, if we allow the majority members to do that, they would be basically bypassing all of the requirements with respect to public bills. Those requirements include first reading, second reading, votes on both, and then referral to a committee to consider the whole structure.

Mr. Speaker, if we allow this to happen or, more specifically, if you allow this to happen, sir, the consequence will be very clear. It basically would mean that governments could increasingly use private members' bills as a way of getting other issues in front of the House, bypassing ordinary debate in second reading and the due consideration of this House so that after only two hours of debate on one subject, which in fact was what took place, the government would then suddenly be permitted to introduce other issues into the debate.

There are basically two points that I want to make in my argument. I feel so strongly about it—and this is a historic first—that I actually have some notes that I may consult from time to time as I deal with this matter.

First, Standing Order 97.1, which sets out the rules with respect to private members' bills, restricts a committee to making only two kinds of reports. The first is a report that brings back the bill, with or without amendments. Those are amendments that are within the scope of the bill, approved by the whole House at second reading. The second is a report requesting a 30-day extension to the committee's report deadline. No other report is allowed, and if that were not the case, it would be mentioned specifically in S. O. 97.1 or somewhere else in the chapter of our Standing Orders that governs private members' bills.

Mr. Speaker, you will be familiar with the simple legal thought that the expression of one thought is the exclusion of all others. I will not bore you with the Latin tag for that phrase, but it means that the fact that this procedure that is now being proposed by the government is not contained anywhere in Standing Order 97.1 or anywhere else in the Standing Orders dealing with private members' bills means that the scope of a private member's bill cannot be broadened to consider other matters, because the impact of that would be to completely change the reporting mechanisms that are basic to the relationship between private bills, private members' bills and public bills.

Mr. Speaker, my second point is that I think you also have to consider the impact that this can have—and, I would argue, will have in this instance—with respect to the procedures and considerations that we have.

Mr. Speaker, if you allow this to take place and allow a motion to be put to the House that basically broadens entirely the scope of a private member's bill to include the rest of the government's public agenda, imagine for a moment what the consequences would be.

It is very simple. The effect will be that the government could, by extrapolation, even add an omnibus feature to a private member's bill and say it is using its majority to add everything, the whole kitchen sink, into the measure.

Mr. Speaker, you have to say very clearly to this majority government that it cannot misuse and abuse private members' bills in this way. Private members' bills are intended for private members to put forward issues, items, agendas and concerns that they have. They are not intended to be a way by which the government skirts around the purposes of private members' bills and drives home its own agenda.

If the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has a variety of things that he would like to do—and we know that he does, because he has made speeches about them and has told the press that he intends to proceed with them—let him come into the House with a public bill. Let him come forward with a bill that pertains to the questions that he wants to raise. He cannot use a private member's bill to force his own agenda onto the Parliament of Canada.

This is a problem, and it is very clear that if the minister has something to present to the House of Commons, he must introduce a public bill, which will be thoroughly debated in the House at second reading, be sent to committee and come back to the House at third reading so that we can discuss it.

That is why we are not only concerned about the government's proposal, but we also think it is basically illegal. This proposal is not included in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Therefore, the House should not allow such a thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux. The motion is in order, and I'm sure the House leaders at the appropriate time will be having a chat on Bill C-425.

Ms. Sims.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chairperson, when I think in terms of the Boston tragedy, there are a number of thoughts that run across my mind. Right at the get-go, I want to acknowledge that no matter where you live in North America, what took place in Boston was horrific and at the end of the day we want to be able to see that there is justice done. We've heard from everyone from the President of the United States to the average Canadian in terms of how they feel about what has taken place. We give our best wishes and condolences to family members of victims and those who have been directly touched by this particular terrorist act. We can't say enough in terms of just how horrific this was.

Having said that, yesterday members of our law enforcement agencies, in cooperation with others, were able to discover a plot that would have led to Canadian lives possibly being lost and in many ways destroyed. Again, we congratulate all those involved in it and thank them, ever so grateful that we were able to prevent it from happening.

Yesterday I spoke at length on Bill S-7, combatting terrorism. It's now in third reading inside the House. Individuals are being afforded the opportunity to get on the record. We're doing what we can. In fact, the Liberal Party of Canada has indicated its support of Bill S-7, wanting to see the bill passed for all the right reasons. Yesterday I questioned why it is that the government was bringing forward Bill S-7 at that time, believing that maybe there was some political manipulation that was being conducted here, maybe even taking advantage of that tragedy that took place in Boston. I think there is a great deal of merit in terms of many of the things we're saying in terms of motives that were being used yesterday surrounding Bill S-7.

Now we're in committee, and there are two things that I get out of what Mr. Dykstra has said. Number one is the fact that in the motion it's very clear, Mr. Chairman, that the government does want to make significant amendments to Mr. Shory's bill, and he realizes, as the government has realized, that it is really out of scope, if we take a look specifically in terms of what it is that Bill C-425 was attempting to do. It's very precise. All you have to do is take a look at the summary. There are two things:

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to require the Minister, on application, to reduce by one year the required years of residence in Canada to grant citizenship to any permanent resident who is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who has signed a minimum three-year contract and who has completed basic training.

That's the number one objective. If we look at what happened in second reading, most of the discussion was on that issue. If we take a look at the reports that were coming out and being commented on, even by Mr. Shory himself, that seemed to be the primary reason for the bill itself.

The second part of the bill, Mr. Chairperson, is in regard to this:

It also amends section 9 of the Act to provide that an individual is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship

What's important here is that it's very specific. It's saying “if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces”. That's all that was meant with this particular private member's bill.

Why it's important for us to make note of this, Mr. Chairperson, is that the government has acknowledged that it is outside of the scope. But now the government wants to allow us to be able to make any sort of change we see fit, even though they would be out of scope. The biggest problem I have personally with that is that the rules that apply to a private member's bill are significantly different from the rules that apply to a government-sponsored bill.

I would be a whole lot more sympathetic to what Mr. Dykstra was talking about if we were suggesting that, given the situation that has been taking place over the last number of days, we should bring this bill back into second reading and allow for a more wholesome debate. We only allowed for one or two hours of debate, because it was a private member's bill. I can assure you that we would have critics—whether it's the member from Mount Royal, or our public safety critic, not to mention the leader of our party—who would love to contribute to the debate. Given the manner in which we're proposing legislation, this is really way outside the scope.

We talk about the manner in which citizenship is going to be changing, the establishment of a two-tier type of citizenship. We were provided a series of amendments that the government was possibly considering to bring forward to the committee. Late last night, I was told that what I was provided has now been changed. So I don't really know what to expect from all these amendments. I don't believe we're doing a service to private members bills when we break the rule and go beyond the scope.

I would recommend that we continue to move forward with Mr. Shory's bill at this time, clause by clause, as you suggested at the opening, Mr. Chairperson. If the government wants to bring in amendments, we can listen to them, and you'll rule whether or not they're within the scope of the bill. Even by his own admission, Mr. Dykstra has said he wants us to go back to the House because the amendments they want to move are beyond the scope of the private member's bill. I think that gives us some direction.

We might want to consider having a recess. This would allow our respective House leaders to see if they can work out a compromise that would achieve something that would protect the integrity of private members bills and at the same time respond to the government's need to bring in something more all-encompassing regarding terrorism/citizenship and so forth.

Mr. Chair, my recommendation would be that, if anything, we leave it to our House leaders and see what they come up with. If we want to continue on clause by clause today, I'm okay with that. But I would be very reluctant to suggest that we recommend to the House that we allow this committee to change the scope of the legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 77. We are studying Mr. Shory's bill, Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, honouring the Canadian Armed Forces.

We are into clause-by-clause. We have some witnesses here to assist us if needed. Most of the people you've met from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. We also have representatives from the Department of National Defence. They're available for questions.

We can start on the clause-by-clause.

Mr. Dykstra.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Okay.

I understand your explanation, but that said, a Canadian citizen without dual citizenship could, eventually, commit this kind of act. So, it is really important to think about the comparison between someone with dual citizenship and someone with single citizenship, in this case Canadian citizenship. In this case, we are faced with a somewhat arbitrary decision, as one of our witnesses said. That was really the context for my question.

I have a second question. One of our witnesses, Catherine Dauvergne, talked about a cost of $40 million to process 13 cases of citizenship revocation since 2002. Do you think we will have to take on similar amounts to apply Bill C-425?

[Nicole Girard, Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Nicole Girard. I am the director general responsible for the citizenship and multiculturalism branch at Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

As the chair has mentioned, I am accompanied here by my colleagues, Ms. Mary-Ann Hubers, acting director of legislation and program policy; Mr. Eric Stevens, legal counsel for CIC; and Mr. Glenn Gilmour, legal counsel at DOJ.

I'd like to thank the committee for providing us with this opportunity this morning to contribute to your discussion of MP Shory's private member's bill.

As you are aware, the bill consists of two key elements. First, the bill proposes to fast track citizenship for members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are permanent residents by reducing the residence requirement for citizenship by one year for members.

The second element of the bill, which has generated quite a bit of discussion, consists of provisions that would deem a person to have applied to renounce their Canadian citizenship or to have withdrawn, in the cases of permanent residents, their application for Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces.

I'd like to take just a few minutes to address some of the concerns raised by the committee members, other witnesses, and stakeholders over the course of recent hearings. These include concerns about the term “act of war”, concerns about statelessness, and some of the issues raised about due process.

First of all, concerning an act of war, as the committee has heard, the term “act of war” is problematic. This is because there is no clear definition in law of the term “act of war”. As a result, the term “act of war” would be very difficult for us to apply and could render the deemed renunciation provisions in the second part of the bill ineffective.

To address this issue and to ensure that the bill achieves its intent, Minister Kenney proposed that the committee consider amending the bill by replacing the reference to persons who commit an act of war and specifying instead that the act would apply to persons who have served as a member of an armed force of a country or any organized armed group engaged in an armed conflict with Canada; have been convicted of high treason under section 47 of Canada's Criminal Code; have been sentenced to five years or more of imprisonment for a terrorist offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, or an equivalent foreign offence for terrorism; or have been convicted of specific offences under the National Defence Act involving traitorous or terrorist acts.

These amendments would be in line with one of the main objectives of the bill, which is to deprive or deny citizenship to those who commit acts of violence and treason against Canada.

It is worth noting that similar provisions existed under the 1947 Canadian Citizenship Act.

Under that act, for example, Canadians could have their citizenship taken away if they committed acts of treason, if they served in the armed forces of another country that was at war with Canada, or if they unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy during a time of war.

Under the current act, as was noted this morning, citizenship can only be revoked in cases where it has been obtained by fraud. Other democratic countries have analogous legal provisions to deprive people of their citizenship for reasons of treason or terrorism. For example, citizens of the United States can be deprived of their citizenship for being a member of an armed force at war with the United States and/or following a conviction for high treason. Australia also has a provision where citizens who become members of the armed force of a country at war with Australia can be deprived of their citizenship.

With regard to statelessness, the committee has heard and expressed concerns that Bill C-425's provisions could render people stateless. The deemed renunciation provisions, as currently written, would apply to dual Canadian citizens as well as legal residents of a country other than Canada. The challenge with this is that the potential result is that a Canadian citizen who is a legal resident of another country but who does not have another citizenship to fall back on could be rendered stateless. This would be in contravention of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which Canada is a party.

To ensure that Canada respects its international commitments in this area, Minister Kenney asked the committee to consider an amendment to ensure that only Canadians with dual citizenship, whether they were born or naturalized in Canada, would be deemed to have renounced their Canadian citizenship. It's important to note that similar provisions to take away citizenship in other countries, such as in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, also include restrictions to apply such provisions only in cases where it would not lead to someone becoming stateless.

With regard to due process, concerns were also raised in this area under the proposed bill and ensuring there would be appropriate safeguards in place. Under the current act, citizenship judges, who are independent decision-makers, are the decision-makers for renunciation cases. As the minister explained, for deemed renunciation of citizenship under this bill, the appropriate legal safeguards would be in place. CIC would gather available information to determine if the deemed renunciation provisions apply. The individual would then be notified and given an opportunity to provide additional information relevant to the decision. A citizenship judge would then make the decision as to whether or not individuals are deemed to have renounced their citizenship. In addition, individuals would be able to seek review by the Federal Court of a decision to take away citizenship.

Concerns were raised with regard to the possibility—and it was mentioned this morning—that an equivalent terrorism conviction may be from a country where there are questions about the independence of the judiciary or where membership in an armed force may have been the result of coercion. As the minister explained, to ensure that individuals in these situations are not unfairly penalized, the minister would retain discretion not to pursue applications for deemed renunciation for individuals, for example, where they may have been compelled to do something against their own volition. Such a provision would be in line with discretionary provisions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Once again, Mr. Chair, I wish to thank you for inviting us to appear before you today. I hope these remarks have been helpful, and we would be happy to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 76. It is Thursday, April 18. This meeting is televised. We are studying Mr. Shory's private member's bill, Bill C-425.

We have one witness. We will be going for one half-hour. Our witness is B'nai Brith Canada. Mr. David Matas is the senior honorary counsel. He has appeared before this committee at least twice that I can think of. We also have Marc Chétrit Rieger, who is the legal counsel. Good morning to you, gentlemen.

Mr. Chétrit Rieger, I gather you're going to introduce the program. You have up to eight minutes to make a presentation.

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

Thank you.

Residents of Scarborough—I'm a member from Scarborough—are eager to become citizens of our country. Citizenship applicants face longer wait times than ever before. The residency questionnaire takes an additional two years or more for review. Permanent residents in Scarborough are already paying taxes, volunteering in their neighbourhoods, and raising their families.

Bill C-425 that is before us will be accelerating citizenship for about 15 people per year. Those are the statistics that were given to us.

Is this effort enough?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

You mentioned the arbitrary nature of Bill C-425 and, in terms of its scope, you therefore put it in parallel with its symbolic objective. You are also clearly saying that this has nothing to do with a desire to protect Canada from any terrorist acts.

Can you give us more details about those two points: the arbitrary aspect and the symbolic objective of this bill?

[Maureen Basnicki, Co-founder, Canadian Coalition Against Terror]

My name is Maureen Basnicki, and my family is one of 24 Canadian families who lost a loved one on 9/11. As co-founder of the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, I would like to express my support for the broad principles of Bill C-425. Some of Canada's closest allies have enacted similar legislation to protect the integrity of their citizenship, and Canada is rightly taking a moderate step to do the same.

In particular, I am pleased this bill explicitly references terrorist offences in its provision. We need to look no further than a daily newspaper to be reminded of the ability of terrorists to destabilize cities, countries, or regions, and to inflict violence on a level once reserved only for sovereign entities. Most chilling, for terrorists there is no weapon or tactic, including weapons of mass destruction, that is inherently beyond contemplation. This bill adds one more piece of legislative armour against this particularly brutal foe, and I look forward to its passage into law. Thank you.

[Sheryl Saperia, Advisor, Canadian Coalition Against Terror and Director of Policy for Canada, Foundation for Defense of Democracies]

Thank you for inviting us here today. I am pleased to testify on this important bill in my capacity as director of policy for Canada with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and adviser to the Canadian Coalition Against Terror.

Like other democracies, Canadian society has been built on the concept of the social contract. In broad terms, this means that individuals have consented, either explicitly or implicitly, to relinquish some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the state in exchange for other compelling benefits. A social contract involves expectations and understandings with regard to the relationship between governments and citizens, and to my mind, Bill C-425 is about establishing a 21st century baseline for this relationship.

The bill, and what I understand to be Minister Kenney's amendments, rightly propose a two-sided proposition that the citizenship process ought to be accelerated for individuals who contribute to the safety of Canada by joining the Canadian Armed Forces, while the concept of deemed renunciation of citizenship is introduced for individuals engaged in armed conflict against the Canadian Forces or who commit acts of treason or terrorism.

In principle I'm in favour of this legislation. Nevertheless, I would like to propose several modifications, focused primarily on the issue of terrorism, that I believe will help the bill achieve its intended results and avoid certain political and legal complications.

