Bill C-24 (Historical)

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things, update eligibility requirements for Canadian citizenship, strengthen security and fraud provisions and amend provisions governing the processing of applications and the review of decisions.
Amendments to the eligibility requirements include
(a) clarifying the meaning of being resident in Canada;
(b) modifying the period during which a permanent resident must reside in Canada before they may apply for citizenship;
(c) expediting access to citizenship for persons who are serving in, or have served in, the Canadian Armed Forces;
(d) requiring that an applicant for citizenship demonstrate, in one of Canada’s official languages, knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship;
(e) specifying the age as of which an applicant for citizenship must demonstrate the knowledge referred to in paragraph (d) and must demonstrate an adequate knowledge of one of Canada’s official languages;
(f) requiring that an applicant meet any applicable requirement under the Income Tax Act to file a return of income;
(g) conferring citizenship on certain individuals and their descendants who may not have acquired citizenship under prior legislation;
(h) extending an exception to the first-generation limit to citizenship by descent to children born to or adopted abroad by parents who were themselves born to or adopted abroad by Crown servants; and
(i) requiring, for a grant of citizenship for an adopted person, that the adoption not have circumvented international adoption law.
Amendments to the security and fraud provisions include
(a) expanding the prohibition against granting citizenship to include persons who are charged outside Canada for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament or who are serving a sentence outside Canada for such an offence;
(b) expanding the prohibition against granting citizenship to include persons who, while they were permanent residents, engaged in certain actions contrary to the national interest of Canada, and permanently barring those persons from acquiring citizenship;
(c) aligning the grounds related to security and organized criminality on which a person may be denied citizenship with those grounds in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and extending the period during which a person is barred from acquiring citizenship on that basis;
(d) expanding the prohibition against granting citizenship to include persons who, in the course of their application, misrepresent material facts and prohibiting new applications by those persons for a specified period;
(e) increasing the period during which a person is barred from applying for citizenship after having been convicted of certain offences;
(f) increasing the maximum penalties for offences related to citizenship, including fraud and trafficking in documents of citizenship;
(g) providing for the regulation of citizenship consultants;
(h) establishing a hybrid model for revoking a person’s citizenship in which the Minister will decide the majority of cases and the Federal Court will decide the cases related to inadmissibility based on security grounds, on grounds of violating human or international rights or on grounds of organized criminality;
(i) increasing the period during which a person is barred from applying for citizenship after their citizenship has been revoked;
(j) providing for the revocation of citizenship of dual citizens who, while they were Canadian citizens, engaged in certain actions contrary to the national interest of Canada, and permanently barring these individuals from reacquiring citizenship; and
(k) authorizing regulations to be made respecting the disclosure of information.
Amendments to the provisions governing the processing of applications and the review of decisions include
(a) requiring that an application must be complete to be accepted for processing;
(b) expanding the grounds and period for the suspension of applications and providing for the circumstances in which applications may be treated as abandoned;
(c) limiting the role of citizenship judges in the decision-making process, subject to the Minister periodically exercising his or her power to continue the period of application of that limitation;
(d) giving the Minister the power to make regulations concerning the making and processing of applications;
(e) providing for the judicial review of any matter under the Act and permitting, in certain circumstances, further appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal; and
(f) transferring to the Minister the discretionary power to grant citizenship in special cases.
Finally, the enactment makes consequential amendments to the Federal Courts Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to inform the House that we are meeting this important campaign commitment.

Bill C-24, enacted by the previous Conservative government, set a very dangerous precedent. It created two tiers of citizenship in this country. Regardless of whether one is born here or whether abroad, like myself and many members of the House, we deserve a government that values and respects our citizenship.

A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. The Liberal Party believes this. Canadians recognize this. With Bill C-6, we will be implementing this important fundamental principle and putting it back into our immigration system.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Scarborough Centre is one of the most diverse communities in Canada. The Prime Minister came to my campaign office during the election and promised to repeal the second class citizenship provision of Bill C-24, telling my constituents that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship update the House on his progress on this promise to restore the integrity of Canadian citizenship?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you ever so much, Minister, for appearing before this committee. I'm sure I speak on behalf of many Canadians in congratulating you for the energy that you have brought to the task at hand. It has been incredible to see your approach to incoming refugees from Syria and to restoring health benefits to refugees, and also your comments today that we will be seeing changes to Bill C-24.

I'm sure that everyone on this committee will agree that the Canada we have today is really the result of the entrepreneurial spirit of many who have come here to live their lives. Immigration is critical to job creation and economic growth for the middle class. The fact is that Canada needs immigration to maintain our population levels, and we do have an aging population and Canadians obviously are living longer lives.

