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.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of what my colleague just said. The Conservatives have allowed citizenship application processing times to increase substantially. Processing times have more than doubled in the past few years. If the Conservatives truly wanted to resolve this problem, they would have put measures in place much sooner instead of giving us Bill C-24, which will supposedly resolve the problems with the application processing times, and with a time allocation motion to boot.

This is one of the major problems with our citizenship system right now, and Bill C-24 contains no solutions. The Conservatives would have us believe that this bill will address the problem with the times. In fact, they are actually preventing many people who were prepared to apply for citizenship from doing so. The Conservatives are asking them to apply in a year or two because the rules have just changed.

The only thing that will do is temporarily reduce citizenship applications for a year. This will help the Conservatives get good statistics in time for the election, but there is nothing in Bill C-24 that will truly fix the problem in the long term. This shows a complete lack of respect for people who would have and should have the right to citizenship.

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-24 at report stage. This bill was introduced at first reading on February 6 and was debated for the first hour on February 27.

According to the minister, the bill is very important, but it sort of got forgotten after February 27. We read about it in newspapers, but it was not debated again until May 29. The government did not put Bill C-24 back on the House's agenda for many months, and we have no idea why.

Another irregularity is the fact that the committee began studying the bill before the end of second reading. This is a citizenship reform bill that has been needed for nearly 30 years. This 50-page bill, which was touted and heralded, did not even go through normal House procedures. We debated it for one hour, then it was shelved and then, all of a sudden, we were forced to study it at committee before second reading had even finished.

For those who are not familiar with parliamentary process, this means that experts and civil society are unable to react to or contribute to the bill by appearing before committee. Many people have asked me what is happening with Bill C-24 and how they can contribute by sharing their expertise in committee. I had to tell them that it was too late because the usual procedures were not followed. Experts and civil society did not hear much about the bill because committee rushed to study it and because it was not debated in the House as it should have been. Moreover, the committee stage was too short. The NDP asked to hear from more witnesses, but that idea was rejected.

After all that, it came back to the House for debate, and here we are less than a week later at report stage. The committee rushed its clause by clause study of Bill C-24. It did not do a thorough study following the usual procedures, and as a result, we have before us a bill that was not amended at all by the committee.

The NDP wants several clauses removed from the bill because both experts and lay people have raised a number of concerns and because the government rejected all of the amendments proposed not only by the experts who appeared before the committee, but also by the opposition.

Bill C-24 was much anticipated, and the NDP supports many aspects of it. We are not against the bill overall. Many parts of it are good and are actually things the NDP has been urging the government to do for a long time. One of these is addressing the issue of the lost Canadians, Canadians who lost their citizenship. Many people are affected by a range of unjust situations related to that issue. This bill does not solve all of those problems, but it is a step in the right direction.

In addition, the NDP is happy to support a number of measures, including harsher penalties in cases of citizenship fraud, clarification of the rules governing the number of days needed to get citizenship and acceleration of the citizenship process for permanent residents who are members of the Canadian Forces.

Unfortunately this 50-page bill with 46 clauses has not been amended in any way despite the fact that experts unanimously agreed that it needed major changes. Therefore, the NDP has no choice but to ask that certain clauses be removed from this bill. For example, clause 3 of Bill C-24 deals with a large number of things. The NDP agrees with many of them, but we still must ask that this clause be removed because it contains some basic elements that are very worrisome.

For example, the declaration of intent to reside in Canada is a problem that I will talk about briefly.

A large number of experts are concerned about this declaration of intent to reside in Canada, which consists of asking people to declare that they intend to live here after obtaining their citizenship. They have to make this declaration as part of the citizenship process.

We know that someone who is convicted of making false declarations or committing fraud to obtain citizenship can have that citizenship revoked in the future. That worries the experts who are saying that this is a dangerous door that is being opened.

A person might have to leave Canada after obtaining their citizenship because they cannot find a job here, for example. They may have to accept a job abroad or a job that will require them to live outside Canada for a year or two. They may also have to leave the country to take care of a sick parent. They could not foresee these circumstances when they made the declaration of intent to reside in Canada. In short, that creates a lot of concerns for new citizens.