Engaging in armed conflict against Canadian soldiers and committing treason are appropriately identified as fundamental violations of the social contract. In both these cases, the individual has essentially declared his or her allegiance to forces acting to damage or destroy Canada. Such an individual has disavowed the most basic tenets of the social contract and has done so in a manner so egregious that it cannot be framed as mere dissent. The loss of Canadian citizenship seems a fitting consequence for the crime, provided, of course, as we discussed earlier, that the offender is a citizen of at least one other country.

Committing terrorism in Canada or against a Canadian target can similarly be perceived as a fundamental severance of the ties between the individual and Canadian society, so the offender's subsequent exclusion from that community seems fitting. But what about a terrorist attack that is committed neither in nor against Canada? Why should this offence be treated differently from another violent criminal offence committed abroad? What is the connection between committing this crime and losing Canadian citizenship? I believe that the answer lies in the unique threat that terrorism poses to Canada and the democratic world in our time.

Terrorists pledge their allegiance not to the country issuing the passport but to ideologies and will not hesitate to use terrible violence to pursue their goals. In demonstrating such allegiance, which goes to the very heart of the social contract, they should not be provided with the privileges of Canadian citizenship that could be used to cause death and destruction in Canada or any other country. This argument is particularly strengthened when Canadians have committed terrorist offences on behalf of, for the benefit of, or in association with any listed entities that have been publicly identified as enemies of, and threats to, Canada.

My next point pertains to terrorist convictions by a foreign court. Minister Kenney has indicated he would put forward an amendment requiring the terrorist act to be an equivalent crime under Canadian law. This is an important safeguard as non-democratic countries in particular have been known to label their domestic political opponents as terrorists. Thus, something like participating in a political protest, while referred to as terrorism by the foreign state, would not be considered terrorism in Canada and would not constitute deemed renunciation.

So let's suppose that a foreign state finds a Canadian citizen guilty of an act of terrorism that would be viewed as an equivalent crime in Canada. What if, though, this foreign state did not possess a legal system that we trusted to ensure due process and a fair trial? It is not clear to me that something as severe as loss of citizenship should be prompted by a criminal conviction from a court whose standards do not meet our own.

Let me suggest a possible solution. Perhaps we should consider only accepting foreign convictions from countries with which we have extradition relationships, because this signifies a certain trust in those states' legal systems. The recently compiled list of designated countries of origin might be another instrument to discern which foreign convictions to recognize for the purpose of deemed renunciation.

On the other hand, being restricted only to these lists might handcuff Canada from acting against terrorists who pose a serious threat to Canada and its allies. Perhaps in the case of countries that do not appear on either of the above-mentioned lists, the government should be required to make its case before a Canadian judge, outlining why the government feels that in a particular instance the foreign court's determination should be accepted as reliable.

Whether the terrorist conviction is foreign or domestic, it is important that the legislation allow for ministerial and/or judicial discretion and that deemed renunciation of citizenship not be automatic.

We want to make sure the loss of citizenship is appropriate in each case and that every relevant factor is taken into account when making such a decision. In that respect, perhaps a finding of civil liability for a terrorist offence under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act could be used as one factor in the minister's discretionary decision-making. A successful civil suit against a terrorist offender under the JVTA would provide greater evidence of, and insight into, his or her terrorist involvement and would help the minister ascertain the level of threat the person poses to Canada.

The specific offences for which a person is held civilly liable under the JVTA could be the same ones used to determine whether a person is deemed to have renounced his citizenship under Bill C-425, and I can go through the sections in the Criminal Code with you right now.

Ultimately, I believe the proposed deemed renunciation mechanism with proper protections has value. From a national security perspective, it can offer a new layer of deterrence for people who would otherwise consider engaging in the proscribed behaviour. It can facilitate the removal of people who are dangerous, not only to Canada as a whole, but who pose a particular danger to the vulnerable individuals in our society who are susceptible to radicalization. The coveted Canadian passport would be taken away from those who would use it to facilitate terrorist movement and activity.

I would be happy to discuss my remaining thoughts with you in the Q and A, including those on the issue of involuntary dual citizenship, which were raised earlier.

Thank you.

[Dr. Bal Gupta, Chair, Air India 182 Victims Families Association]

Good morning. I thank the committee for giving us an opportunity to testify from the perspective of victims impacted directly by the most heinous violent crime in Canadian history, namely, the terrorist bombing of Air India Flight 182 on June 23, 1985.

The Air India 182 Victims Families Association strongly supports Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. The bill proposes to reduce the residence requirement for Canadian citizenship by one year for permanent residents who serve in the Canadian Forces and to trigger the renunciation of Canadian citizenship for those who engage in acts of war against the Canadian Forces.

These provisions, if enacted into law, will on the one hand encourage, acknowledge, and support those who put themselves on the front lines for Canada to protect our freedom and democracy, and on the other hand, act as a deterrent against those Canadians who violently demonstrate their opposition to our freedom and democracy by engaging in acts of war against the Canadian Forces.

I speak to you not as an expert in legal or constitutional matters but as a victim of the worst violent terrorist crime in Canada. In the Air India 182 tragedy, I lost my wife, Ramwati Gupta, to whom I was married for over 20 years. In a tragic moment, I was left as a single parent with two young sons who were 12 and 18 years of age at the time.

This tragedy was the result of a terrorist conspiracy conceived and executed on Canadian soil by criminals who brought their problems from India into Canada. The terrorist bombing killed 329 innocent persons. Most victims were from Canada, starting in Newfoundland and going to British Columbia. Only P.E.I. was not touched by this tragedy.

They came from almost all religious faiths and included atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jains, Muslims, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. Eighty-six victims were children. Twenty-nine families were completely wiped out, including the husband, the wife, and all their children. Thirty-two persons were left alone; the spouse and children were gone. Seven parents in their fifties or late forties lost all their children. Two children lost both parents. The terrorist criminals took away our Canadian democratic rights to life and liberty, and peace and prosperity. Sadly, the real culprits are still roaming free in Canada and elsewhere.

As families of the victims of the bombing of Air India 182, we have suffered and continue to suffer incalculable grief and pain, which we do not wish to befall any other Canadian in any future terrorist activities. Part of our mission is to speak out on crime, violence, and terrorism to ensure that Canada is safer and more secure for its citizens.

Bill C-425 has two provisions. The first provision in the bill proposes to reduce the residence requirement for Canadian citizenship by one year for permanent residents who serve in the Canadian Forces.

Currently, the Canadian Forces are reportedly on duty in Afghanistan, Jerusalem, Egypt, and Mali, and in the Indian Ocean off the Somali coast. Canadian Forces are not an occupying force. They are either working as peacekeepers or fighting on the front lines against terrorism and other violent crimes, such as piracy on the seas, which fuel terrorism and lawlessness. These overseas criminals and terrorists have no hesitation in exporting terrorism into Canada or luring and embracing misguided Canadians in their causes.

Thus, our soldiers on the front lines are defending our freedom, our democracy, and our democratic values and rights. This first provision in Bill C-425 acknowledges, encourages, and supports the loyalty of permanent citizens who have joined the Canadian Armed Forces and have put themselves on the front lines for Canada.

The second provision in the bill strips Canadian citizenship from those Canadians with dual citizenship who engage in acts of war against the Canadian Forces. By waging war against the Canadian Forces, such persons clearly demonstrate that they have no loyalty whatsoever to Canada and attach no value to the Canadian democratic system. Thus, they do not deserve Canadian citizenship, which they are using as a matter of convenience to further their criminal and terrorist activities.

A Canadian engaging in acts of war against the Canadian Forces is not a far-fetched scenario. Today, terrorism is an international phenomenon and terrorists, in most cases, may have worldwide connections. Prosecuted and proven cases, such as Khawaja in Canada and the Millennium Bomber in the U.S.A, are well-known examples of Canadians connected to terrorist activities outside Canada. Also, in the last few years there have been many reports of highly indoctrinated persons from different parts of Canada leaving our soil—sometimes disappearing without trace—to join terrorist training camps or terrorist activities in other countries. Some of these individuals have reportedly disappeared and are presumed killed abroad, leaving their Canadian families to grieve in silence.

During the last four weeks I have seen several news reports, and I'll enumerate them. There were two Canadians involved in a terrorist attack on a gas plant in Algeria, and they were alleged to be the ringleaders in some reports. There was a Canadian sentenced to two years in prison for terrorist conspiracy in Mauritania, as well as a Canadian with dual citizenship involved in a deadly bus bombing in Bulgaria last summer. CSIS is aware of dozens of Canadians, many in their early twenties, who have traveled or attempted to travel overseas to engage in terrorism-related activities in recent years. A Canadian—these are the news items—lost a bid to lead Syria's rebels. One of Syria's rebel groups, namely al-Nusra Front, formally pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri. There were two, actually, last week; one I saw only last night.

Most probably there are many more unreported cases of Canadians involved in terrorist activities around the world. Given appropriate right—or wrong—circumstances, such individuals may engage in acts of war against Canadian Armed Forces on duty abroad and may pose a potentially mortal threat and danger to our soldiers.

The second provision of Bill C-425 provides a deterrent against such a possibility. Also, note this, such Canadians will have no hesitation in importing their terrorist activities into Canada to further their perceived just cause, similar to what led to the terrorist bombing of Air India 182. It is also worth noting that some other countries, such as Australia and the United States, and I heard the U.K., already have similar policies in place. This bill will bring us in line with them.

In summary, we, with the first-hand experience of the aftermath of the most heinous act of terrorism in Canadian history, the terrorist bombing of Air India182, ask all members of Parliament to support Bill C-425. We sincerely believe that Bill C-425 will be a step, however small, in keeping Canada free from terrorism, so that no Canadian will suffer what we have suffered, and it deserves support from all members of Parliament.

Thank you.

[Dr. Catherine Dauvergne, Professor, University of British Columbia, Faculty of Law, As an Individual]

Thank you and good morning.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity this morning to speak to you about Bill C-425. It seems destined to become a major attack on the principle of citizenship in Canada.

Let me start with two comments that supersede all others on this matter.

First, citizenship implies a fundamental relationship between an individual and the state.

Destroying this relationship as a form of punishment hearkens back to the ancient punishments of banishment and exile. It has no place in contemporary Canada.

Second, such a profound change to our Citizenship Act such as the one the minister is proposing must not be done by a process like this, by a private member's bill. That process reduces the time allowed for debate and for this committee to do its work and it protects the changes that the minister is proposing. This is controlling democracy.

For this reason, this morning, I'm directing my remarks to what I anticipate the bill may look like at the time it returns to the House. I will make four points.

First, stripping dual citizens of Canadian citizenship would constitute arbitrary punishment. Second, denationalizing potential terrorists will provide an avenue to escape the full force of the law. Third, such denationalizations will foster global and Canadian insecurity. Fourth, there's no good or principled reason to follow the path of the United Kingdom.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me know when my time will elapse as I don't have a clock in front of me.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I call the meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting 75, Tuesday, April 16, 2013. We're studying Mr. Shory's private member's bill, Bill C-425, which is an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

We have three witnesses before us for the first hour. We have Professor Catherine Dauvergne from the University of British Columbia. We have Mr. Bal Gupta who is chair of the Air India 182 Victims Families Association. We have from Toronto, on video conference, Mr. Lorne Waldman, who is with the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

Professor Dauvergne and Mr. Waldman have appeared before us before. Welcome to all of you.

We will start with Professor Dauvergne, you have up to eight minutes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You know, Bill C-425 initially will in fact....

As you have correctly pointed out, Mr. De Angelis, at the end of the day, if it were to pass as is, it would cause potential statelessness. Now, the government, thankfully, because of the UN declaration of 1961, recognizes that this would not be a good thing.

So now the minister comes forward—I have suggested to hijack the bill by Mr. Shory—and says, well, what we'll do is we'll establish two classes of citizenship: those that have dual citizens will in fact be stripped of their Canadian citizenship, and those that don't have dual citizens will have to look at the internal justice system.

I realize that you more so want to talk about the issue of statelessness, and you've pointed out an amendment to Mr. Shory's bill that would deal with that. But do you have any comment on the issue of the establishment of two classes of citizenship?

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

Thank you, because that's what this stage of the committee is about, to actually look at the bill and see how we....

As parliamentarians, we have a fiduciary duty to Canadians and citizens—and non-citizens, I guess, alike—to make sure that we are making the best laws and making the best policy moving forward. Your expertise would be very much welcomed, so thank you.

The minister indicated that, in principle, he's in favour for Bill C-425 to apply to Canadians without dual citizenship, but is legally bound by the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which Canada is a signatory, of course, as you've mentioned time and time again.

I'm uncertain; while we all have a clear understanding of the issue of statelessness, can you share with us the importance of not being stateless and some of the consequences for people who are stateless?

[Furio De Angelis, Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]

Thank you very much, Mr. Tilson.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for inviting me to participate in the debate on Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

We are pleased to have the opportunity to talk to the committee about this bill in relation to the issue of statelessness. However, before I begin, I would like to briefly introduce UNHCR's role and mandate in terms of statelessness.

UNHCR's responsibilities to stateless persons first started with refugees without any nationality, under the UNHCR Statute and the 1951 refugee convention, both of which refer to stateless persons who meet the criteria of the definition of a refugee.

Following the adoption of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, UNHCR's mandated responsibilities concerning statelessness were expanded.

The General Assembly's resolution in 1974 and 1976 designated UNHCR as the body mandated to examine the cases of persons who claim the benefit of the 1961 convention, and to assist such persons in presenting their claim to the appropriate national authorities.

Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly's resolution in 1995 and subsequent resolutions confer upon UNHCR a global mandate for the identification, prevention, and reduction of statelessness, and for the international protection of stateless persons.

UNHCR'S stateless mandate includes prevention of statelessness. As a result, it is not limited to addressing cases of statelessness which have already occurred. This means that UNHCR works to identify and address risks of statelessness, which may arise as a result of a gap in nationality laws and a conflict in laws between states; administrative obstacles, such as onerous requirements for proof of nationality; the situation of state succession; and discrimination on race, gender, disability, and other grounds.

It is in relation to this intersection, between prevention of statelessness and citizenship, and the office's responsibilities in respect to the 1961 convention, that UNHCR welcomes the opportunity to present to you one specific comment on Bill C-425.

Please allow me to clarify again from the outset that UNHCR can only comment on elements of the bill that relate to statelessness. I will therefore avoid referring to questions of withdrawal of Canadian citizenship for individuals who possess dual or multiple nationalities as in principle, statelessness is not an issue in such cases.

With respect to Bill C-425, clause 2 of the bill amending section 9 on the Citizenship Act provides for withdrawal of Canadian citizenship, as follows:

A Canadian citizen who is also a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces.

In this respect, UNHCR would like to submit that the possible withdrawal of citizenship of a Canadian national who is also a legal resident of a country other than Canada is at odds with the provision of articles 7 and 8 of the 1961 convention, requiring contracted states not to permit renunciation, or provide for loss of nationality—article 7—or deprivation of nationality—article 8—where the individual concerned would be rendered stateless.

I wish to state from the outset UNHCR's acknowledgement and appreciation for the minister's comment before this committee, that since Canada is a party to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the bill needs to be amended in order to ensure Canada follows its international obligation. The minister stated that, as written, the bill would apply to citizens who are legal residents of another country and should they not have dual citizenship, it would render them stateless. The minister urged the committee to consider amendments so that only those with dual citizenship would have their citizenship renounced to ensure that no one is made stateless.

UNHCR fully concurs with this position and highlights that this is the only section of the bill that, if not amended, would be inconsistent with Canada's obligation under the 1961 convention. Therefore, UNHCR respectfully recommends the words “or a legal resident” be deleted from the text.

I would like to add a few words on renunciation laws and the provision of nationality in accordance with the 1961 convention. The 1961 convention prohibits renunciation laws and deprivation of nationality when this results in statelessness. There are exceptions to this general rule, as foreseen in article 7 with regard to loss of nationality and article 8 with regard to deprivation of nationality. These exceptions are not applicable to Bill C-425. The exceptions are narrowly defined.