Given all of that, despite all the foregoing, Canadians have been deeply concerned during the past decade about application processing times for various streams of immigration, as you alluded to in your opening comments. To illustrate the point, the processing time for citizenship applications doubled over the past decade. To take another example, which is something that I know you attach a lot of significance to, family reunification processing times are up by 70% for spouses and children since 2007, and then an even a more staggering 500% for parents and grandparents.

Given your invitation that this committee assist in seeing how those timelines can be streamlined, I was wondering if, after having had your consultations with senior civil servants in your department, you could provide us with your early initial impressions as to how the system can be improved.

Thank you.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Just to tag on as well to my colleague's question around Bill C-24, under the previous government the language requirements were made extremely challenging for new immigrants applying to become Canadian citizens. I know that in my riding of Scarborough North, which has one of the highest populations of new immigrants, it's extremely challenging for families who are sponsoring grandparents or parents to have them successfully transition to Canadian citizenship.

How will you and your ministry address this system to make it more inclusive with respect to the strict language proficiency requirements that are currently in place as a result of the last government?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

In the coming days, and not very many, is my answer to when we will introduce changes to C-24.

In terms of the interim federal health program, we really had no choice but to repeal it. I'm glad the Conservatives have found a new commitment to the charter, but their own interim federal health program was entirely inconsistent with the charter when the judge said that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment and was, therefore, unconstitutional and contrary to the charter.

We had no choice but to get rid of it for that reason, but we wanted to anyway because we think it's only right that refugees receive health care. It was economically ridiculous for the federal government to save some money only for the provincial governments to have to spend more money. So net, it cost taxpayers money. It was unconstitutional, and it's certainly the right thing to do to provide health care.

Finally, on the subject of the charter, clearly the interim federal health program was unconstitutional. We now have concern that the designated countries of origin—the discrimination between refugees in terms of what kind of appeal they may have—which the Conservatives set up, may also be unconstitutional, and there have been some court cases. As a result of that charter uncertainty, we are actually reconsidering whether to keep the designated countries of origin at all.

In the election we committed to setting up an independent panel to determine which countries should be on that list, but now, in light of court challenges to the constitutionality of designated countries of origin in the first place, we may even remove them, in which case we would not need any outside body to advise on which countries, because we wouldn't have any designated countries of origin.

This is something that is charter related—and we've been talking about charters, so I raise it—on which we have not yet come to a decision. But the whole issue of designated countries of origin clearly does raise charter issues that we are reviewing now.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

That's correct.

Minister, first of all, on behalf of myself and all the refugees, asylum seekers, service providers, and dedicated health care professionals in the field I want to thank you for restoring the interim federal health program. Canadians were ashamed of the previous government's petty actions in denying health care to refugees. Our actions have restored the pride we take in our national generosity.

There is a lot more work to do. In particular, I'm referring to the infamous Bill C-24—as you just mentioned—which created a two-class citizenship: one class for those born here, and another class for those who choose Canada as their home and earn their Canadian citizenship.

Minister, how soon can we expect the government to introduce legislation to repeal the provisions of Bill C-24?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

There are a number of questions there.

I might just mention in response to an earlier question that the number of Syrian refugees pre-November 4 is approximately 3,000. That's a partial answer, and we will endeavour to get the rest of the answer soon.

In terms of Bill C-24, this will be coming soon, and we will make very major amendments, as we committed to in the election. We like one or two things in Bill C-24, like the lost Canadians provision, so we would not want to repeal that element of it, but we will certainly honour our campaign commitment.

In terms of the settlement of refugees, I don't have exactly how many settlement workers there are in every community across the country. I can tell you that those settlement agencies are working extremely hard to get the job done and that we are also expanding the number of cities that are settlement communities, to Victoria and other places to be announced very soon. A lot of effort is under way on the part of all those cities and settlement agencies.

I can also say on the settlement issue that we have recently acquired numbers, and 52% of refugees who have arrived from Syria so far have proceeded to permanent housing. That is a precise number, which my department only recently obtained. That will give you an additional piece of information.

Finally, on your question on the IRB, they have received funding to reduce their legacy cases, and they continue to work on those legacy cases, as well as new ones that are coming before them.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay, then I'm going to plough through my questions very quickly.

My first question is related to Bill C-24. The minister will recall that during the campaign the Prime Minister announced in the Sing Tao, Ming Pao, and World Journal media in the Lower Mainland of Vancouver that he would repeal Bill C-24 should he form a government. Will the government act accordingly and repeal the entire Bill C-24?