Could the government take away the citizenship of people who leave the country after they have declared their intent to reside here? Legal experts say that it can, but the minister is saying that, no, he does not intend to do that and that he does not want to use the intent to reside to take away people's right to citizenship. Good for him. The minister has good intentions. However, we cannot rely solely on his intentions. We also have to rely on the wording of the bill. Legal experts are saying that the way the bill is worded poses a risk for new Canadians who want to temporarily leave the country as a result of unforeseen circumstances.

Speaking of experts, I would like to list a few who believe that this aspect of the bill, as it now stands, is extremely problematic. The Canadian Council for Refugees submitted a written brief to the committee. There is also the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants; Ms. Macklin from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers; the Inter Clinic Immigration Working Group; and Parkdale Community Legal Services. I could go on for quite a while; I have a whole page full of names. It seems experts have a lot to say on this topic.

Another aspect of clause 3 that is really problematic is the time of residence. There has been a lot of backlash from foreign students over the fact that their time of residence in Canada will, unfortunately, no longer count toward their application for citizenship and permanent residence.

When they arrived, they were told that they would contribute to society as students, workers and taxpayers and that the time they spent in the country as foreign students could count toward their application for citizenship.

Today, this bill changes the rules right under their noses and throws a wrench into their life plans in a number of ways. They will have to wait one or two more years before they can apply for citizenship. That is not fair, and I want to point out the work of this group in particular, whose time in the country before they become permanent residents counts. They are smart, engaged, involved and well aware of the value of Canadian citizenship. This provision of the bill is basically a slap in the face to foreign students.

We also want to remove clause 8 of the bill on the revocation of citizenship, which did not exist before. Bill C-24 gives the minister the discretionary power to revoke people's citizenship without giving them the right to appeal. That is extremely worrisome.

Again, experts are unanimous on this. There are major problems with this aspect of the bill. Ms. Macklin, the representative of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and a professor at the University of Toronto, had this to say:

I would remove citizenship revocation. It's unconstitutional.

I think our criminal justice system is perfectly adequate to handle crimes, criminal offences, and it does so just fine.

I will close by saying that when the minister says that the Canadian Bar Association should be ashamed of itself for opposing Bill C-24, he is showing his true partisan colours and illustrating how completely out of touch he is. A great many people are concerned. This cannot go on.

Speaker’s Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are 13 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-24. Motions Nos. 1 to 13 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 13 to the House.

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported without amendment from the committee.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on Bill C-31. Let me make it very clear right from the beginning that I will be speaking in opposition to this bill for a number of reasons.

One of the most critical reasons is that once again the government is choosing to shut down debate and has moved time allocation on a really critical bill. We have a bill of 350 pages. It addresses over 500 clauses and impacts 60 acts, yet debate is being limited.

It is an example of how budgets have been passed ever since I have been in Parliament. The government introduces a budget bill the size of a phone book in the majority of our municipalities and then wants us to vote on it holus-bolus. It throws in some tempting stuff, but there is also a lot of negative stuff that will force us to vote against it.

I have noticed one key thing that would really impact my community. The groups of people and businesses that grow jobs are the small and medium-sized enterprises across the country. They are the engines of our economy, but in this bill there is no small business job creation tax credit.

It is not there, even though it is a proven way to grow jobs in this country. They grow jobs in our communities. Money is spent in our communities, and we collect taxes that help to feed our health care and education systems and so on.

I also do not see anything significant in this budget that would address the critical area of the huge transaction fees that small businesses are burdened with over and over again, once again eating into their profit margins and their ability to survive, and let us not forget the high cost of interest rates on many credit cards.

We are also talking about a period in our history right now when we actually have more unemployed Canadians. Despite all of the rhetoric from my colleagues across the way, and they can say it as much as they like, it will not change reality. The reality is that we have 300,000 more Canadians unemployed today than we had before the depression. That is just not acceptable.