With respect to loss of nationality, the only exceptions to the general rule are in relation to prolonged residence abroad by naturalized citizens and failure to register for individuals born outside the territory. With respect to deprivation, the exceptions to the general rule relate essentially to nationality acquired by misrepresentation or fraud and conduct that is inconsistent with the duty of loyalty toward the state. However, this latter set of exceptions to the general rule prohibiting deprivation of nationality resulting in statelessness may be applied only by those states that made a declaration at the time of signature, the ratification of accession that they retained the right to apply. Canada did not make such a declaration upon accession to the 1961 convention in 1978.

The convention also requires that these grounds needed to exist in national law at the time the declaration was made. Canada, together with the U.K., put forward the drafting for these elements of article 8 of the convention when the text of the 1961 convention was negotiated.

International human rights law foresees differences in treatment depending on the specific circumstances of different groups of people. This approach can be summed up with the axiom that people in the same situation must be treated the same, people in different situations may be treated differently, however there must be a legitimate reason for a difference in treatment. In support of this principle, the United Nations Human Rights Committee states, “The enjoyment of rights and freedoms on an equal footing, however, does not mean identical treatment in every instance”. This is paragraph 8 of “General Comment 18”, the Human Rights Committee, 1989.

It is necessary that the Citizenship Act differentiates between the impact of specific elements of the Citizenship Act on people who have another nationality and on those who do not. The former are left without the protection of another state, while the latter are stateless. The difference in treatment therefore serves a legitimate purpose, which is the prevention of statelessness.

Chairman Tilson, honourable committee members, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your attention.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

That’s fine.

My question is for all of you.

We have all seen the impact of the 2001 attacks on the Muslim community. The impact was really strong and is still being felt today. No matter what passport the people of the Muslim community use to cross the border, they are still being stigmatized and singled out.

In your view, will Bill C-425 have a similar impact on those types of situations and on the prevention of terrorist acts?

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

But I failed my medical way back when, in a different country—in England.

At any rate, in that paper you discuss recommendations that would help the Canadian Forces shift from its current reactive approach to diversifying its recruits to a more proactive approach.

In your analysis, is clause 1 of Bill C-425 a reactive or proactive measure towards enhancing diversity in the Canadian Forces? Can you elaborate on how you would see the proactive approaches playing out?

[Salma Siddiqui]

Good morning.

Mr. Chair, members of Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, I am here today to speak to you not only as the president of the Muslim Canadian Congress but also, and more importantly, as a proud Canadian.

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce my colleague, Tahir Gora, who serves as the secretary general of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

Canadians are known around the world for being honest, polite, fair, and brokers of peace. We wear the maple leaf proudly on our backpacks while travelling, and we have heard stories of others sewing the flag on theirs in order to enjoy the same benefits, the benefits that come with being a Canadian.

Our global reputation is a great source of pride for all Canadians, but it also comes with great responsibility. I came to this country in 1967, many years ago, from Pakistan. My country of birth was experiencing much hardship. My parents, like any other parents, wanted the best for their children. They brought us to safety and security in this country.

What happened next is what makes Canada so great. My experience is the embodiment of immigrant experience. Nothing came easy to us. We worked, and worked very hard. With that hard work, doors opened, opportunities came. It is with great pride that I say we successfully built businesses here, and it is the same experience for my colleague, Tahir Gora.

I know countless others from all over the world who have shared the immigrant experience in Canada. We all know that in this increasingly globalized, competitive world, we will continue to need immigrants of all stripes to spur our economy, to foster innovation, and to contribute, as have many countless millions before them, to building a strong and more prosperous Canada. The stellar reputation of Canada is one through which we can recruit the world's best and brightest. It is for this reason that I am here today.

Ladies and gentlemen, our reputation is under attack. Some Canadians use that very citizenship, and the passports that come with it, to engage in activities that are nothing short of being absolutely contradictory to our Canadian values. We have heard stories of Canadians being involved in terrorist activities in different hot spots throughout the world. Some have killed. Others have trained or are training known terrorist groups, and they continue to plot attacks against our interests and those of our allies. Indeed, it is an affront to our men and women in uniform, who protect Canadian values around the world, that they should have to confront violence perpetrated by opportunistic and disloyal Canadians.

Those of us who lived through the 1980s remember well the damage done to Canada's reputation by acts of Sikh terrorism. Recent news about Canadian citizens involved in terrorist acts in Algeria, Bulgaria, and with Al-Shabaab in Somalia should disturb us all. The flow of young Canadians to terrorist training camps around the world is indeed a matter of concern. We cannot allow this to continue.

Canadians who are opposed to the values of our society should not be allowed to abuse the privileges that come with holding Canadian citizenship. We must act to strip Canadian citizenship from those who seek to exploit it for violent and illegal activities.

Bill C-425 seeks to strip Canadian citizenship from dual nationals engaged in violent disloyalty to Canada. The Muslim Canadian Congress supports this bill. We remember all too well how frustrating it was for us to be painted by some in the U.S. media as a safe haven for terrorists, as a place where terrorists could come to exploit the very judicial system that they seek to destroy for their own means. It is for this reason that we must support this legislation and demonstrate that no one shall be permitted to spill blood under our name.

I have heard concerns that Bill C-425 represents a major reaction or that it serves a “political process”. I disagree. Bill C-425 represents an assertion of the pride we hold in our values of an open, liberal democracy where our freedoms are applied to all.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must be reasonable. We cannot allow those with violent aspirations to proceed to attack us, our interests and those of our allies, and to do so while using a flag under the banner that provides them the freedom and mobility to participate in these violent, hateful, and cowardly acts.

In closing, I would like to thank you for this opportunity and would ask that you support the passage of Bill C-425. It is an essential step in all of us taking a stand, that “we stand on guard for thee”.

Thank you very much.

[Prof. Grazia Scoppio]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me. I am an associate professor at the Canadian Defence Academy and the Royal Military College. I have been asked to appear as an individual based on my expertise, and I will be speaking on my own behalf and not on behalf of the Department of National Defence.

I have conducted research in Canada and elsewhere on immigrant integration and organizational diversity including that in military organizations and the Canadian Forces. I will focus my comments on the first part of Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, specifically on the subsection that refers to reducing by one year the required years of residence in Canada of any permanent resident who is a member of the Canadian armed forces, who has signed a minimum three-year contract, and who has completed basic training.

The intended outcome of the above-mentioned amendment is somewhat unclear. If the intent is simply to expedite the citizenship process of a few select immigrants who happen to have unique skills to fulfill a special need of the Canadian Forces, then the bill, if passed, will be accomplishing this outcome and will result in a small-scale impact.

If however, the intent is to open the door of the Canadian Forces to greater numbers of qualified landed immigrants with permanent residence in order to provide, “new Canadians with more pathways to integration”, as stated by Mr. Shory who presented the bill when he appeared before this committee, then the bill on its own will not accomplish this broader outcome.

This proposed amendment to the Citizenship Act will likely impact a very small number of individuals since the number one advertised requirement to join the Canadian Forces is Canadian citizenship. Only occasionally the Canadian Forces recruit non-citizens. As the committee learned in a previous hearing, only about 60 personnel in the Canadian Forces are non-Canadian Citizens with permanent residency status, or about 15 on average yearly.

Roughly, this will represent less than 0.5% of the Canadian Forces' yearly planned intake. The policy that established Canadian Forces enrolment requirements is found in the Queen's Regulations and Orders, QR and O, chapter six, which states:

In order to be eligible for enrolment in the Canadian Forces as an officer or non-commissioned member, a person must:

(a) be a Canadian citizen, except that the Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may authorize the enrolment of a citizen of another country if he is satisfied that a special need exists and that the national interest will not be prejudiced thereby.

As illustrated, there are exceptions to the citizenship requirement to join the Canadian Forces; however, these exceptions are few and not widely advertised. As well, it should be noted that there are additional challenges and significant delays to obtaining a security clearance for any applicant whether he or she is a Canadian Citizen or foreign national who has resided abroad. I was one of them, so I know.

For the great majority of Canadian Forces occupations, the required security clearance is Level II, Secret. Therefore, should the actual intent be to open the Canadian Forces recruiting door to qualified immigrant men and women who are permanent residents, the bill on its own will not accomplish this outcome. Rather, relevant policies would have to be amended to allow more newcomers to apply and join the Canadian Forces. These potential policy changes will likely result in increasing the diversity of the Canadian Forces membership, since currently the Canadian Forces do not reflect the cultural, ethnic, and gender diversity of Canadian society.

At the same time, it would be important to consider interrelated issues such as security clearance—which I spoke about—official language ability, and foreign credentials, to name a few. As well, it would be informative to review the policies and processes in place in other militaries that recruit non-citizens, such as the United States of America and, more recently, Australia.

In conclusion, I am in favour of the proposed subsection of the bill regarding expediting citizenship requirements of permanent residents who are members of the Canadian Armed Forces. This would be a positive step. However, as it stands, the impact of this amendment to the Citizenship Act on new immigrants would not be significant, as they are, by and large, not eligible to join the Canadian Forces.

If a wider impact is envisioned, other relevant policies would have to be amended accordingly to allow greater numbers of qualified future Canadian citizens to join the Canadian Forces, thus providing them with “more pathways to integration”.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide my perspective.

[Asif Khan]

Good morning.

Honourable Chair, members of Parliament, colleagues, and special guests, I am honoured to be with you today to discuss this private member's bill, Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces). My name is Asif Khan, as mentioned, and I'm the national secretary of public relations for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at. Today I will speak to the importance and validity of Bill C-425 from the perspective of an Ahmadiyya Muslim.

I am an Ahmadiyya Muslim who has lived his entire life as a proud Canadian and a devoted Muslim. First and foremost, I can tell you that Islam is categorical and explicit in teaching Muslims that loyalty to one's country of residence, the land that provides for a person's livelihood and fosters their hopes and dreams, is an important tenet of faith.

The prophet of Islam, Muhammad, peace be upon him, once stated that love for one's homeland is part of one's faith, so it is on the precept of this guidance from the founder of Islam himself that Ahmadiyya Muslims have such deep regard for the country we live in.

Further to this, His Holiness Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the current worldwide spiritual head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at, has further elaborated on this noble precept by guiding Ahmadiyya Muslims all over the world with the following words. I will quote what he says:

As citizens of any country, we Ahmadi Muslims, will always show absolute love and loyalty to the State. Every Ahmadi Muslim has a desire for his chosen country to excel and should always endeavour towards this objective.

About Canada in particular, His Holiness echoed the sentiments of all Canadian Ahmadiyya Muslims during his recent tour of Canada this past summer when he stated, “I say without hesitation that the ‘water and earth’ of Canada certainly contains high moral values and loyalty.” He also repeated a prayer from our fourth Khalifa that I will quote: “that the whole world becomes Canada and Canada becomes the whole world”.

Despite the 200 countries that Ahmadis are now living in, serving and building communities wherever they go, the Canadian government is at the forefront in helping Ahmadis become a key part of the fabric that weaves this country together. Whether it's Prime Minister Harper attending the opening of our mosque in Calgary, the largest in Canada, or the government's decision to announce the Office of Religious Freedom at our headquarters in Vaughan, we have felt the embrace of our nation in our home, which is Canada.

This serves as a heartbreaking reminder and joy for us, because many Ahmadi Muslims have migrated to Canada in fleeing bitter persecution in Pakistan. Ahmadis there are legislatively sanctioned with actual amendments to the Pakistan constitution declaring us non-Muslims and setting harsh penalties of imprisonment and even death merely for practising our faith.

Canada has been a haven for Ahmadi Muslims, making our love for this country all the stronger. This is why we are at the forefront in giving back to our country and serving our communities. We are one of the largest partners for the Canadian Blood Services. We raise over 100,000 pounds of food for the less fortunate here each year. We hold community cleanups across Canada. We hold hospital fundraisers. We have earned the respect and appreciation of the leaders and public figures of every community we reside in, but our love for this country goes far beyond this, and it is this love that demands we Ahmadi Muslims uphold the sanctity of Canadian citizenship to the utmost.

Canadian citizenship is a great blessing and a gift whose importance and purity must be protected and preserved. That is why it is crucial that the Canadian government possess the power to strip Canadian citizenship from all such dual citizens who are convicted and confirmed in committing acts of war against the Canadian Armed Forces. If our government does not possess this right, then how can we deter such would-be transgressors against the state from committing acts that threaten the security of this country? It is only just that those who undermine the value of their Canadian citizenship enough to wage war against the state should also thereby forfeit their right to that very citizenship, a citizenship that so many countless millions are in search of yet is so disregarded by such troublemakers.

But this bill is about more than those who commit war against the state. Ultimately, this bill leads to granting the government the right to strip citizenship from any dual citizens who are convicted of terrorism. To this point, His Holiness Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the worldwide leader of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at, spoke this past summer, even before the motion for this bill. He said:

For the entire world to become Canada we must keep a vigilant eye on all forms of extremism and extremists.

In so doing, His Holiness recognized, even led the way, in informing Canadians about the need to protect from the threat of extremism. But why should we only worry about such problems after the fact?

Extremism must be rooted out before it even festers in the first place. It should never happen to begin with.

Regarding this, His Holiness advised the government in the same address with the following words:

I would like to draw your attention towards one matter in particular. The Government should be aware that it is quite possible for certain extremist elements to enter the country on the pretext of benefiting from the various investment opportunities or schemes of the Government. This risk should be kept in view by the policy makers when determining future immigration and investment policies.

He went on to say:

Therefore, no doubt the eyes and glances of those who hold extremist ideologies are cast upon this country. It is not necessary that they will conduct a large-scale terrorist attack, but instead they may take a more subtle approach, whereby they will seek to gradually spread their hate-filled ideologies upon entering the country. Certainly, one common and relatively easy way of entering the country is on the pretext of business, trade and investment.

Now it could be argued that the various changes to the immigration processes have made immigration to Canada more difficult, and it would appear odd that an ethnic and religious community would support such changes and possibly more in the future. However, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community is utterly against all forms of terrorism and extremism, and supports wholeheartedly any policy that protects the principle of loyalty to Canada.

We realize that it would perhaps make immigration applications more stringent for acceptance to Canada for members of our community and others. However, Canada must protect the reputation and the generosity this great country affords to those who get to call it their home. Our utmost priority is the safety and progress of Canada, even if it means that members of our own community find it difficult to immigrate here.

In closing, I return to the proposed bill C-425 and end this endorsement to protect the sanctity of Canadian citizenship with some humble words of caution. I can tell you that more than anything, along with our values of tolerance and plurality, Canada is defined by its qualities of justice, fairness, and due process.

So in empowering the state to strip citizenship from dual citizens who commit acts of war and potentially acts of terror against Canada, the Government of Canada must ensure that individuals are not even accused, let alone convicted, of such acts lightly. The bill and its accompanying rules should be carefully drafted. It would be tragic and not the intent of the bill if an innocent citizen were to suffer due to a hurried decision or an improper investigation.

How these measures are set up I leave to the able-minded policy-makers of our government. Our final advice would be that due process, full investigation, and the highest standards of fairness, care, and consideration be exhibited in exercising a power that allows for the removal of this most precious and sacred gift we call citizenship.

Long live Canada and thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning, everyone. We'll call the meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 74. It's Tuesday, March 26, 2013.

We are studying Mr. Shory's private member's bill, Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

We have quite a few guests here this morning. From the Muslim Canadian Congress, we have two representatives.

Salma Siddiqui, good morning to you. You're the president.

[Michael Peirce, Assistant Director Intelligence, Canadian Security Intelligence Service]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good morning. I am pleased to be here to discuss issues relating to private member's Bill C-425.

As I understand it, in its present form Bill C-425 would seek to provide an advanced path to citizenship for permanent residents who are also members of the Canadian Forces. It would also provide a means to remove Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who engage in acts of war against the Canadian Forces.