I'm going to ask my questions very quickly and I'll let the minister answer them all at once.

My next question would be on the legacy files. When the Conservative government's Balanced Refugee Reform Act came into effect in December 2012, it created a two-tier system for refugee claimants who applied under the old laws before 2012 and the new claimants in terms of the time for them to process applications. More than three years have passed. Claimants under the old legislation are still waiting to receive a verdict, whereas new claimants receive a decision after only a few months. According to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada all legacy files, as we call them, should be finalized by 2018.

My question to the minister is this. Will there be change in addressing this? If not, why are refugee claimants from 2012, who are now integrated into Canadian society, still waiting for a decision on whether or not they can stay in Canada, when last year's claimants already know their fate and can breathe easily? If there were a change, I wonder if the minister can advise when we can see that change take place.

My next question deals with the resettlement services. At a technical briefing on February 3, 2016, an official said that Syrian refugees who had arrived here would not have to wait more than two weeks to be permanently settled. I've met many families who've waited more than two weeks, and they're still waiting. Some of them have missed appointments with immigration officials because the officials simply didn't show up three weeks after they've been here. My question to the minister is this. How many immigration officers does he have working on the ground to process the applicants, the new arrivals? How many settlement workers are on the ground in each of the cities to provide resettlement services to the refugees?

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his excellent speech and I congratulate him on his election.

Given the member's comments, I believe that he will join with me when we comment on the previous government's policies of division and fear and say that we want something new and different. Canadians are ready for that change, and we want to signal to our communities, sooner rather than later, that it is a new day for Canada.

Part of that old regime of division and fear was Bill C-24, which created two classes of citizenship here in Canada. I would like to ask the hon. member if he would, along with me, advocate as soon as possible the repealing of that bill.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

As this is my maiden speech in the House of Commons, I would like to thank the people of Vancouver East for giving me a strong mandate to represent them in the House of Commons, in the people's House.

Vancouver East is a wonderfully diverse group of neighbourhoods and communities that come together to form an incredibly diverse part of our city, our province and our country. Whether refugees, immigrants, new Canadians, retirees, young people working to make a start, artists and writers from the creative community who feed our soul, or people who are homeless, grappling with addiction issues or mental health challenges, or grass-roots activists who give strength to the fight for a better tomorrow, in Vancouver East everyone makes a contribution to our community. The activism in Vancouver East is unparalleled. We fight hard for what we believe in. We are so proud to be a pro-democratic movement for social, economic, and environmental justice in an unequal world.

In Vancouver East, we know that addressing the social determinants of health is key to healthy communities. We are never afraid to fight to be the agent of positive social change for the entire nation. The way forward for a better future demands that we address the root causes of past injustices. Canada has a shameful chapter of how indigenous peoples have been treated. The effects of colonialism have had a profound effect for the first peoples of this land. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights released a report to say, “The disappearances and murders of indigenous women in Canada are part of a broader pattern of violence and discrimination against indigenous women in the country.”

It makes my heart sing to see in the throne speech the government's commitment to a national inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. I do hope, with all my heart, that this nation will finally address the root causes that exacerbate the violence against indigenous women and girls. The New Democrats stand ready to work with the government to fulfill this important election promise.

The throne speech stated, “...the Government believes that all Canadians should have a real and fair chance to succeed”. If this statement is to ring true, and I do hope that it does, is it not time to have a national plan with real targets and progress reports to end poverty? After all, it is 2015, and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent's motion to eradicate poverty, supported by every member of the House, was made in 1989. It is startling to me that in Canada 19% of the children live in poverty. That is 1.3 million children. In B.C. alone, that is 170,000 children.

It is a myth to say that people choose to be on welfare. People do not choose to live in poverty. A parent does not choose to send his or her child to bed hungry. The majority of the people on income assistance are people with disabilities, people who are just trying to make ends meet, and people who are working multiple low-income jobs, minimum wage jobs. It does not have to be this way. If we ask the people of Vancouver East, they will tell us that closing stock option loopholes and investing in a plan to eliminate poverty is an easy choice for governments to make.

Though the throne speech did not mention child care, I do hope that the government will recognize that an affordable national universal child care program would ensure that we are taking care of future generations by laying a strong foundation for success.

In East Vancouver, it is a struggle to find accessible, affordable, quality child care, yet we know that early childhood development is good for the child, the family, and the economy. Families and business leaders know that a national child care program equals economic prosperity for the nation. What goes in tandem with that is a national housing program. We do not have to be rocket scientists to know that ending homelessness is not just plausible, but possible. It requires political will.