Today I heard a minister saying that we are doing better than other places in youth unemployment. We are not. We have youth unemployment in the double digits. In B.C., there are areas where the youth unemployment rate is at 15%.

By the way, let me make it clear that we have 300,000 more unemployed people today than in the past. A huge number of people in Canada are underemployed or working two or three jobs at minimum wage in order to make ends meet.

All of this is with a budget that would do nothing to address the huge deficit in manufacturing jobs. I do not see any major stimulus or investment in that area to get that sector moving and get our economy back on the road.

I also heard a minister saying earlier that we are managing to get through a lot of legislation. We have to be careful about how quickly we rush through legislation. I am reminded of Bill C-24. Only one component was the citizenship revocation component. Here is a bill that would fundamentally change what citizenship is, yet when it went to committee stage, not one witness or expert was heard from. We went directly from a very preliminary and time-allocated debate of six and a half hours in the House to then having no witnesses or expert testimony and going straight into clause by clause. That seems to be turning into a bit of a pattern with the Conservative government.

We also have the government rushing to sign agreements. For example, it seems to have lost the concern it had around privacy issues when it was in opposition. Canadians care very deeply about the privacy issue, but once again we are giving away valuable information through the IRS and FATCA. The justification is that because the government may suspect someone could be doing something, it has a right to surveillance without any kind of legal right to do so. The attitude is, “We are the government, and we now have that right”.

We have seen the attacks on the veterans. We have seen the attacks on small and medium-sized businesses. We have seen the attack on the privacy of Canadians. However, we have seen no real measures that would invest in a major way to get the economy going when it comes to manufacturing or addressing high youth unemployment.

Let me get to another disturbing aspect of the bill, the component dealing with the temporary foreign worker program.

Of course we are delighted to hear that the minister will be making some changes. This is the same minister who has been making changes for the last little while. Those changes have not stopped abuse by some employers, nor has it stopped the flood of temporary foreign workers. When we have a high number of temporary foreign workers at the same time that we have high youth unemployment and high labour availability, it really is disturbing.

I had the privilege of listening to the Parliamentary Budget Officer this morning. He said that although there is no overall skills shortage in this country, we do not even have the data. I have known that for a while. What is disturbing is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer said on record that we do not have the data to help us make informed decisions, whether it comes to immigration or granting LMOs, which are labour mobility orders. We do not have the data we need to plan for the future when it comes to skills investment and apprenticeships and growing the skill sets that we need. We do not have the data to guide our young generation on where they should be investing their energy as they look to the future.

Let us take a look at the temporary foreign worker program, which has absolutely ballooned. Now we are to believe a minister that the government will increase penalties for the employer. It is in the bill, but that is cold comfort for the two waitresses in Saskatchewan who were laid off from their jobs while temporary foreign workers were brought in. It is little comfort to the young people in Victoria who had their hours reduced, were not hired, or were let go because temporary foreign workers were brought in.

We are also worried about the vulnerability of temporary foreign workers. Our country has a proud history of having immigration policies that build our nation, but in this bill we have veered away from that. These are not my words. A temporary foreign worker, a young man who was here from Belize, said that it was beginning to feel like slavery.

We have heard of all these horrendous abuses. I have talked to many employers and others who have said that they have reported abuse to the CBSA and to CIC, but the only time four names appeared on a list was when CBC broke a story. It made national news, and on a Sunday afternoon, lo and behold, there were four names, but none of the others. There is absolute evidence that there are other people who have reported abuse, but their names were not there.

Clearly, then, there are many things that need to be addressed.

I will finish by saying that this budget fails to invest in growing jobs for the future, fails our youth, and fails working people, because it does not have anything major within it for them.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the concept of the very strange proposition put forward by my friend. He uses this concept of shifts and believes there is some perverse obligation on the part of the government that, if the opposition wishes to filibuster the production of new laws and delay their production, we somehow have an obligation to match them step for step in extending that process. His comparison is with ordinary Canadians. He said that ordinary Canadians should not produce a product at the end of the day at work; they should take two, three, or four days to get the same thing made. That is his idea of getting things done. That is his idea of how ordinary Canadians can work. I think that says something about the culture of the NDP and the hon. member. I will let members guess what culture that is. It is a culture that does say we should take two or three times longer to get something done or to get to our destination than we possibly can.