I am also aware of the comments by Minister Kenney and Mr. Shory, the bill's sponsor, that they intend to introduce amendments to the bill to provide authorities to remove Canadian citizenship from dual citizens convicted of terrorist offences in Canada or abroad.

I would like to be very clear on this point. CSIS is not a law enforcement agency. People convicted of terrorist offences are convicted by a court of law based on evidence gathered for prosecution purposes by law enforcement agencies. While CSIS intelligence may sometimes provide investigative leads to police, it is not typically used in such proceedings.

Mr. Chair, that being said, in order to provide some context to the committee's study of Bill C-425 and the possible amendments thereto, I'd like to speak to the general terrorism threat environment, especially as it relates to alleged Canadian involvement in terrorist-related activities.

CSIS is currently investigating a number of individuals in Canada on terrorist-related grounds. Their activities range from fundraising and logistical support to terrorist training and operations. As we recently indicated in our public report, these individuals fall into no distinct class, educational, or psychological category. Mr. Chair, there's simply no single terrorist type or mould.

In addition to individuals being investigated for terrorist-related activity in Canada, the spectre of radicalized individuals from Canada being involved in terrorism overseas is a significant concern for the service. Canada has an international obligation to prevent the exporting of terrorism, when and where possible, especially if it involves some of its citizens.

The committee will also be aware of recent reports of alleged Canadian involvement in attacks in Bulgaria and the recent confirmation that the remains of Canadians suspected of involvement in a terrorist attack in Algeria have been located.

As well, the director of CSIS recently stated to the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence that the service is aware of dozens of Canadians who have travelled abroad to engage in terrorism-related activities.

Mr. Chair, such cases represent a serious threat to security, both in Canada and abroad, and may adversely affect Canada's international reputation. Canadians involved in terrorist activities abroad could transfer their skills and knowledge to terrorist organizations. They could also bring skills and knowledge acquired abroad back to Canada. They could possibly use that knowledge to conduct terrorist attacks on Canadian soil. This terrorist feedback loop is obviously a concern for us.

Moreover, individuals returning to Canada from conflict zones abroad have been known to radicalize others. Indeed, because of their adventures overseas, such individuals often gain a large amount of credibility—in the vernacular, they get “street cred”—among some like-minded individuals in groups, particularly impressionable youth.

That being said, Mr. Chair, tracking Canadians who travel abroad to conduct terrorist activities is not an easy task. They often escape into ungoverned spaces such as tribal regions along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, or into conflict zones such as Syria where the situations are fluid and very difficult to navigate.

Mr. Chair, there are significant challenges with constructing a clear picture of foreign fighters and terrorists overseas.

First, it's often difficult for us to ascertain motive. In Syria, for instance, there has been an influx of foreign fighters, some for the Free Syrian Army, some for al-Qaeda-related groups, like the al-Nusra Front, and still others for the al-Assad regime, so differentiating the motives and alliances of individuals can be extremely difficult. I should also point out that we see movement at times. An individual may go over and begin activities with the Free Syrian Army and move over and end up fighting for or with the al-Nusra Front, for example. It's very difficult to track.

Second, investigations of individuals who have travelled overseas are particularly challenging because corroborating and finding reputable sources overseas and reporting takes time. During that time, individuals may move, and they may move into other locations where it's very difficult to track them, so time is a significant factor.

Third, confirming the identities of Canadians overseas is notoriously difficult and is sometimes impossible. Often, we must rely upon foreign intelligence agencies that may have other priorities, different resources, and different mandates.

Mr. Chair, despite these challenges, I'd like to underline that the service works extremely hard to provide as accurate a picture to the government as we can on this and many other threats related to national security.

Let me bring some international context to this discussion. Canada is not the only country dealing with radicalized citizens travelling abroad to engage in terrorism. Countries such as Australia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States have all experienced this problem to some degree, in many instances to some significant degree.

In fact, just last week, the Dutch government raised the terrorist threat level in the Netherlands from “limited” to “substantial” because radicalized Dutch youth travelled to Syria to engage in violent armed jihad.

I thought I'd bring this fact to the committee's attention, lest there be any perception that Canada is somehow an outlier among our allies. We are not. Many western nations are facing a similar threat, which will likely continue for some time.

This is an international problem.

On that note, I'd like to thank you for your attention. I welcome questions from members.

[Chief Superintendent Joe Oliver, Director General, Operational Prioritization and Protective Policing, Federal Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me here to speak to Bill C-425, the Honouring the Canadian Armed Forces Act. I appreciate the opportunity to answer your questions about the implications for law enforcement arising from this bill.

As written, Bill C-425 would not directly impact the RCMP's enforcement activities. Our role with respect to Bill C-425 would be to support Citizenship and Immigration Canada where appropriate.

Section 6 of the Security Offences Act gives the RCMP primary responsibility for criminal acts that constitute threats to the security of Canada as defined by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. The RCMP's role is to prevent, detect, deny, and respond to criminal threats to Canada's national security, including acts of terrorism, either in Canada or abroad, if they involve Canadians. The RCMP has responsibility for investigating acts of terrorism, either offences that have already occurred or those that are being planned.

Canada's national security remains a key strategic priority for the RCMP. Radicalization of Canadians to the point where they prepared to engage in extremist violence is a continuing challenge to our society. The RCMP works proactively to counter extremist messaging through our outreach efforts with communities vulnerable to recruitment to extremism across the country.

My intention today is to provide a law enforcement perspective on the threat of individuals engaging in terrorist acts, both within Canada and abroad.

Canada is not immune from terrorism, as our recent investigations have shown. Since the Anti-terrorism Act was introduced in 2001, 15 individuals have been convicted of terrorist-related offences in Canada. That's 14 offences under section 2 for terrorism and one for a hoax.

The convictions obtained to date mostly reflect individuals engaging in terrorist acts within Canada, but we are also concerned about individuals who radicalize within Canada and then leave to engage in violent criminal activity.

There is no shortage of instability and conflict in places like Somalia, Syria, and Afghanistan, which provide numerous opportunities for individuals to engage in violent extremist acts. The RCMP has investigated individuals who have become radicalized to the point where they've decided to leave Canada to engage in terrorist activities abroad. We've also seen instances where Canadians have travelled abroad to receive terrorist training that they then used upon their return to Canada. For example, Momin Khawaja was convicted in 2008 for manufacturing an explosive device for a group in the United Kingdom after he had travelled to Pakistan.

In order to prevent one of these individuals from leaving Canada, the police would have to obtain admissible evidence of the individual's intent to engage in terrorist activities. In practice, law enforcement will not always be able to obtain this information before the individual leaves the country. For example, in March 2011 the RCMP laid charges against two individuals suspected of leaving Canada to participate in the activities of a terrorist group. Neither individual has been apprehended.

The RCMP seeks to prevent terrorist activities from occurring whenever possible. From the RCMP's perspective, we would prefer to deal with these individuals before they leave Canada to commit violent acts abroad. However, in cases where law enforcement only learns of an individual's intent to engage in terrorist activities after he has left the country, we would liaise with our international partners to prevent the planned terrorist activities if possible.

Even in cases where law enforcement is unable to prevent the individuals from engaging in terrorist activities abroad, we can still collect evidence and liaise with our international partners in order to support prosecution should the individual return to Canada.

Another bill, S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, is currently before the House of Commons. It includes new offences for leaving Canada to commit terrorist activities. The proposed new offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to participate in activities of a terrorist group will assist law enforcement in stopping the activities of prospective terrorists at an earlier stage of their preparations, before they leave to join a terrorist training camp or to do harm elsewhere.

Again, thank you for inviting me to participate in this important meeting.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Bill C-425 is a bill that speaks to accelerating access to citizenship, so I think wait times are quite pertinent. The question I was going to ask was simply—

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you to our officials for being here.

Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate this opportunity to speak in support of the private member's bill moved by our colleague, Devinder Shory from Calgary Northeast, Bill C-425.

This legislation aims to honour those who serve in the Canadian Forces by granting citizenship sooner to its members who are not already Canadian. While there is only a small number of permanent residents in the Canadian armed forces, it seems appropriate that these individuals, who are willing to put their lives on the line in the defence of Canada, should have access to an expedited process for citizenship.

I appreciate that Member of Parliament Shory is aiming to recognize the unique role played by our Canadian armed forces members and the sacrifices they make on behalf of Canada.

Secondly, as you know, this bill aims to protect the value of Canadian citizenship, as it would enhance our ability to take it away from those who undermine our national security and who threaten the fundamental values on which Canadian citizenship is grounded.

We believe that Canadian citizenship is about far more than the right to carry a passport. It's not just about privileges and rights; it's also about obligations and responsibilities. Citizenship defines who we are as Canadians, including our mutual responsibilities to one another and a shared commitment to values that are rooted in our history, values such as the importance of democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental human rights.

Canada has one of the highest naturalization rates in the world. Since 2006, for example, on average, over 170,000 permanent residents have become citizens per year. It is not surprising to me that so many people are eager to become citizens of the greatest country in the world.

Even if it was decades ago, most new Canadians tell me they still remember the day and the moment at which they became citizens. The day is special for many reasons, but taking the oath is the moment when a person makes a commitment to Canada and to the Canadian family. They promise to obey the laws of our country, to respect our traditions, and to be loyal to our head of state and our country.

Our newest citizens often tell me they wish to protect our citizenship, to strengthen it, and to deepen the sense of shared belonging. That is why the government launched the citizenship action plan three years ago: to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship and to deepen attachment to it.

Colleagues, the government has undertaken measures to emphasize and encourage integration into Canadian society and ensure that citizenship has real, durable meaning.

As the bill is currently written, the deemed renunciation provision would apply to Canadian citizens who are also legal residents of another country. Should they not have dual citizenship, however, this could render some individuals stateless.

As you know, Chairman, Canada is party to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, which we ratified in 1978. To ensure that we respect these international commitments, I would ask the committee to consider an amendment so that only those with dual citizenship would be deemed to have renounced their Canadian citizenship under the provisions proposed in this bill.

Furthermore, in its current form, the bill would deem a Canadian citizen to have renounced their citizenship if they engage in an act of war against Canada or the Canadian armed forces. But as I believe the committee has already heard from other witnesses, there is no clear definition of what constitutes an act of war. I would suggest, therefore, that the committee amend the bill by replacing that term with other acts that are more clearly defined in law.

It's important to note that under the 1947 Citizenship Act, a Canadian could have their citizenship taken away if they were convicted of having committed acts of treason, or if they served in the armed forces of a country that was at war with Canada, or if they unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy during a time of war.

Indeed, prior to 1947, one's status as a subject could also of course be alienated on similar grounds, but more typically that occurred through capital punishment. There's the famous case of Kanao Inouye, the Kamloops Kid, Canadian born, who went to Japan during the Second World War, was a Japanese subject, committed war crimes against Canadian prisoners, and subsequently was executed following a court martial conviction following the war.

The remedy, if you will, for acts of treason was capital punishment, indeed up until some 20 years ago when it was removed from legislation.

I also think it is important to point out that the vast majority of the democratic world allows for the deprivation of citizenship for traitors and terrorists. The United Kingdom, France, the United States, Germany, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, and Switzerland are just some examples. In fact, we have done a survey of analogous legal provisions in other western liberal democracies, and so far we've identified only one that I'm aware of that does not have analogous provisions, and that is Portugal.

What Mr. Shory is proposing—and what I'm proposing as well in terms of amendments—would actually bring Canadian law into line with the overwhelming legal norm in the democratic world, and indeed with Canadian law prior to amendments to the Citizenship Act in 1977.

Individuals who are convicted of a terrorist crime in Canada or abroad should be deemed, in my view, through their own choices and actions—I repeat, through their choices and their actions—to have renounced their Canadian citizenship. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of examples for why these amendments are necessary.

I share the anger felt by Canadians at the recent discovery that a Canadian citizen is alleged to have been involved in the Hezbollah mass murder in Bulgaria. We believe this individual also has Lebanese citizenship. This is a man who came to Canada as a permanent resident, but about three years later he became a Canadian citizen and returned to Lebanon as a young man and has lived outside of Canada since that time.

Just a few days ago, as you know, media reports confirmed that one of the suspects in the horrendous terrorist attacks in Algeria recently was also a Canadian citizen.

Canadians are understandably outraged that someone would commit violent acts using our passport. If the allegations are true, these terrorists clearly have no sense of loyalty or commitment to our country. They have taken up arms and targeted innocent civilians on behalf of organizations that are proscribed illegal terrorist entities under Canadian law. Canada is an enemy of terrorism in general and certain terrorist organizations in particular, like Hezbollah, and to take up arms on their behalf, it seems to me, clearly constitutes a renunciation of the loyalty upon which our shared citizenship is predicated.

I'd also like to point out to colleagues that the vast majority of Canadians appear to agree with this premise. In fact, a live-caller poll conducted by Canadians last November indicated that 83% of Canadians strongly support the idea of revocation of citizenship from those convicted of terrorism or treason, as opposed to a small fraction who disagreed. This shows overwhelming public support for this notion.

I would also urge the committee to consider amending the bill to restore its application to dual citizens who are convicted of high treason. As was the case prior to 1977, I would urge the committee to consider amendments to ensure the bill would apply to someone who serves as a member of the armed forces of a country that is engaged in armed conflict with Canada. Given the recent examples I mentioned, I would also urge that it cover anyone who serves as a member of an organized armed group in armed conflict with Canada.

In Britain, for example, the government may revoke citizenship on very broad grounds if doing so is deemed to be “conducive to the public good”. In Switzerland citizens may lose their citizenship if they act in a way that causes serious prejudice to the national interest of the country. These examples are much broader than what I am proposing. The circumstances for deemed renunciation would be much more limited and much more clearly defined.

To be clear, if Bill C-425 is passed, there would be no change to processes currently applied in renunciation of Canadian citizenship cases. Appropriate legal safeguards would, of course, be in place. Notice would be given to the affected individual and due process would also be available, and any decision to take away one's citizenship would be reviewable by the courts.

The oath of citizenship and indeed this legislation reflect the idea that citizenship is founded upon the premise of reciprocal loyalty. If one violently renounces that reciprocal loyalty, we should consider that a renunciation of their citizenship. If citizens are convicted of serious terrorist offences, if they take up arms against Canada, or if they are convicted of high treason, those individuals have severed the bonds of loyalty that are the basis of their citizenship.

I should also note that these proposals do not distinguish between whether people with multiple nationalities were born in Canada or if they are naturalized citizens.

I do not anticipate that these provisions would impact many individuals. But their passage would deliver a strong message that Canadian citizenship is not a flag of convenience to be waved whenever it serves people's interest, particularly when they're committing some of the most terrible crimes conceivable.

Thank you very much, Chairman, for your attention. I'm happy to take any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning, everyone. I think we'll start the committee. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 73, on March 21, 2013.

We are reviewing Mr. Shory's private member's bill, Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

This morning we have the minister and some of his colleagues, who are going to make some comments on this bill.

Mr. Dykstra and I have often claimed to be the longest-serving members of this committee, currently, at least, but Ms. Chow has served much longer than we have, and it's a pleasure and a challenge to see her here today.

Minister Kenney, welcome to the committee, and thank you for coming. You have three of your colleagues with you, and I'll let you introduce them to the committee. As usual, sir, you have up to 10 minutes to make a presentation to the committee.

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

Thank you.

In clause 2 of the bill the term “legal resident” is mentioned, and as far as I know, it's also not defined in Canadian law. Critics have warned that this risks creating stateless people, which is of course a contravention of international law.

What is the definition of a legal resident and how will this term be interpreted in Bill C-425 as you understand it, as an expert?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Good morning, Chair, members, colleagues, and of course special guests here.