During the campaign, Liberal candidates promised to renew the co-op housing agreements that were set to expire and to bring back a national housing plan. While housing was not mentioned in the throne speech, I do hope those are not just empty words. It is important for Vancouver East that the federal government gets back to being a committed housing partner and starts building safe, secure, affordable, social housing, and co-ops once again.

From the young to the old, our seniors deserve dignity and support in their golden years. They should not have to worry about not being able to access health care, prescription drugs, home support or having a roof over their heads. Lifting seniors out of poverty by increasing the guaranteed income supplement and returning the retirement age from 67 to 65 is what the government has promised them. In the days ahead, I hope the government will lay out its plan to deliver on that promise. We are worthy of a Canada that honours all those who have sacrificed so much so we can have a better future.

My parents immigrated to Canada because it was a beacon of freedom, hope and opportunity. They dared to dream for a better future for their children, they dared to seek opportunities to make a better life, and they dared to cherish our freedoms and civil liberties.

I am honoured to be the NDP critic for immigration, refugees and citizenship. I look forward to working with the minister and his parliamentary secretary, along with the Conservative critic and deputy critic, on this important portfolio. From honouring the commitment to bring 25,000 government-sponsored Syrian refugees to Canada, to eliminating the backlog for family reunification, to spousal sponsorship applications to getting rid of arbitrary quotas, to addressing concerns with the temporary foreign workers program and removing barriers to citizenship, there is much work to be done.

No Canadian should be made to feel that they are second-class citizens, not immigrants, not those with dual citizenships, no one. The Liberal government promised to repeal Bill C-24. It promised to reverse the invasion of privacy and threat to civil liberties in Bill C-51. Canadians are ready for change. In the days ahead, I hope to see concrete plans and timelines for these election promises, because it is important for the government to deliver on what it promises. The plans that were campaigned on were ambitious, but the expectations need to be met post-election.

We have a collective responsibility to leave our country a better place than what we inherited from the last generation. I look forward to working with all members of the House to do just that.

As the final words in my maiden speech, I want to also thank everyone who worked on my campaign team: the volunteers, the staff, the people who put their trust in me and who toiled in a long election campaign to send me here. I will live by the words of the late Dr. David Lam to “bring honour to the title” that the people have bestowed in me with the work that I do.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the member opposite on his election.

Bill C-24 provides the right to revoke citizenship to the minister. The minister is a politician, who does not ally with the Canadian courts or Canadian judges. The provisions of Bill C-24 would allow a politician to revoke citizenship based on the charges faced by a Canadian citizen anywhere in the world. Under Bill C-24, it is possible that the citizenship of Greenpeace activists could be revoked if they were convicted in Russia on trumped-up terrorism charges. We have committed that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, and we will revoke the unfair provisions of Bill C-24.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his election. I understand that he opposes Bill C-24. However, he did not say what it does. To be clear, this bill strips citizenship from convicted terrorists.

Our view on this side of the House is that, if individuals are flying around the world seeking to advance terrorist purposes, they should not be able to use Canadian passports to facilitate their agenda. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member why he wants to give Canadian passports back to convicted terrorists.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Davenport.

I would like to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your appointment to the position of Assistant Deputy Speaker.

As this is the first time I am speaking in the House, I wish to thank all 34,000 citizens of Nepean who voted for me to represent them in this august House. I pledge to work hard to serve all people of Nepean irrespective of their background and political viewpoints.

I would like to thank my friend, my partner, and my wife, Sangeetha, and our son, Siddanth, without whom I would not be here.

I would also like to thank the team of volunteers who committed so much time and energy to my campaign and who shared my vision for the great riding of Nepean.

I am also honoured to be one of only three Hindu Canadians who are members of the House. I am probably only the second person in the history of the Canadian Parliament to be sworn in by taking the oath on the Hindu holy book of Bhagavad Gita.

Canadians spoke loud and clear on October 19, echoing our call for real change. Of the several things Canadians voted for, I would like to highlight three issues. First, Canadians overwhelmingly voted against the politics of fear and division. Second, Canadians rejected the creation of second-class citizenship in Bill CC-24. Third, Canadians voted for economic development through massive investment in infrastructure.

As I said, Canadians rejected the politics of fear and division. As the right hon. Prime Minister has said:

Fear is a dangerous thing. Once it is sanctioned by the state, there is no telling where it might lead. It is always a short path to walk from being suspicious of our fellow citizens to taking actions to restrict their liberty.

Canadians also rejected the second-class citizenship that was created by Bill C-24. The previous government created two classes of citizenship, with the power to revoke citizenship resting with a politician. As has been said, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. We will repeal the unfair portions of Bill C-24.