We on this side are happy to make decisions to get things done for Canadians. In fact, that is exactly what we have been doing. Since I last rose in response to a Thursday question, the House has accomplished a lot, thanks to our government's plan to work a little overtime this spring.

I know the House leader of the official opposition boasts that the New Democrats are happy to work hard, but let us take a look at what his party's deputy leader had to say on CTV last night. The hon. member for Halifax was asked why the NDP agreed to work until midnight. She confessed, “We didn't agree to do it.” She then lamented, “We are going from topic to topic. We are doing votes. We are at committees. They are really intense days. We're sitting until midnight.”

On that part, I could not agree more with the deputy leader of the NDP, believe it or not, but with much more cheer in my voice when I say those words, because we think it is a good thing. These are intense days. We are actually getting things done. We are actually voting on things. We are actually getting things through committee. For once, we are going from topic to topic in the run of the day.

Let me review for the House just how many topics, votes, and committee accomplishments we have addressed since the government asked the House to roll up its sleeves.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was passed at second reading and has even been reported back from the citizenship committee.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was concurred in at report stage and later passed at third reading.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1, was reported back from the finance committee.

Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was concurred in at report stage.

On the private members' business front we saw:

Bill C-555, from the hon. members for West Nova in support of the seal hunt, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-483, from my hon. colleague, the member for Oxford, cracking down on prisoners' escorted temporary absences was passed at third reading.

Bill C-479, from the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, on improving the place of victims in our justice system was passed at third reading last night.

Progress is not limited to Conservative initiatives. The Green Party leader's Bill C-442, respecting a Lyme disease strategy, was reported back from committee yesterday.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay saw a motion on palliative care pass.

We have also seen countless reports from committees reviewing the government's spending plans, as well as topics of importance to those committees.

This morning we even ratified the appointment of an officer of Parliament.

Finally, I do want to reflect on the accomplishment of Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act (Vanessa's law), which members may recall me discussing in last week's Thursday statement. It finally passed at second reading. However, this did not happen until the NDP relented and changed its tune to allow the bill to go to committee. It was the first time ever that we had an expression from the New Democrats when we gave notice of intention to allocate time in which they said, “We don't need that time; we're actually prepared to allow a bill to advance to the next stage”. I think, by reflecting on the fact that those dozens of other times the NDP did not take that step, we could understand that they did not want to see a bill advance; they did not want to see progress made. That lets Canadians understand quite clearly why it is we need to use scheduling and time allocation as a device to get things done in the face of a group that thinks the objective is to fill up all possible time available with words rather than actual votes and getting things done.

It is clear that our approach is working. We are getting things done in the House of Commons and delivering results for Canadians.

Perhaps I might be overly inspired by the example of Vanessa’s Law, but I do want to draw the attention of the House to Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act.

So far, we have seen three days of debate on second reading of the bill, but “debate” is actually not accurate. What we have witnessed is speech, after speech, after speech—most of them from New Democrats—offering platitudes of support for the idea of getting that bill to a committee where it could be studied. What I want to know is, why will they not just let it happen? Victims of crime want to see meaningful action, not just kind words.

Suffice it to say that I will need to schedule additional time for discussion of this bill. Perhaps the NDP will let it pass after a fourth day of talk.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-31, our budget implementation bill. When that concludes, we will turn to Bill C-20, to implement our free trade agreement with Honduras, at third reading. If time permits, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-24, which makes the first modernization of the Citizenship Act in 35 years. After question period, I will call Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, to see if the NDP is ready to deliver results, not talk.

Monday morning, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-20, if more time is needed, and then resume the second reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act. After question period, we will get back to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

Tuesday shall be the eighth allotted day when the NDP will have a chance to talk, and talk, about a topic of their own choosing. At the end of the night, we will have a number of important votes on approving the funds required for government programs and services and pass two bills to that end.