I am honoured to be with you to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

It was also a great honour to see that only three MPs voted against the bill at second reading. I note, perhaps ironically, that two of them are up front about the fact that they want Canada to fail as a nation, and the third one would surely see Canada brought to its knees if her policies were implemented. For the rest of us, we sided with the incredible majority, the many stakeholders, Canadians of all backgrounds, Conservatives, Liberals, NDPers, my hard-working constituents in Calgary Northeast, and the Canadian people from coast to coast to coast who want the bill to become law.

Three key beliefs of mine inspired this bill. Number one, new Canadians need more pathways to integration. Number two, our heroic men and women in uniform are worthy of the highest respect. Number three, Canada is the best country in the world. We should not force anyone to hang on to or hide behind Canadian citizenship, with its clear rights and responsibilities, if they want to destroy everything good this amazing country stands for.

These are beliefs held by Canadians from all walks of life who, like most of us in this room, want to reward those willing to put their lives on the line for Canada and our Canadian values. They also want to ensure that those who would attack the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our freedom and our values feel the full weight of justice as a consequence.

I would like to tell you a little-known story of a war hero named Buckam Singh. Mr. Singh moved to Canada in 1907 at the age of 14, and in 1915, he enlisted in the Canadian Overseas Expeditionary Force. Buckam served in the Canadian Armed Forces during World War I. He served with the 20th Canadian Infantry Battalion in Flanders, where he was wounded twice in battle. It is interesting to note that Buckam was initially treated in a hospital administered by Doctor Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae, known for his famous poem “In Flanders Fields”.

Mr. Singh died in 1919 in a military hospital in Kitchener, Ontario. He received the victory medal in recognition of his service to his adopted country, and his wife and mother were also given a memorial cross in recognition of his sacrifice. He gave his life to defend Canada and the cause of freedom abroad, and while he received recognition for his service, he never became a Canadian citizen. He was not even eligible.

It is heroes like Mr. Singh, Mr. Chair, that this bill in part seeks to honour. If this bill could help even one individual like Mr. Singh, it would surely be to Canada’s benefit.

While we examine history, let’s take a look at the precedent for the second part of this bill. Numerous western democracies including but not limited to Australia and the United Kingdom have long had similar laws allowing for the renunciation of citizenship in the interest of the public interest, a much lower and vaguer standard than what this bill seeks.

Furthermore, this bill is simply a necessary step in widening Canada’s existing legislation. Section 10 of the Canadian Citizenship Act already provides for the deprivation of citizenship, and section 46 of the Criminal Code clearly identifies treason as a crime.

Until 1977 the people who committed acts of treason would be punished by the removal of their Canadian citizenship. Canadians want to see this returned to law. My bill would expand existing laws to see that those who commit acts of treason meet proper justice, with all due oversight and rights to appeal outlined in the Criminal Code and the Citizenship Act. Canadians simply want to see these measures brought back into law.

I believe this committee has an overwhelming mandate from Canadians who want to see this bill succeed.

For any of those on the fringes who might hint at prejudice, I note that I sent a householder survey to my riding, and the bill was supported by 87% of the respondents. More than 50% of my constituents are from visible minority groups; my riding has the highest percentage of new Canadians in Alberta. This demonstrates vast support by new Canadians for this bill.

On October 30, 2012, the National Post reported on the results of an NRG poll of 1,001 Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The poll showed that eight in ten Canadians are in favour of Canadians losing their citizenship for committing acts that by their nature are an assault on the very values Canadian citizenship stands for.

Furthermore, the Calgary Herald editorial board, along with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at Canada, the Somali Canadian Education and Rural Development Organization, Immigrants for Canada, the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, the Muslim Canadian Congress, and B’nai Brith Canada have endorsed my bill.

As an immigrant myself, Mr. Chair, and as member of Parliament for Calgary Northeast, I have spoken to new Canadians as well as old Canadians from my riding and elsewhere. It is clear to me that Canadians from all walks of life understand the value and privilege of Canadian citizenship. They chose this country for a reason. They certainly don't want to see the reward they worked so hard for, Canadian citizenship, corrupted by a handful who would choose to abuse it.

Despite all this, Mr. Chair, I understand that our job as MPs requires all of us to take a critical look at all proposed legislation. With the same spirit of cooperation and openness that I have demonstrated since introducing this bill, I continue to look forward to humbly working with each of you to address any questions or concerns you may have. More importantly, I look forward to hearing any suggestions you may have to strengthen this bill.

In that spirit, Mr. Chair, I want to reiterate that I am open to amendments that are in line with the aims and intent of this legislation.

Thank you again. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ladies and gentlemen, it is Tuesday, March 19, and this is meeting 72 of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

We are meeting today to review Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces). It's a private member's bill of Mr. Shory, who is here as our guest.

First of all, I would like to introduce you to another person at the table, who is sitting for today only, Ms. Caroline Bosc, who is a clerk observing us. So she may report you if you get out of hand.

We are welcoming Mr. Shory, who is a former member of this committee. Welcome back, Mr. Shory, and we're pleased to review your bill with us. We have your notes in front of us. The floor is yours for 10 minutes.

The House resumed from February 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Citizenship Act

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak to Bill C-425, which introduces three new grounds for citizenship, or its removal, under the Citizenship Act based on relations with the Canadian armed forces.

The bill introduces, first, a new ministerial power to shorten permanent residency requirements for members of the Canadian armed forces seeking citizenship. This would give a new power to the minister for the purpose of alleviating special and unusual hardship or to reward service of exceptional value to Canada. On application, it would also reduce the residency requirement from three years to two years for members of the Canadian armed forces seeking citizenship, so long as that member has both signed at least a three-year contract and has completed basic training.

Second, it contains a deemed application section for renunciation of Canadian citizenship if that citizen engages in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces and that same citizen is also a citizen or legal resident in a country other than Canada.

Third, there is a deemed withdrawal provision of an application for Canadian citizenship where a permanent resident who has made that application for citizenship has engaged in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces.

I must start by pointing out a classic bit of hypocrisy, which we often see from the Conservative side of the House, where the parliamentary secretary stood up and lectured the member for Mount Royal for bringing up the musings of the Minister of Immigration this past week of adding a section that would also allow the government to strip citizenship of those accused of terrorism. The parliamentary secretary berated the hon. member on this side of the House for bringing that up and considering that. He then proceeded to do the same thing in his own speech.

One wonders whether basic elements of consistency and principle have any traction on that side of the House. By the way, I want to compliment the member for Mount Royal on a thoughtful speech that points out what Canadians really want to see in their immigration policy and in policy in general, which is well-thought-out, rational, policy-based, evidence-based and constitutional legislation.

The background to the bill and the context in which it occurs is important for Canadians to remember. Since March 2008, over 25 major changes have been made to immigration procedures, rules, legislation and regulation. These have increased dramatically since the Conservatives formed a majority government. Among other changes, the Conservatives have used their majority to freeze parental sponsorships, to weaken family reunification, to punish vulnerable refugees and to increase the number of temporary foreign workers to meet the demands of their friends on the employer side of the equation. Most of these changes are politically motivated, invariably heartless, always without evidentiary basis and frequently unconstitutional.

Bill C-425 attempts to fast-track the time within which certain permanent residents may apply for citizenship. New Democrats think the government ought instead to be working to address the exceptionally long processing times for citizenship applications, which Citizenship and Immigration Canada currently reports is an almost two-year wait for processing. In other words, no one in this country gets their citizenship recognized anywhere near the time they are legally entitled to, and as such Bill C-425 is making a hollow and, I would respectfully submit, politically motivated promise.

Two years is the average. I have constituents waiting for citizenship, and I think every member in the House does, who wait between two and five years. These are permanent residents who came to this country, did everything they were asked of by this country, have worked hard, paid their taxes and want to become citizens so they can vote in this country, fully express their democratic rights and get a Canadian passport.

Instead of taking care of these unbelievably appalling and outrageously long lines, the government does nothing and instead fiddles with these relatively arcane issues that do not affect very many people at all. This private member's bill would get at an extremely limited number of cases as the circumstances under which a permanent resident would be able to enrol in the Canadian Forces are currently extremely narrow.

The Canadian Forces website and the Canadian Forces Ottawa recruitment office have made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that a permanent resident may not enrol in the Canadian Forces. A permanent resident may only enrol when the Chief of the Defence Staff of Canada or such officer as he may designate authorizes the enrolment of a citizen of another country, which would only happen if he is satisfied that a special need exists and that the national interest would not be prejudiced thereby.

How many permanent residents do we really think are in the Canadian Armed Forces who have served three years, who have completed basic training, who are permanent residents, who are applying for Canadian citizenship and are residents and citizens of another country? However, I can tell the House how many permanent residents are waiting right now for their citizenship: hundreds and hundreds of thousands. One might ask, why would any member of the House target a bill that might affect six people, a dozen or a couple of dozen, instead of dealing with 300,000 Canadians? That shows misplaced priorities.

In terms of the other part of the bill, deemed stripping of citizenship, I want to repeat the remarks of my friend, the hon. member for Mount Royal, who points out the very delicate matter of stripping citizenship from people.

It may be good policy, because I have noticed in the House that whenever the government gets in trouble, whenever one of its members gets criminally charged or is under ethical investigation or the government is having a bad week, the government turns to one of two things, a crime bill or an immigration bill. Invariably, it seeks to marginalize and attack a certain group.

Right now we have a member from Edmonton who is charged for failing to take a breathalyzer test; we have Senator Brazeau who is charged with domestic and sexual assault; we have four senators now who do not seem to know where they live despite the constitutional requirement to reside in the province to collect their money. In fact, they are collecting money and per diems from Canadian taxpayers to live in Ottawa based on the fact they are away from their homes, but they have homes in the Ottawa area.

Marginalizing and attacking certain groups is a constant theme of the government, but Canadians are not fooled. They are not fooled because if the government were truly interested in dealing with citizenship and immigration, it would be attacking the real problems facing people in this country, including appallingly long wait times to sponsor one's parents and unite one's family, for employers to get their workers here, and for skilled workers to immigrate to this country.

Right now, despite all the rhetoric and fast talk of the Minister of Immigration, the truth, as members will find out in talking to any immigrant community across this country from coast to coast, is that wait times are as long today as they were five years ago. There is no progress. People do not mind waiting six or 12 months, but wait times are now measured almost in decades. People wait 10 years to sponsor their parents.

I have a real case from one of my constituents in the armed forces, who is serving with distinction. He is from Vietnam. He applied in October 2006 to sponsor his widowed mother in Vietnam. The sponsorship was verified and first-stage approval was given in 2009 and it has been in transit for second stage approval, which was received in Singapore in 2009. The most recent status update that we did for this gentleman in December 2012 indicates that the application was received in 2009, that it is in queue and that there is a 49-month wait.

Thus, there is a four-year wait from now, plus the three years' wait from 2009, on top of the wait from the time he applied in 2006. This member of our armed force, who is proudly serving our country, defending our interests, putting his life on the line and who wants to sponsor his mother, has been waiting since 2006, some seven years, and has another four to wait. This person will wait 11 years to sponsor a parent. He is not alone.

Is the government doing anything to speed up the process? No, it is cutting the number of officers around the globe. It is cutting funding for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and wait times will get longer.

While all the fast talking is being done by the minister, Canadians know the truth, that the government is using immigration as a political football, not trying to improve the process.

I also want to point out that the parliamentary secretary said that the Conservatives had strengthened our Canadian citizenship. I ask, when was it weak? Who thought it was weak, because we on the New Democrat side of the House have always valued Canadian citizenship? We think all Canadians have as well. The Conservatives act as if Canadians took their citizenship lightly before 2006. In Vancouver Kingsway, consisting of some 70% new Canadians or at least second or third generation Canadians, these people take their Canadian citizenship extremely seriously. I do not know what kind of mind could conjure up the idea that someone is taking Canadian citizenship lightly, but it is surely no one on this side of the House.

I will conclude by saying that the New Democrats will support the bill's passage to committee, because we want to study the bill and pursue amendments. The idea of doing anything that might speed up citizenship for any member of our forces is an idea worthy of exploration, but let us be clear: Only a New Democrat government will ever bring in the kind of immigration reforms necessary to actually satisfy the needs of the immigrant community in this country. We will do that in 2015.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-425, introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

First, it is important to mention that the main principle behind this legislation seems laudable, even though some parts have serious flaws that would also have serious consequences.

The hon. member wants to reward permanent residents who join the Canadian armed forces by speeding up citizenship approval, and the official opposition supports that idea.

The suggestion to reduce from three to two years the required period of residence in Canada to grant citizenship to a member of the armed forces meets several objectives.

It would allow us to better recognize and value the contribution of the newcomers who join our armed forces.

Our military make sacrifices. Sometimes, they even make the ultimate sacrifice. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to give them all the recognition they deserve. Therefore, acknowledging this exceptional contribution by speeding up citizenship approval would be welcome.

Moreover, this initiative would support the Canadian Forces' will to promote greater diversity in their ranks.

Currently, visible minorities account for only 6% of the Canadian armed forces. That is clearly not enough, considering that, by the end of the decade, visible minorities will account for 20% of the labour force. If the proposed measure can promote greater representation for ethnocultural communities in our armed forces, we will be happy to support it.

After all, the Canadian Forces serve the community and act as representatives abroad. Therefore, it is essential that they reflect the diversity of Canadian society.

That said, several aspects of Bill C-425 are quite problematic.

First, I am particularly concerned about the issue of renunciation of citizenship.

The bill provides that a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of his Canadian citizenship if he engages in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces. Also, a permanent resident who commits such an act would also be deemed to have withdrawn his application for Canadian citizenship.

The fact is that there is no definition of the expressions “act of war” and “legal resident” in Canadian law.

Also, there is no mention in the text submitted by the member for Calgary Northeast of the processes that, for example, would follow an accusation of act of war. Consequently, the bill does not have the necessary legal basis for its implementation and it would be totally dependent on judicial interpretation.

The scope of the legislation proposed by the hon. member is very broad, unless benchmarks are included regarding its legal basis and the resulting processes.

So, it is essential that the committee look at ways to define the terms used in the bill and spell out the process related to this possible renunciation of citizenship.

The operationalization of Bill C-425 is also problematic.

First, the basic requirement to join the Canadian Forces is to be a Canadian citizen. The only possibility for a permanent resident to join is to get an authorization from the Chief of the Defence Staff to fill a special need, or because of a significant lack of human resources, which is presently not the case.

Only a very small minority will be able to take advantage of the bill’s positive aspects.

As a matter of fact, during the discussions that have taken place at second reading, the sponsor of the bill has been unable to provide us with information about the number of people who might be affected by this measure.

There is therefore some research that should be conducted on this point. In addition, we think it is fair to wonder whether the government’s real objective here is not the renunciation of Canadian citizenship much more than it is the recognition of military service.

The delays in obtaining citizenship also deserve particular attention.

Right now, nearly 300,000 permanent residents are waiting to be granted Canadian citizenship. Consequently, despite the good will of the bill’s sponsor, the reality is that departmental cutbacks have significantly reduced the pace at which files are handled at all levels.

The handful of permanent residents who, according to the current version, will be able to take advantage of the proposed measure will not be much further ahead because of the huge backlog of applications.

In addition, I am wondering about the way in which the government has prioritized its action. The minister announced cuts of $80.3 million in the last budget, he is shutting down visa application centres and scaling down client services at CIC.

Delays in all immigration programs are escalating all the time. People are having trouble reaching staff members, and thousands of applicants are paying for the minister’s mistakes.

There is therefore a dichotomy between the bill introduced by the member and the decisions being made by the current government. As the system is being gutted, my colleague is proposing to accelerate processing of citizenship applications for permanent residents who might be able to serve in the Canadian Forces.

That being said, I agree with the bill’s principle and direction, and I think it necessary to support the bill at second reading, so that it can be reviewed in depth in committee. However, several elements that will make the bill acceptable in both its content and its implementation will have to be included.

The notions of “act of war” and “legal resident” should be defined in the bill in order to limit the potential for judicial interpretation. The process surrounding the renunciation of citizenship must also be considered. We will have to debate this part of the bill and flesh it out. It would be completely shameful for the government to create two classes of citizens without any debate or real consultation.