Canadians also voted to stimulate the economy through massive investment in infrastructure to create long-term economic growth.

I have several objectives as a member of this esteemed institution. The first is to bring respect back for the public service and allow public service employees to deliver to the best of their ability. We will create policies based on scientific evidence, not ideological dogma. Prudence and pragmatism and not political ideology will influence decision-making. We will not legislate changes to service terms but work through the process of collective bargaining.

My next objective is to work on affordable housing. The wait time for affordable housing in my riding of Nepean is 15 years. There are more than 10,000 people on the wait list for affordable housing in the City of Ottawa. Research has shown that every dollar invested in affordable housing saves several dollars in long-term social costs.

My long-term objective is to work to develop a viable, alternative sector for the creation and sustainment of high-quality jobs in Nepean and Ottawa.

In Ottawa, the federal government is the largest employer, and the City of Ottawa is the second largest. Then we have the technology sector, which has seen the booms and busts of the wireless and telecom segments. Our children are moving out of Ottawa in search of jobs. There is a need to promote the development of a stable technology sector.

I served on the board of Invest Ottawa, with Mayor Jim Watson as the co-chair, and other leading business and institutional leaders as fellow directors. Invest Ottawa is doing great work in making the city the best place for companies across Canada and around the world to come and set up shop. There are about 1,700 knowledge-based companies in the city, a vast majority of which are small entities. Invest Ottawa is also helping these companies grow.

One thing I realized during my stint there is that, for economic development to take place in the city of Ottawa, there is a need for all three levels of government, municipal, provincial, and federal, to work hand in hand.

The City of Ottawa and the provincial government have joined hands and have equally shared the costs of a $30 million innovation centre that is currently being built. Currently, there is zero contribution from the federal government for this much-required institution.

During the last 10 years, the interaction among all three levels of government for the economic development of Ottawa has been quite minimal. I pledge to work hard to rectify this deficit.

There are 12 million working Canadians who do not have a workplace pension plan. Only 35% of Ontario workers have a workplace pension plan. In the private sector, the percentage of workers with a workplace pension plan is just 28%. It is possible that many of them will retire directly into poverty, thus increasing social costs. There is already an increasing number of working families who depend on the local food banks. There is a need for an enhanced pension plan. Our government has pledged to work with the provinces and territories to achieve this goal.

To conclude, I want to bring my experience, dedication, and passion for my country to Parliament. I will work hard for the families in Nepean and work with others to make our country and community stronger. I want to showcase to our children and grandchildren that politics is about public service and about giving back to society.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member forEtobicoke Centre for his great work in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and for his dedication to these files along with many other members on our side, without whom bills like this, Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act and Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, would simply not have seen the light of day.

Let us draw the contrast. Let us take the case of Shafias, multiple murders, tragic case from Kingston, Ontario. The member for Pierrefonds—Dollard asked what would have been the effect on them of this bill if it had been in place say under a Liberal government, say 10 years ago when we came into office. The amendment to IRPA would have deemed Mohammad Shafia and his wife inadmissible in the first place. They might not ever have gotten here. The amendment to the Criminal Code would not even have allowed the defence of provocation to be used at that time. The amendments to the Civil Marriage Act would have protected the children from early and forced marriage. As we recall, there were multiple cases in that tragic chapter.

Finally, the requirement for dissolution of previous marriage would have protected people like Rona Amir who were not protected when a second marriage took place and the previous one had not been annulled or dissolved.

These actions, which, if we had taken them earlier in Parliament, would have saved lives and would certainly have reduced the misery of women and girls. They are not the majority. They are not even a large share of those who come to our country as immigrants or who live in our country, but they are hundreds and indeed thousands who have suffered from these terrible practices that lead to lifetimes of violence.

The Liberal Party did nothing about it in its time in office. The NDP still opposes these measures today. It is very clear who in this Parliament is standing up for the protection of women and girls at home and in our immigration system.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I am going to have to contradict the figures on our website.

Those figures concern the most complex applications we have received in years, and they require additional documentation on residency. There were thousands of cases involving residency, and the possibility that people who claimed to have resided in Canada for three years had not really done so.

If we set aside these complex cases, we see that there has been considerable improvement in processing times for citizenship applications. More than a quarter million applications were processed last year. This year, the processing rate and the progress in this area is very rapid. A new citizenship application submitted this year—as of now, for instance—will be processed in a time period that goes far beyond our expectations and is closer to a one-year processing time.

When we went forward with Bill C-24, we promised that the processing time for new applications would be 12 months or less as of the beginning of 2016. We are already getting close to that objective.