On Wednesday, we will debate our budget bill at third reading, and then we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which my seatmate, the Minister of Justice, tabled yesterday.

We will continue the debates on Bill C-36 and Bill C-24, if extra time is needed, on Thursday. After those have finished, and on Friday, we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, at second reading; and Bill C-35, the Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), at second reading.

To make a long story short, we have accomplished much in the House over the last week, but we still have much left to do, which inspires me to note that in the week ahead I have to take my automobile in for maintenance. At that time, when I take it to the dealership, I hope one person will work on it for an hour, get the job done, and then return it to me at a reasonable cost. I do hope I am not told, “There are still many more employees who have not had a chance to have a shift working on your car as well, so we are going to keep it here another three days and give everybody a turn to work on your car.” I hope the dealership will do as Conservatives do: get the job done and then deliver me the product.

Citizenship and Immigration

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in relation to Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-20, the free trade agreement with Honduras.

Despite what members of the government, and perhaps members of their partners, the Liberals, have suggested, we are not opposed to trade. On this side of the House, we are very much in favour of trade, and very much in favour of fairer trade, and where that is possible, then free trade as it goes with fairer trade. However, this is certainly not an agreement we can support, mostly because the partner on the other side of this agreement is not one we should be giving any credence to whatsoever.

The government in Honduras is oppressive, and it was originally formed through a military coup. It is a government that has institutions that are not working. It is the murder capital of Central America, perhaps of the world, and most murders are not investigated even by the police, yet the Conservative government has decided that it is a model deal for us to sign. I just cannot stomach how low we have sunk in search of free trade deals.

We know there is a trade deal coming with Europe, but for some reason it is very badly stalled. It was announced in the throne speech of 2011 along with a trade deal with India, but we have not seen either of them yet. We have seen an apparent signing of an agreement in principle, but we do not even know what those principles are because there have been no details.

Here we are debating, as we did with Panama, a deal with a very poor nation that has a terrible governmental and human rights record, and we are debating it under time allocation, of all things. This is now the most important thing on the Conservative government's agenda, and it has to be done now. However, the agreement in principle was reached in August 2011, which is almost three years ago. The actual deal was signed in November 2013, more than six months ago, but now we have five hours to debate it. That is ridiculous, and 68 time allocation motions are not some kind of scheduling convenience, as the Conservatives would have us believe. They are running roughshod over democracy, and we should not be proud of that record.

Both the Conservatives and Liberals are suggesting that the NDP is opposed to trade, which could not be further from the truth. In fact, we relish the thought that we are going to be able to get at more trade with more partners in this world. However, we need to do it in a way that improves the status of those other countries, and not as a reward for countries that have terrible records and terrible governments, which is in fact what is happening here.

We ask questions when it comes to a trade deal.

Is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, the environment, labour standards, and Canadian values? If some of those things are not all the way to what a Canadian standard would be, are they working to fix it? If the answer to that question is yes, then that is a partner we can see doing business with on the basis of a free trade agreement.

Is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? Apparently it may be of strategic value to some mining industries, but it is a very small player in terms of Canada's overall trade, and we do in fact have a trade deficit with this country.

Are the terms satisfactory? Well, the proposed free trade agreement with Honduras fails this test.

Honduras is a country with undemocratic practices, a corrupt government, weak institutions, low standards, insignificant strategic value, and a record of human rights abuses. When I look at the list of what Honduras is, I cannot help but think that some elements of the Conservative government are heading in those directions.

The fact is that we have had 68 time allocation motions to end debate, which are called “guillotine” motions in other countries because that is what they do. They guillotine debate and democracy. It is an indication that the Conservative government has slipped, we believe, in terms of its democratic practices, like Honduras.

The bill the Conservatives brought forward to change the electoral act disenfranchised some Canadians. That is moving backwards as far as democracy is concerned. The allegations of voter suppression are another example of undemocratic practices.

Regarding corruption in government, we have senators being given money by the Prime Minister's chief of staff in order to keep them quiet, or billing practices whereby senators bill the public for travel when it is a partisan event they are going to or bill for homes they are not living in.