We must also consider the scope of the bill and potentially broaden it. It would be short-sighted to make legislative amendments that affect so few individuals.

In closing, I believe that we must consider Bill C-425. However, it seems clear to me that we must work together to limit its potential for abuse and optimize its application. This will allow us to come back to the House with a document that meets its original objectives.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the member for Mount Royal. It sounded to me to be a somewhat speculative perspective on what may or may not be an amendment to the bill. I would suggest to the member that he would be wise to use his time to speak specifically to the bill in front of us versus speaking about amendments when he is not sure what they are going to look like or what they are going to propose. It is the process we use here in the House of Commons.

Further, the citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism committee is going to be reviewing this private member's bill when it passes through second reading. He can rest assured that it will get the due process and time necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill C-425, which is the private member's bill introduced by the member for Calgary Northeast. It is not surprising to me that such a bill was introduced by a member of Parliament who is an immigrant to Canada. I have found that naturalized Canadians often have a more acute understanding of the meaning and importance of Canadian citizenship, having made a deliberate choice, and often great sacrifices, to attain it. It says a lot that the bill was introduced by this member of Parliament, an immigrant to Canada himself, and that his bill has received overwhelming support from new Canadians especially.

I want to commend the member for Calgary Northeast for bringing forward a bill that is based on principle and on strengthening the value of our Canadian citizenship. In fact, no government has done more to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship than our Conservative government. For example, we introduced the new citizenship study guide, entitled “Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship”. The guide provides essential information for anyone preparing to become a Canadian citizen. This helps ensure that all newcomers have more knowledge of the country they are joining.

In our country, if someone sells 5,000 or 10,000 new books, it is considered a bestseller. What is interesting is that “Discover Canada” has literally been taken off the shelves across the country. Literally thousands of copies have been requested by individuals and schools. It is a testament to the fact that we actually have a document that shows that the honour of citizenship bestowed on an individual requires research, study and commitment from those who anticipate and expect Canadian citizenship.

To add to that, it provides a much better overview of Canada's traditions, our values and our history, including our immigration history, than its predecessor. The old guide contained no reference, for example, to the Remembrance Day poppy and little mention of the stories and symbols that made us who we are, including the first and second world wars. We are pleased that it has been a tremendous success and is popular, not only with applicants who are seeking Canadian citizenship but with established Canadians as well.

Furthermore, our government has taken action to crack down on citizenship fraud. We are ensuring that anyone who lies about who they are, their residency in Canada or hidden past criminal activities has their citizenship stripped. We have created a citizenship fraud tip line so that Canadians can anonymously report fraud. There are currently 11,000 fraud investigations underway, which include 3,100 Canadian citizens. We are sending a clear message that Canadian citizenship is not for sale. We are applying the full strength of the law to those who have obtained their citizenship fraudulently.

The first part of the bill should be something all members of the House can easily support, which is fast-tracking Canadian citizenship for permanent residents who serve in our Canadian armed forces. More specifically, Bill C-425 proposes to fast-track citizenship for members of the Canadian Forces who are permanent residents by reducing the resident requirement for citizenship by one year. This would be for Canadian Forces members who have signed a minimum three-year contract and have completed basic training within our armed forces.

It is true that permanent residents cannot easily join the Canadian Forces, but if the forces have a position that requires skills and expertise for which a Canadian citizen may not be available, they can recruit permanent residents for that position. While it is also true that this would not impact a great number of permanent residents, it does not make it any less important. It is important recognition of the loyalty, service and willing sacrifice shown to our country by the individuals, regardless of how small or large that number may be.

The second part of this bill has received quite a bit of attention recently. As currently written, it would result in anyone who commits “acts of war” against the Canadian Forces having deemed renunciation of their Canadian citizenship.

Recently the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism suggested that the bill could be expanded to include terrorist acts against Canada and its allies. The reaction from Canadians was perhaps not the same as from those who sit across from us in the House of Commons. However, certainly Canadians across this country responded to the recommendation. A poll commissioned by the member for Calgary Northeast himself on this bill found that almost 85% of Canadians agree or strongly agree with stripping Canadian citizenship from terrorists, and a petition posted on the minister's member of Parliament website was signed by an astounding 10,000 people in less than five days.

I know that since the introduction of this bill almost a year ago, the MP for Calgary Northeast and the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism have been speaking about ways to enhance and expand this section, despite what the opposition claims, as it tries to desperately find a criticism for such a popular proposal. It sometimes does leave me astounded. When a good piece of legislation is brought forward in the House of Commons that is stripped free of partisanship, the simple thing the opposition needs to do is to support it.

There have been several examples in the past, unfortunately including very recently, when this has happened. The recent discovery that one of the organizers of a horrendous bombing in Bulgaria, which killed several innocent people, was a dual national Canadian citizen, disturbed Canadians across the country, including me, and I am sure all members of the House of Commons.

The 1947 Citizenship Act actually included the power to revoke citizenship from those who were guilty of treason. The removal of this provision, in 1997, made Canada's citizenship law an aberration, as virtually all other liberal democracies have the legal authority to strip citizenship for such crimes as treason and terrorism. In Australia, for example, and the United Kingdom, a person can be stripped of citizenship if it is in the public interest, a much lower and more vague standard than the sponsor of this bill or the minister have suggested. France, New Zealand, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Brazil are a few examples of countries that can strip citizenship for treason or terrorism, among other things.

The fact is that Canadian citizenship is already not inalienable, as it can be renounced voluntarily, or revoked, as I mentioned, from those who have obtained it fraudulently. Like the 1947 Citizenship Act, the premise of the bill put forward by the MP for Calgary Northeast is that citizenship is predicated on reciprocal loyalty. If a Canadian passport holder maintains another nationality while waging war against Canada, this should be construed for what is so obviously clear; it is a deliberate renunciation of one's citizenship. In other words, renunciation of Canadian citizenship should be possible, not just through the legal formalism of signing an application, but also a logical consequence of one's violent actions against one's country.

The question that has been raised is whether this principle of deemed renunciation of citizenship should also apply to Canadian passport holders who are convicted of serious terrorist acts. Given that Canada is an enemy of terrorism and proscribed terrorist organizations in particular, it is very reasonable to suggest that participation in terrorist crimes be considered a voluntary renunciation of one's loyalty to this country and consequently of one's citizenship.

To conclude, the member for Calgary Northeast's thoughtful private members' bill, and the amendments that have been suggested by the government, would finally bring Canada in line with other liberal democracies and would strengthen, again, the value of Canadian citizenship. It would also send the message that Canadian citizenship has real meaning and cannot be used as a flag of convenience by violent terrorists.

I hope the NDP and Liberals will listen to the vast majority of Canadians. If they do not want to listen to this side of the House, they should listen to the vast majority of Canadians and support this important piece of legislation going to committee for a thorough review and study. Our government is strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship. I hope the NDP and Liberals will work with us instead of against us in this regard.

If the NDP and the Liberals do not want to listen to this side of the House, they should listen to the vast majority of Canadians and support this important legislation going to committee for a thorough review and study. Our government is strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship. I hope the NDP and Liberals will work with us instead of against us in this regard.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

This private member's bill, at present, makes two changes to the citizenship process. First, it reduces the time a permanent resident must wait for citizenship if he or she completes basic training and has signed a minimum three-year contract with the Canadian armed forces. I would just note here that if this were the entire bill, I think it might well be passed by unanimous consent and we would not be having this debate today. I wholeheartedly support this provision.

The second element of the legislation provides that a person is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship or is deemed to have withdrawn their application for Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces.

What complicates and indeed invites today's debate are the public statements by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that he seeks to modify the bill to revoke the citizenship of those who have engaged in acts of terror. Regrettably, we do not have his legislative amendments before us in the House. We do not know the exact wording he proposes. This may make all the difference, not only from a policy standpoint but from a legal and constitutional perspective as well.

The minister has argued that the power to revoke citizenship in such cases is a necessary one. He is quoted in La Presse this morning.

The amendments that I suggested will finally make it possible for Canada to harmonize its approach with those of other liberal democracies and will strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. This will send a clear message that Canadian citizenship has real meaning and is not just a pass that violent terrorists can use with impunity.

The rhetoric in this statement certainly resonates and appears compelling on its face. Indeed, a commentator on this point, Mr. Ibbitson from the Globe and Mail, said something to the effect that if nothing else, this is good politics, and the immigration and citizenship minister is certainly a good politician.

However, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been in this role since October 2008. He has, since then, introduced seven immigration acts, none of which have called for such a provision. Questions arise. Why now? Why this bill? Why in this way?

What Canadians may not know, though the issue is drawing more attention of late, is that a key difference between a private member's bill, such as that which is before us, and a government bill, such as would be the case if the minister were to introduce stand-alone legislation in this regard, is that government bills require the constitutional approval of the Minister of Justice pursuant to the Department of Justice Act.

In other words, by introducing such items through this private member's route, one circumvents the long-standing process by which legislative proposals are vetted for compliance with Canada's Constitution, including an assessment by the Department of Justice for litigation risk. This, of course, invites the question of whether there is an issue here of constitutional concern. As well, is there a related litigation risk?

Simply put, while we have a process allowing for the revocation of citizenship, as per section 10 of the Citizenship Act, in cases where a person obtains citizenship, for example, through false representation, fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances, we do not have other ways of revoking citizenship at present. This new proposal, by way of a private member's bill, raises serious constitutional concerns given, inter alia, the Charter's guarantees in sections 6, 7 and 15, particularly where it engages matters of national or ethnic origin, or potentially the recognized analogous ground of citizenship.

Moreover, there are concerns with respect to the Canadian Bill of Rights, which reads in part, “no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to...authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person”. The Bill of Rights also prohibits an act that would “deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations”. I should note, however, that there is a notwithstanding process in that regard.

At its core Bill C-425, and this is the key point, goes to the heart of the question of citizenship in Canada, a concept that is actually quite fluid and flexible, perhaps more than most Canadians think, with attending constitutional concerns.

Indeed, it remains unclear under what circumstances the revocation of formal citizenship, as opposed to the denial of an application for citizenship by a permanent resident, would implicate charter considerations. It is for this reason that rigorous debate by the members in this place is so important with regard to the bill, as it would implicate our constitutional responsibilities as members of Parliament with respect to public oversight of the legislation, as well as trustees of the public with respect to any risk litigation.

Let me be clear. There is no question that an act of war against Canadian armed forces represents a repudiation of the values that we associate with the concept of citizenship, namely democracy, security, freedom, and equality. However, it is critical that we closely scrutinize any proposed legislation that would implicate rule of law considerations.

As I have noted, the concept of citizenship in Canada is flexible and the question of under what circumstances the government is entitled to revoke citizenship has perhaps not been fully yet determined by our courts. However, unlike questions of naturalization, the revocation of formal citizenship raises important questions pursuant to sections 6, 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Indeed, despite the repugnance of the crimes at issue, namely, the commission of an act of war or terrorism against one's own country, constitutional rights and the rule of law are not negotiable. Therefore, the fundamental questions we must ask, and it is our responsibility to address these questions, is to what extent these constitutional rights would be implicated by this legislation.

If the members in this place are to enable the revocation by the Government of Canada of Canadian citizenship in instances of criminality such as this, we must, simply put, ensure that such revocation is consistent with the rule of law, as defined by the charter and the related jurisprudence.

As I have mentioned, there are three distinct charter provisions engaging a panoply of rights that may be implicated by changes to the Citizenship Act such as proposed by this bill. These are sections 6, 7 and 15 and which together provide for a necessary starting point in discussing the constitutional contours of the legal concept of Canadian citizenship and the implications of such revocation.

Section 6(1) of the charter provides for the right of any citizen to “enter, remain in and leave Canada”. This is one of the charter rights that applies only to citizens, rather than to permanent residents, whose constitutional mobility rights are separately provided for by section 6(2). Certainly, the revocation of citizenship in a particular instance would result in the inapplicability or denial of section 6(1)'s mobility rights.

Accordingly, on this point, it is precisely for this reason that it is of critical importance to ensure that the revocation of citizenship is consistent with procedural due process requirements. Moreover, because the revocation of citizenship would result in the revocation of section 6(1)'s mobility rights, it would also raise concerns with respect to section 7 of the charter and the right to liberty. Indeed, the Supreme Court has determined that section 7 rights apply universally to anyone present in Canada, regardless of citizenship status. As well, it would implicate the rights of security of the person also in section 7. Therefore, we would have a panoply of rights here implicated. It is a central constitutional question that we cannot avoid addressing.

Finally, we must consider section 15 of the charter, which constitutionally prohibits the federal government from passing discriminatory citizenship laws. The courts have recognized that citizenship status is an analogous ground to the enumerated section 15 protected categories, thereby providing for constitutional protection against discrimination based upon citizenship.

Moreover, section 15 has been deemed to apply regardless of citizenship status. Therefore, by allowing for the revocation of citizenship, even in cases of commission of acts of terror, but only in cases where an individual is also a citizen of another country, Bill C-425 would raise section 15 equality concerns. Simply put, the bill would potentially discriminate against those Canadians who are also dual citizens of both Canada and another country.

Some may wonder why I raise the right to a fair hearing to which I referred to earlier. Since we do not know the language of the legislative amendments proposed by the minister, it could be that the proposed revocation of citizenship is automatic, thus, depriving one of a fair hearing. In the alternative, it could be that the proposal deems an application for renunciation to have been made by the person with respect to the person who has perpetrated the act of terror. The question then becomes one of whether the person could withdraw his or her deemed renunciation or make a further submission as to why the deemed renunciation should not be granted.

I raise these questions not as arcane procedural questions or trivial debating points but as serious considerations that need to be determined and debated in committee. Indeed, there is no question that the first time this revocation process is used, for whatever reason, it will be challenged in the courts, and the government will be obliged to defend it at taxpayers' expense.

Accordingly, we must have—

The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, two days ago I had the privilege of presenting to the House my first private member's bill, Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian armed forces).

I want to thank all colleagues for their comments and the informed and respectful debate that occurred in the House. It is my understanding, from the first hour of debate, that we all agree with the sprit of the bill, that we all desire to see our men and women in uniform honoured and that we all hold the value of Canadian citizenship to the highest esteem.

I look forward to a second hour of debate that is as constructive as the first hour. I want to thank all members of the House in advance for their anticipated support to send the bill to committee where it can be thoroughly reviewed.

I wish to reiterate that I am open to all friendly amendments that will strengthen the spirit of the bill.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today about Bill C-425, which introduces new grounds for granting or revoking Canadian citizenship.

Under the Citizenship Act, Bill C-425 would, under certain conditions, allow the immigration minister to reduce from three years to two the required years of residence to grant citizenship to members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are permanent residents.

In addition, under this bill, an individual would be deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship if they engaged in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces.

The NDP is in favour of expediting the process of granting Canadian citizenship to reward the dedication of permanent residents who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. We also want the Canadian Armed Forces to reflect Canada's diversity. However, in terms of the specifics set out in Bill C-425, there are currently very few situations in which a permanent resident would be able to enlist in the Canadian Armed Forces.

If Canada wishes to recognize the extraordinary contributions of future citizens, why not offer this same advantage to new Canadians who make remarkable contributions to Canadian society in other sectors, and not just through military service?

While Bill C-425 is meant to reduce the timeframe required to obtain citizenship for certain permanent residents, the NDP believes that the government also needs to work on reducing the exceptionally long wait times for the processing of all citizenship applications. I think it is important to point out that the sweeping changes the Conservatives have made to the Canadian immigration system in recent years have not made it any more efficient or fair.

According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the processing time for citizenship applications is nearly two years. Furthermore, the self-described “forgotten ones of Buffalo”, whom I saw at lunch time, actually, were on Parliament Hill today to continue to pressure the government. These immigrants, many of whom live in Quebec City, are still waiting for the federal government to settle their status. So what happened?