All of these things are corrupt practices of a government. Maybe the Conservatives think they want to be like Honduras, and that is why they want to sign an agreement with it.

We have a Prime Minister who surrounds himself with characters who are of questionable repute. We have a government that is giving more and more power to single individuals within that government, taking that power away from institutions or Parliament and putting it in the hands of a minister. For example, there is Bill C-24, which would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to individually strip a person born in Canada of his or her Canadian citizenship. We do not normally find that concentration of power except in governments that are not democratic, and that is part of what we are seeing here.

We have weakened institutions in Canada. The Chief Electoral Officer had his powers reduced in the recent bill on electoral reform. We have a fight with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. We did not have the government kicking four people off the Supreme Court, but there was a pretty public spat with the Supreme Court that had a chilling effect between the government and the Supreme Court.

We have lower standards in Honduras, lower standards in Canada, but what has the government's record been over the past few years? We have lowered our environmental standards. We have weakened our labour laws. We have taken ourselves in the opposite direction of improving environment and labour laws. We have stripped environmental protection from hundreds of thousands of rivers and lakes in this country. This is moving in the direction of a less environmentally conscious state, and perhaps Conservatives are looking at Honduras and seeing themselves in the mirror.

Other speakers have talked at length about the human rights abuses that have been legion in Honduras. Some of the human rights abuses have been perpetrated by the government and some perpetrated by others, but none of those human rights abuses have met with any kind of punishment, because impunity is the rule in Honduras. People can get away with anything because there are weak police forces and so little in the way of judicial oversight that very little is done.

What do we have here in Canada in terms of human rights abuses? It is a pretty good country, except we have a thousand or more murdered or missing aboriginal women and we have a government that is refusing over and over again to actually conduct even an investigation into those murdered and missing aboriginal women. In any other country, that would be seen as a human rights abuse. We have appalling living conditions and appalling educational conditions for indigenous people in this country. That in itself is a human rights abuse, and the government appears to want to do nothing to improve the situation. We have refugees who come to this country expecting to be treated with dignity and respect, and in some cases they are denied some or all of their medical care. They are expected to report back to their home country even if their home country is an unsafe place for them.

This is the direction this country has moved under the Conservative government, and it is looking strangely as though maybe Honduras is a comfortable partner for the government. I hope not.

In Honduras we also have the spectre of the killing of journalists. Now, I will not accuse the Canadian government of killing any journalists; that has not happened, but the government has attacked the CBC and it has attacked the CBC's journalists in the sense that it has now imposed itself in the collective bargaining arrangements with those journalists. The journalists are now having to deal directly with the government.

We on this side of the House support fairer trade. We support trade with equals in terms of environmental law, in terms of labour law, in terms of how people are treated in those countries. We support trade when standards in that other country will be raised and when we can see that happening. We do not support the free trade agreement the government has negotiated with Honduras for the reasons I have cited, and we will be opposing this deal.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I reread that, and you're absolutely right. The bill was not amended. Thank you for that.

We don't even need to have this, because you're absolutely right. This concludes the chapter on Bill C-24 except when we return to the House with this committee.

In spite of a few moments, it's been a very civil presentation dealing with difficult issues between the opposition and the government, and I want to congratulate the opposition and government members for being so civil to each other, objecting at times but being civil.

I want to thank the staff for coming out and advising us from time to time, the translators, and of course, the clerks and the analysts, who prepared us for our time when witnesses came. I thank you as well, on behalf of the committee.

As there is no further business, the meeting is adjourned.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allow me to cite one example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This section is on transitional provisions for existing applications.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Liberals will be opposing this clause, as withholding citizenship from someone who is charged with an offence abroad raises the same concerns as the revocation procedures. Bill C-24 does not require the government to take into account the nature of a foreign judicial system. Foreign countries could issue charges in order to prevent someone from receiving Canadian citizenship. Currently the Citizenship Act prevents the granting of citizenship or the administration of the oath of citizenship to any person who is subject to a Canadian criminal proceeding.