The Canadian visa office in Buffalo, where their applications were being processed, suddenly closed up shop in the wake of the Conservative government's budget cuts. Many of them submitted their applications two or three years ago and are still waiting to hear from Citizenship and Immigration, which is giving very little information about how long it may take to process their files. The upshot is that over 10,000 immigrants are still waiting for their application for permanent residence to be processed, and meanwhile, they are left completely in limbo.

Unfortunately, it is just the tip of the iceberg: as of last June, 285,000 people were waiting for their applications to be processed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada officials. At the same time, the department was cut by 5.3% as a result of the last federal budget. Even though waiting periods continue to grow, 285 positions were eliminated across the country.

There is a significant backlog in more than just citizenship applications. According to an article that appeared in Le Droit in November 2012, more than one million people who want to come to Canada are still waiting for a decision on their immigration file. It seems that this backlog will not be cleared before 2017, according to a report released last winter by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

This same report recommended that Citizenship and Immigration Canada modernize several of its immigration practices as soon as possible. According to information obtained by Radio-Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada dismissed 75 employees at its Montreal call centre, where the department's telephone services for clients across the country are centralized.

Unfortunately, according to the same information obtained by Radio-Canada, officers could only answer 9% of the 30,000 calls received daily. David Chalk, chair of the Quebec association of immigration lawyers, says he is worried about this situation.

Mr. Chalk got his lawyer colleagues in Canada to phone the call centre in Montreal. They had to wait an average of four hours to speak to an agent. Is this normal? Citizenship and Immigration Canada defended itself by saying that it was possible to file a complaint about the abnormally long wait time. However, to get in touch with the complaints department, you have to go through the call centre.

In my Quebec City riding office, I often receive calls from claimants in distress who do not understand why the process is taking so long. These immigrants contribute to Canadian society. Most of them are permanent residents and are already participating in society. They sometimes have children who are Canadian citizens. Unfortunately, on this government's watch—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to add my comments to Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian armed forces). I would like to extend my congratulations to my hon. colleague, the member of Parliament for Calgary Northeast, who introduced this private member's bill. By doing so, the hon. member has demonstrated an admirable commitment to recognizing the exemplary service of Canada's men and women in uniform, the very worthy individuals who stand on the front lines and put their lives at risk to defend our safety and liberty.

This private member's bill proposes to fast-track citizenship for members of the Canadian armed forces who are permanent residents by reducing the residence requirements for citizenship by one year for those members. It also proposes to take citizenship away from or deny citizenship to those who engage in acts of war against the Canadian armed forces.

Canadian citizenship is extremely valuable and I commend the member for recognizing this through his private member's bill. Canadians, whether established or new, must take our responsibilities as citizens very seriously. From generation to generation, thousands upon thousands of Canadian soldiers have given their lives for this country. Countless more risk their lives and some are doing so right now.

While enrolment in the Canadian armed forces is usually limited to Canadian citizens, permanent residents who have not yet acquired citizenship are sometimes employed in exceptional circumstances. These are people who dedicate their lives to protecting Canada yet they do not possess the fundamental membership in Canadian society. Their lack of citizenship often correlates with challenges in acquiring security clearances and arranging passports. This creates problems in deploying these individuals abroad.

Introducing a fast track to citizenship for permanent residents who serve in our country's armed forces, as the bill proposes, would help mitigate these types of problems. The proposals in the bill to honour the Canadian Forces are in line with other measurements the government has taken in the past few years. This includes recognizing the distinctive merit and exceptional service displayed by recipients of the Order of Military Merit.

The Order of Military Merit established in 1972 recognizes distinctive merit and exceptional service displayed by the men and women of the Canadian armed forces. Many of these men and women have demonstrated dedication and devotion beyond the call of duty and the order honours them for their commitment to our country.

Last fall, the Government of Canada announced that members of the Order of Military Merit at the colonel level and above are now eligible to preside at citizenship ceremonies. The Order of Military Merit honours military service to Canada. It is therefore fitting that recipients of this award can preside at citizenship ceremonies, an occasion at which we reflect on the value of Canadian citizenship and the responsibility we carry as Canadians.

The Government of Canada launched the citizenship action plan three years ago in order to strengthen and preserve the value of Canadian citizenship. First we developed a new citizenship guide “Discover Canada”, which explores our history, shared values, symbols and institutions in a more in-depth way than its predecessor. In addition, we improved the knowledge requirement for Canadian citizenship with a new test. We did so to ensure that new citizens can appreciate the foundation upon which our shared values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law were built.

We have also taken action to address the problem of residence fraud in our citizenship program. As the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism announced in September, Citizenship and Immigration Canada is now investigating more than 11,000 individuals from more than 100 countries for attempting to cheat Canadians and Canada. In order to help detect fraud we have also introduced a citizenship fraud tip line. We are also taking action to crack down on crooked consultants who often help people maintain a Canadian address to appear as though they are living in Canada, even though in some cases they never have.

Canadians should be proud that so many people around the world want to become Canadian citizens. It is a testament to what a great country we live in. We can often take our citizenship for granted though. It is easy to forget how many people do not enjoy the liberty, security and freedom that we as Canadians do.

Our government believes that citizenship is precious, that it is a privilege and we have sent a clear message to those who would lie and cheat to obtain it that Canadian citizenship is not for sale. Bill C-425 aims to protect the value of citizenship by giving citizenship sooner to members of the Canadian Forces and by taking it away from those who undermine our country by taking up arms against Canada. In principle, it makes sense that those who commit violent acts against Canada and our armed forces, who do not believe in Canadian values or the value of Canadian citizenship should no longer hold citizenship in our great country. However, this proposal requires further study.

The bill contains certainly laudable proposals. That is why I personally support the bill moving forward to committee for further review and study, and I hope all members in the House will also do the same.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces). The bill would create a new ministerial power to reduce the length of residency in Canada required for a member of the Canadian armed forces to obtain citizenship.

This bill would make it possible to renounce Canadian citizenship from a Canadian citizen who is also a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada if he engages in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces.

The same goes for a permanent resident who has applied for Canadian citizenship. The application would be deemed to have been withdrawn if he engaged in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces.

I will focus on the accelerated citizenship process that the minister could request for a member of the Canadian armed forces.

This bill grants the minister a new power. This power would allow him, on request and to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exceptional value, to lower the length of residency in Canada required for a member of the Canadian armed forces who wants to obtain citizenship from three years to two, provided that the member in question has signed a minimum three-year contract and has completed basic training.

I want to make it clear that since we are talking about a member who has signed a contract for at least three years, we are of course talking about a regular forces member. Members of the reserve forces do not sign three-year contracts. We are definitely talking about a regular forces member.

This bill is divided into two parts. The first part is about members of the Canadian Forces obtaining Canadian citizenship and the second part is about revoking Canadian citizenship when a CF member engages in an act of war against someone.

I would like to come back to the first part of the bill. I would point out that it is really quite rare for someone who is not already a Canadian citizen to serve in the Canadian Forces.

When I read the bill, I immediately wondered about the relevance of introducing such a bill. You cannot be a member of the Canadian Forces unless you are a Canadian citizen. I began to wonder if what I remembered was incorrect. So I went to the website, and it said repeatedly that you have to be a Canadian citizen in order to become a member of the Canadian Forces. So then I asked the Library of Parliament to do a little research, and I was shown the regulations in question, the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, which included the following exception:

...the Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may authorize the enrolment of a citizen of another country if he is satisfied that a special need exists and that the national interest would not be prejudiced thereby;

Such exceptions are therefore quite rare and I must say, I doubt that most recruitment officers are even aware that this exception exists. When you go into a recruitment centre, they tell you that you have to be a Canadian citizen. If someone says they are a permanent resident, they are usually told to come back once they have obtained their citizenship. Since this is an exception, I have to wonder about the usefulness of such a measure, but I understand why it is there.

If we want to have this provision in place for highly exceptional cases, then I think we must examine this issue and determine whether the enlistment process for the Canadian armed forces needs to be reviewed. This would allow landed immigrants or even people from safe allied countries to enlist. For example, could an Australian say that he wants to serve in the Canadian Forces, since Canada is a relatively safe Commonwealth country?

An Australian has an allegiance to the same Crown and this would be reasonable, for example. Could this person with very specific training enlist in the Canadian Forces any way other than with authorization from the Chief of Defence Staff? We must think about that, but in this bill there is unfortunately no reference to the changes that could be made to the National Defence Act regarding enlisting in the Canadian Forces. I think that is the main flaw.

I will support sending the bill to committee, but I think this type of bill cannot be introduced without also introducing measures or making suggestions about the parameters of enlisting in the Canadian Forces or what reforms are necessary.

At the time, when I read the bill for the first time, I spoke briefly to the Minister of National Defence to find out whether he planned to change the laws on the requirements for joining the Canadian Forces so that permanent residents could serve. However, no changes were planned. I do not believe that he was against such changes either. I will therefore support the bill, but I think that we really have to have this discussion about whether National Defence's rules can be changed to allow people who are not Canadian citizens to join the Canadian Forces, whether those rules are still appropriate and whether they should be modernized and updated. It seems strange to me to have a bill that pertains to exceptional cases.

I served in the Canadian armed forces for three years. Many of my colleagues in the House served for a number of years. I, for one, have never met a soldier who was not a Canadian citizen. All the soldiers with whom I worked were already Canadian citizens.

Introducing a bill such as this that pertains to an exceptional case seems a bit strange to me and I am not sure that it is necessarily useful. I think that this bill should have included measures that establish who has the right to join and then it would have been useful to also refer it to the Standing Committee on National Defence. Unfortunately, such is not the case.

As I said, I will support the bill, but I think that there is really something missing. I understand the intention of the member who is introducing this bill, but I think he simply did not realize just how exceptional it is for people who are not Canadian citizens to serve in the Canadian Forces. Perhaps he did not realize that this measure is not necessarily very relevant in the context of serving in the Canadian armed forces. I understand the point of the bill and I thank my colleague for introducing it, but I really believe that he should find a way to make this discussion happen.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-425, put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. Bill C-425 proposes to fast-track citizenship for members of the Canadian Forces who are permanent residents, by reducing their residence requirement for citizenship by one year. This would be for the Canadian Forces members who have signed a minimum three-year contract and have completed basic training. It also proposes to take citizenship away from, or deny citizenship to, those who engage in an act of war against the Canadian Forces. Such individuals would permanently be barred from reapplying for citizenship.

I applaud the hon. member for Calgary Northeast for introducing this important and worthwhile bill. Indeed, Bill C-425 is consistent with the government's commitment in the 2010 and 2011 speeches from the throne to support Canada's armed forces and to protect the safety of our citizens and defend against threats to our national security. Bill C-425 is also consistent with key objectives of Canada's immigration system, such as ensuring that newcomers and citizens participate to their full potential in fostering an integrated society. For all those reasons, we support Bill C-425 moving forward to committee stage for a thorough review and study to determine if it could be effectively implemented and that Canada's international obligations would be respected.

The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of the Canadian Forces and our commitment to serve Canada in defending its values, interests and sovereignty. We are committed to ensuring that those who serve Canada are recognized for their service.

Generally speaking, Canadian citizenship is a requirement for enrollment in the Canadian Forces, but permanent residents may also be employed in exceptional circumstances. The problem is that their lack of citizenship and challenges related to security clearance and passport arrangements can make it difficult to deploy them for service abroad. Introducing a fast-track to citizenship for permanent residents serving in the Canadian Forces, as proposed in Bill C-425, is a win-win situation as it would honour their services to Canada and make their deployment abroad much easier.

In fact, last fall our Conservative government announced that members of the Order of Military Merit at the colonel level and above are now eligible to preside in citizenship ceremonies. The Order of Military Merit, established in 1972, recognizes distinctive merit and exceptional service deployed by the men and women of the Canadian armed forces. Many of these individuals demonstrated dedication and devotion beyond the call of duty, and the order honours them for their commitment. It is therefore fitting that recipients of this award can preside at citizenship ceremonies, an occasion at which we reflect on the value of Canadian citizenship and the responsibilities we carry as Canadians, a value that the members of our armed forces so courageously defend.

In regard to the proposal to take citizenship away from, or deny it to, those who engage in acts of war against the Canadian Forces, I was interested to learn that some of the provisions to take away or bar citizenship already exist in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Canadian citizenship is extremely valuable. Members of the Canadian Forces risk their lives on a daily basis to defend it. So, it is definitely worthwhile to further study the proposal that those who would attack our Canadian Forces should not themselves have Canadian citizenship. Canadian citizenship is about far more than the right to carry a passport or to vote. Citizenship defines who we are as Canadians, including our mutual responsibility to one another. This is why we launched a citizenship action plan three years ago, to strengthen the value and meaning of citizenship.

As part of the action plan, we produced a new citizenship study guide entitled “Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship”. The guide provides essential information for anyone preparing to become a Canadian citizen. This helps ensure that all newcomers have more knowledge of the country they are joining. “Discover Canada” provides a much better overview of Canada's tradition, value and history, including our immigration history, than its predecessor. The old guide contains no reference to the Remembrance Day poppy, for example, and little mention of the stories and symbols that make us who we are today.

We are pleased that it has been a tremendous success, popular with citizenship applicants and established Canadians alike. Furthermore, our government has taken action to crack down on citizenship fraud. We are ensuring that anyone who lies about who they are, their residency in Canada or hidden past criminal activities would have their citizenship stripped.

We have also taken action against unscrupulous immigration representatives who fraudulently establish evidence of residents in Canada while living abroad most if not all of the time. This is perpetrated so that individuals can fraudulently maintain their permanent residence status and later apply for citizenship. There are currently 11,000 fraud investigations under way, including 3,100 for citizenship fraud. We are sending a clear message that Canadian citizenship is not for sale. We are applying the full strength of the law to those who have obtained their citizenship fraudulently.

I am sure all hon. members would agree that the bill has a worthwhile objective. Its spirit is laudable. It deserves a thorough study at committee to ensure that the bill achieves what it intends to achieve, that it can be effectively implemented and that Canada's international obligations continue to be respected.

I look forward to working with the sponsor and the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in the hope that the good intentions of Bill C-425 are achieved.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill C-425. I also acknowledge the efforts of the member.

I listened to the member's opening remarks in the introduction of the bill, and a number of thoughts came to mind. One of them is that we do have a citizenship and immigration committee and it would be wonderful for us to have some sort of discussion about the benefits of citizenship and how it can be used to promote and encourage what we think is important not only to select groups but to all Canadians.

It was not that long ago that I had an interesting discussion with someone who was talking about volunteers. Many immigrants who come to Canada spend endless hours volunteering for many worthwhile organizations, charitable groups and so forth. We were discussing whether there would be an opportunity for us to be able to do something with regard to that.

More specific to the topic we have at hand, I approach this particular bill with an open mind. I have had the opportunity to check the website that the Canadian Forces provides on the Internet. If one hits the Apply link, for example, one will find there are certain restrictions. One has to be a Canadian citizen in order to apply to become a member of the Canadian Forces. I suspect that is something that needs to be looked at.

The minister responsible for the Canadian Forces will find that the Liberal Party is open to good ideas. Maybe we need to relax the way in which we recruit members of the Canadian Forces from our country. Should only Canadians be allowed to apply? Why not encourage landed immigrants to become members of the Canadian Forces? If we agree that should be done, then let us look to the minister responsible for the Canadian Forces and allow that to take place. All day today I have been talking about 1.5 million landed immigrants in our society. That is a very conservative number to which I have been referring. It is actually a lot greater than that. According to the Canadian Forces website, these people would not be eligible to apply to become members.

We do need to have a debate. That is what I like about Bill C-425. The member has brought forward a piece of legislation that could ultimately pass to committee stage. There is some value in having the citizenship and immigration committee look at the bill. I would like us to possibly go further, however. As much as I believe there could be opportunities in granting citizenship to those who would serve in the Canadian Forces, I am more interested in how more landed individuals could participate in our Canadian Forces.

Members of the forces get an immense sense of pride serving our country. I was a member of the Canadian Forces. I remember going to the recruitment office and signing up. I thoroughly enjoyed the privilege and the honour of being a member. I would not want to deny that opportunity to others, whether they are Canadians or permanent residents who really want to become members of the forces. There would be some benefit to having that dialogue in committee. I recognize that the government does have a majority, but given that this is a private member's bill, there is a very good chance it will pass and go to committee.

Therefore, the challenge I would put to the Conservative Party is to do what I am going to be recommending my Liberal caucus do. That is to approach the committee in a very open fashion. Given the importance of our Canadian Forces, given the importance of our citizenship, there is great value in allowing for that debate to occur.

The member will not receive any opposition from me in trying to encourage that debate to occur. In fact, what I would like to do is to have a page provide a copy of the Canadian Forces website that I am referring to, where it states one has to be a Canadian citizen. That is one of the things we should be talking about.

I was somewhat touched by the member's comments. He talked about how he came from the Punjab and how Canada is his new home. It does not necessarily mean one forgets about one's old home, but one takes a great sense of pride in one's new home. We want to be able to encourage people who have chosen Canada as their home to participate in our many different national institutions. I believe there are many who would have an interest in serving our great country.

To that extent, I suggest that we allow Bill C-425 to pass second reading. I do have other concerns that I would like to address, but I believe that the issues I have and would like to see addressed will be addressed in a forum that would ultimately allow for a bill to pass that makes sense. Hopefully, we will see the minister responsible for the Canadian Forces see the merit in what we can do to encourage the Canadian Forces, as one of our national treasures, to possibly consider incorporating more landed immigrants.

With that, I look forward to the ongoing debate. I will have a page bring over the sheet, which is a printout of the Canadian Forces recruitment website.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in this important debate on my hon. colleague's private member's bill.

The Conservative sponsor of this bill seems to be trying to do two contradictory things: to fast-track citizenship for some and then to make it easier to strip it from others. I would like to address each of those issues separately.

The bill would offer a new ministerial power to shorten permanent residency requirements for members of the Canadian armed forces who are seeking citizenship.

I want to make it clear that New Democrats support efforts to honour the permanent residents who serve in the armed forces as indeed we should honour all our veterans and current service members.

We also believe strongly in a military that is reflective of Canada's diversity.

In 2006, the Canadian immigrant population rose to 6.2 million, accounting for almost 20% of the Canadian population. It is projected that by 2017 the visible minority population will represent approximately one in five Canadians. However, data from the 2008 census also shows that the Canadian Forces do not reflect the same level of ethnocultural diversity. A small proportion of Canadian Forces personnel, only 6%, were non-Caucasians compared with 17% of the regular working population.

If my hon. colleague's intention is to bring greater diversity to the military, then that is a concept I can support. However, I think it is important for the House to examine this aspect of the legislation very carefully. The reality is that circumstances under which a permanent resident would be able to enrol in the Canadian Forces appear to be extremely narrow. In fact, the Canadian Forces website and a call by my office to the Ottawa recruitment centre have made it clear that a permanent resident may not enrol in the Canadian Forces. It appears that the only way for a permanent resident to serve is if he or she is authorized by the chief of the defence staff to fill a special need or it is in the national interest.

I do become concerned that yet again we have a Conservative member proposing legislation that would affect a tiny minority while ignoring the broader concerns of the majority of newcomers. In fact, the member belongs to a government whose radical overhaul of Canada's immigration system is turning Canada into a less welcoming country. The changes the Conservatives have made limit the possibilities for newcomers to be reunited with their families and help build stronger communities. Under the Conservative government too many newcomers are not getting the fair treatment they deserve. Instead of welcoming skilled immigrants and addressing Canada's long-term needs, the Conservatives are prioritizing temporary work visas to help big businesses pay lower wages.

I want to return to the issue of honouring the armed forces by making another point. Headline-grabbing legislation is not enough. We need real action to truly honour all of those who serve.

A few months ago it was revealed that nearly 70% of applications for financial help to bury homeless or low-income veterans are rejected by the Conservative government. This latest report just adds to the many embarrassing failures of the Conservatives on the veterans affairs file, from debilitating red tape to failing to transition ill and injured personnel to civilian life due to harmful budget cuts.

It is our collective duty to care for the veterans who gave us the freedom and peace we enjoy in this country. To undermine the sacrifices they made is to take everything we have today for granted. This is not a partisan issue. Canada's veterans fought for all of us.

The second part of the bill seems to strip citizenship from those who are engaged in acts of war against a member of the Canadian armed forces. On its face, this too may seem reasonable. We certainly want to make sure that Canadian citizenship has real value and that we protect our service men and women as much as possible. However, the aspects of the bill that deal with the renunciation of Canadian citizenship raise more questions than they answer and seem ill-considered. I will explain in more detail what I mean.

The bill is not clear that due process before the law is necessary to determine whether someone has committed an act of war, nor is it clear who would make such a determination. Perhaps this is not surprising, given that the members of the government seem fond of stripping due process with very little accountability.

Additionally, some key terms are not defined. The terms “acts of war” and “legal resident” are not defined anywhere in Canadian law.

Without a definition for what would constitute a legal resident of another country, the bill would pose a serious risk of rendering Canadian citizens stateless, in contravention of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which Canada is a signatory.

The Conservative sponsor of the legislation has framed it as creating another pathway to integration for permanent residents, as well as underscoring the incredible worth of Canadian citizenship and honouring the contribution of our men and women in uniform.

On these principles, members will not hear any argument from this side of the House. Like many things from my Conservative colleagues, the devil is in the details or, in this case, the troubling lack of details.

As I have mentioned, Bill C-425 attempts to legislate the time within which certain permanent residents may apply for citizenship, but my New Democratic colleagues and I think the government ought to be working to address the exceptionally long processing times for citizenship more broadly. At the current rate, no one gets their citizenship recognized anywhere near the time they are legally entitled to it. As such, Bill C-425 is making a hollow promise to these permanent residents.

Our citizenship application processing backlogs only seem to be increasing. The data make it clear that even though CIC has been receiving more citizenship applications year after year, the department has been processing fewer and fewer, and there are far longer wait times.

Instead of supporting the immigration department with more resources to reduce the backlog, the government is cutting its budget and closing down its regional offices.

Last week we learned there has been a 73% drop in the number of permanent residents receiving Canadian citizenship under the Conservative government. The minister even acknowledged it is because there are fewer people to process more applications. That is not good enough and it is a failure of the ministry for which he is ultimately responsible.

We know the department is cutting almost $200 million over the next two years and has closed 19 regional offices. These cuts are affecting front-line services and causing backlogs to grow.

A perfect example of this is that nearly two years after paying the required fees and sending their permanent residence applications to Buffalo, thousands still have not received a response from Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

To make matters worse, their files still have not been assigned to agents, and the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism will not even bother to answer their questions.

This Conservative boondoggle transformed the Canadian dream of thousands of people into a total nightmare. I only wish my hon. colleague were spending more time pressuring his government to make the immigration system more fair and accountable to newcomers and Canadians alike.

In closing, I want to reiterate my very strong support for our men and women in the armed forces. We should honour their tremendous sacrifice and do all we can to keep them safe.

However, I would urge members to take a close look at what is in the bill and, more important, what is not.

The bill would do nothing to fix some of the tremendous problems we see in our immigration system. It would do nothing to speed up processing times for hard-working newcomers who want to become citizens. It would do very little to truly honour and support veterans who have served this country with honour.

Let us take a serious look at this proposal, but let us look at the bigger picture.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

moved that Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in this House for the second reading of my first private member's bill, Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian armed forces).

I would like to start by thanking my family for putting up with the crazy hours and travel schedule of a member of Parliament who is also a husband and a father. I thank my wife, Neetu, my children Jatin, Chetan and Arisha, and also my dearly missed parents, Bindra Ban Shory and Maya Shory, who have already gone before me but whose love and blessing on my life I still feel every day.

I also thank the staff and volunteers who have helped me work on this legislation, men and women whose creativity, insight and hard work have helped make the second reading of this legislation possible today. They are: Laura Koch, a member of the Canadian Forces and my legislative assistant who helped with the formulation of this bill in its infancy; Wala Azimi, a proud Canadian who was born in Afghanistan and who nevertheless is understanding my Punjabi more and more each day; Kenton Dueck, my former executive assistant in Calgary Northeast, a man who has been as passionate about this as I am; Patrick Tuns from my Ottawa office and Daniel Boucher from my constituency office, both of whom have demonstrated their support for this bill from their first day; and, my constituency assistants, Sukhi Dhaliwal and Raman Brar, who eagerly help my constituents of Calgary Northeast each and every day.

I would be remiss if I did not thank the hard-working ministerial staff, Chris Champion and Leigh Johnston, as well as Madame Marie-Andrée Roy from the House of Commons legal team who helped put these thoughts into bill form.

I would also like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have offered their support for this bill.

In this legislation, my goals are to promote integration, to better recognize permanent residents who serve Canada, to honour our Canadian troops and to underscore the immense value of Canadian citizenship.

To some who see the colour of my skin or hear my accent, the word “immigrant” probably immediately jumps into their minds. I may have been born, raised and educated in Barnala, Punjab, India, but the fact is that I have lived in Canada for more than 23 years and Canada is now my home. Like millions of others, whether they were born here, flew here or drove here, I believe that our wonderful democracy, Canada, is the best in the world and worth protecting with every resource at our disposal. In that spirit, I tabled this legislation and encourage the support from all sides of the House.

Canadians not only expect but have also told us again and again that they want us to restore the value of Canadian citizenship.

I want to thank the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism for introducing a new citizenship guide to inform newcomers of their rights and responsibilities when they come to Canada. The minister not only introduced a citizenship fraud tip line, but also recently announced efforts to crack down on citizenship fraud, which are paying off.

My Bill C-425 adds to our government's efforts to strengthen Canadian citizenship and would also reward those who are willing to put their lives on the line. It provides citizenship more quickly to those who take on the responsibility honourably serving our country. At the same time, it takes the privilege of Canadian citizenship away from those who betray Canada and everything it stands for.

I urge all members to support this bill going to committee for a thorough review. I am open to looking at any amendments from that review that respect the spirit of this bill and strengthen Canadian values.

It would be safe for me to assume that we all are committed to strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship. We also recognize the importance of the Canadian Forces and its commitment to serving Canada in defending its values, interests and sovereignty.

Along those lines, the House is a place where tough determinations are made on behalf of Canadian men, women and children and our brave men and women in uniform. The House is the place where we debate military budgets and deployments.

Unfortunately, these debates can sometimes become politicized and doing the right thing for our country and our troops can become obscured by the spin and rhetoric. Nevertheless, we all share a duty to support our troops and to do so with our very best judgment on behalf of our constituents.

We parliamentarians from all sides are entrusted to make the kinds of decisions that affect not only Canada, but also the brave souls into whose hands we place our security. I felt it was crucial for me to experience first-hand a glimpse of a day in the life of our courageous Canadian forces. That is why I spent several days in a uniform alongside our Canadian army during a reserve training exercise in Wainwright, Alberta in August 2009, along with colleagues from both sides of the House, as well as my “brother from a different mother”, the member for Medicine Hat. It is also why I spent time at sea off the east coast aboard the HMCS Fredericton in the summer of 2010.

I also want to thank the Minister of National Defence for ensuring that the Canadian Forces have the people, equipment, infrastructure and readiness required to defend Canada and Canadian interests now and well into the future.

Since 2006, under the solid leadership of the Minister of National Defence, the defence budget has grown by over $6 billion and key acquisitions have been made. Our men and women in uniform not only deserve the best equipment to get the job done, but also the best, the brightest and the bravest to be fighting alongside them and to have them at their back.

When Canadian permanent residents who are not yet Canadian citizens answer the call to serve under the red and white banner of this great nation, they are not just performing a duty. They are not simply working nine to five. They are putting their lives on the line for their new home for millions of Canadian men, women and children in the greatest country in the world.

For their demonstrated honour and courage to stand in the gap when least expected, but when most required, a one-year credit toward Canadian citizenship is the least we can do. Under the proposed change, a permanent resident who is a member of the Canadian Forces and has completed basic training and has signed a minimum three-year contract to serve the forces will be given a one-year credit toward his or her residence requirement for acquiring Canadian citizenship.

Also, under the proposed change Canadian citizens with dual citizenship and permanent residents applying for citizenship would lose their citizenship or become ineligible to become citizens if they commit an act of war against our troops.

I remember once seeing a bumper sticker that said “Stand behind our troops...otherwise, please feel free to stand in front of them”. Of course, the humour was dark, but the underlying truth about our parliamentary responsibility still rings true.

Canadian citizenship is extremely valuable. Members of the Canadian Fores risk their lives to defend it, so it makes sense that those individuals who choose to attack our Canadian Forces should not have the privilege of calling themselves Canadian citizens.

In referring to another key aspect of the second half of this legislation, I would like to make a very simple and direct point about safeguards. Most of us have sprinkler systems in our homes and hope they will never have to be used. Most of us have airbags in our cars and hope they will never have to be deployed. However, safeguards stand in place to protect our homes and protect our lives.

I pray that, like the fire sprinkler in our homes and the airbag in our cars, the second half of my legislation will never have to be used.

I firmly believe this is an excellent bill for Canadians from all walks of life. It is good for longstanding Canadians and good for new Canadians. It is another pathway to promote integration by encouraging new Canadians to serve alongside our armed forces. It supports our troops. It also underscores the immense value of Canadian citizenship.

Therefore, it is with deep Canadian pride and gratitude for our men and women in uniform, the new Canadians who bravely join them in the air, on land and sea, and it is with a profound respect for the Canadian citizenship you and I share, Mr. Speaker, that I proudly stand today on behalf of the men and women of Calgary Northeast in seeking support for my first private member's bill, Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces). I look forward to receiving the support of all members so that it can be sent to committee for a detailed review.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member will have eight minutes to continue or finish her speech when the House resumes consideration of the motion.

The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 30.7, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-425 under private members' business.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday night, I returned from a multi-party trade and Commonwealth delegation to southern India and Sri Lanka.

In India, we met political and business leaders in the states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala.

In the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Sri Lanka, I lead a workshop on conflict resolution and peace building. There I emphasized that while parliamentarians have a duty to represent their constituents, they also need to work constructively with other parties.

In that spirit, my private member's bill, Bill C-425, is soon up for second reading. My goals in this legislation are to promote integration, better recognize permanent residents who have served Canada, honour our Canadian troops and underscore the value of Canadian citizenship.

With these worthy goals, I humbly request and anticipate that my colleagues from all sides of the House will support this legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Are there any concerns?

Seeing none, we'll proceed to bill C-425.

Citizenship Act

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I recently introduced Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian armed forces).

First, it outlines another pathway to integration for permanent residents. Second, it underscores the incredible worth of Canadian citizenship. Third, it honours the contribution of our brave men and women in uniform.

According to the bill, permanent residents who sign a three year contract with the Canadian armed forces would receive a one year credit toward citizenship. Additionally, a Canadian who commits an act of war against the Canadian armed forces would be deemed to have renounced his or her Canadian citizenship.

To serve Canada in our military is a patriotic act of service worthy of reward. Conversely, to commit an act of war against Canada's armed forces signals a clear rejection of Canadian responsibilities, values and citizenship.

In the coming months, I ask for support from all sides of this House for the bill.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking my colleague for Medicine Hat for seconding my bill.

I rise today to introduce my private member's bill, Bill C-425, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces). This bill is much more than another pathway to integration. It also signifies the deep respect the people of Calgary Northeast hold for Canadian citizenship and for the brave men and women of our Canadian armed forces.

Once passed, the Citizenship Act will require the minister to reduce, on application, the requirement of residence to become Canadian citizen by one year for a permanent resident of Canada who is a member of the Canadian Forces, who has signed a minimum three-year contract and has completed the basic training.

It would also amend section 9 of the act to provide that individuals are deemed to have made applications for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship or are deemed to have withdrawn their application for Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)