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.

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

Mr. Chair, we're talking about amendment NDP-2. I will be supporting the NDP amendment, because we've had witness after witness after witness.... I think this is the one where I was doing a poll of many of our witnesses who came before this committee. This is about the value of permanent residents in this country and the value of the time of people in their pre-PR time in this country.

We've had many people testify that international students, for example, who come in through the Canada experience class program of immigration, spend at least four years here as international students doing their undergraduate degree, let's say, and usually they are working here and paying taxes. They're integrating and learning life as Canadians in our universities or in our colleges. Bill C-24 is saying that those people don't have any value and that their time spent here in Canada doesn't have any value.

This amendment actually makes it so that their time during their pre-PR time is valued. We need to make sure of that for people who are coming in through the experience class, such as the international students, or even the live-in caregivers, who, depending on their arrangement with their employer and their work permit, are spending years here raising our children in this country. Yet we're telling them that their time here in Canada—the taxes they pay to this country, their integration with our society, whether they're volunteering in our communities, our hospitals, or our nursing homes, whatever it might be—has no value. That's not right. That's why I will be supporting amendment NDP-2, which says that all of these people do have value and that their time spent in Canada does have value in their pre-PR time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned earlier, according to all the input we heard from experts and those on the ground working with citizenship applicants and newcomers, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the age for the testing requirement is entirely arbitrary.

My colleague just said we need to make sure that immigrants are able to integrate into Canadian society. If that is indeed the goal of this provision, it has been completely lost. This has nothing to do with immigrants, but people who have been living in Canada for a number of years and are seeking Canadian citizenship. So this isn't directly tied to integration.

My amendment proposes that the age limit for the language requirement remain at 55, instead of being raised to 65, as the Conservatives are proposing in Bill C-24.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

—and I'm not going to read our Standing Order 12, except the last paragraph. You are allowed to make the amendment; in fact, it's deemed to have been made. This is for other members:

(c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.

That's always an interesting question, what brief means. This whole process of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24 is time-allocated. That's essentially what the motion that was passed said. So I'm going to allow for an amendment.

You're allowed a minute to make representations to the committee, Madam.

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

On the subject of the declaration of intent to reside in the country, I agree that Bill C-24 contains a flaw. A tremendous number of witnesses said they were against the declaration of intent to reside.

If the committee is serious about the study that was done and the expert testimony heard, it cannot turn a blind eye to the major flaws tied to the declaration of intent to reside. One concern the experts raised was that citizenship could be revoked if someone declared their intent to reside and then, owing to an unforeseen circumstance in the future, had to leave the country after obtaining their citizenship.

The minister said that the current wording of the bill wasn't intended for that purpose and that he didn't view the declaration of intent to reside in that way. According to experts, however, including Canadian Bar Association representatives, regardless of what the minister intended, the bill in its current form could result in someone's citizenship being revoked, precisely because of the declaration of intent to reside.

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

No problem.

The amendment reads as follows:

That Bill C-24, in Clause 2, be amended (a) by adding after line 13 on page 1 the following: “(1.1) Subparagraph 3(1)(f)(iii) of the Act is repealed. (1.2) The portion of paragraph 3(1)(i) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following: (i) the person had been a citizen other than by way of grant, ceased to be a citizen for a reason other than the reasons referred to in subparagraphs (f)(i) and (ii), was subsequently granted citizenship before the coming into force of this paragraph under any of the following provisions and, if it was required, he or she took the oath of citizenship:” (b) by deleting line 36 on page 5 to line 25 on page 8. (c) by adding after line 16 on page 9 the following: “(15.1) The portion of paragraph 3(7)(a) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following: (a) a person referred to in paragraph (1)(c) who was, before the coming into force of this subsection, granted citizenship under any of the following provisions after ceasing to be a citizen by way of grant for any reason other than the reasons referred to in subparagraphs (1)(f)(i) and (ii) is deemed to be a citizen under paragraph 1(c) from the time that he or she ceased to be a citizen:”

Now I will explain the rationale behind my proposed amendment.

Although it may sound a bit dry, the amendment, in a nutshell, is intended to give Canadian citizenship to second-generation children, a right they lost when the 2009 legislation came into force.

Since then, the NDP has viewed the measure as an injustice and believes that Bill C-24 can rectify the situation. So we are proposing an amendment to right the wrong done in 2009, whereby second-generation children lost the right to have Canadian citizenship passed down from their parents.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have indeed proposed an amendment to clause 2 of the bill. It deals with the citizenship of second-generation individuals. The legislation passed in 2009 eliminated these people's ability to access Canadian citizenship. And the NDP has been opposed to the measure ever since.

Bill C-24 on citizenship—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 30. Today's meeting is televised.

We are in clause-by-clause discussion of Bill C-24, which is an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

Before we start the process, we have four individuals before us.

We have Nicole Girard, director general of the citizenship and multiculturalism branch. Good afternoon to you.

Next is Alexandra Hiles. Is that correct?

Energy Safety and Security Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill, which ironically is titled the energy safety and security act. I say ironically because nothing in the bill actually talks about energy security, which is something that residents in my riding and across Canada have been asking the government to protect for many years. Energy security means actually providing that we have a reliable and secure source of energy in our homes, in our businesses, and in our workplaces.

The bill is weaving its way through and has taken forever. There are portions of the bill that are to ratify international obligations. It was introduced by the government on several previous occasions, and each time the government was the cause of the bill actually not proceeding. First, it was the quick call of an election in 2008 before the four years was up, then a prorogation actually eliminated the ability for that bill to go forward, and finally, an election was called before the bill finished wending its way, so it has been on the books for several years.

There is some importance to the speed with which the bill goes through, but obviously the government wants to take its time and discuss it over a long period of time. However, another bill, Bill C-24, was voted on in an absolutely tearing hurry just this afternoon, and yet I was not able to speak on it.

I have had meetings with constituents who have expressed serious concerns and serious reservations about the core of a bill that would give the minister the ability to take away the citizenship of persons born in Canada, which is an unprecedented thing in Canada and should have had a considerable amount of opportunity for members to discuss. Yet the government moved time allocation with only about five hours of debate on this subject. It boggles the mind why that is so much more necessary to be hurried along than this bill, on which the government has taken years and years.

I will focus mostly on the nuclear side of this, because I have some personal concerns about the nuclear side of it. There have been a number of serious events on this planet involving nuclear power generation. Those events involving nuclear power generation have brought, I think, into crystal clear relief the fact that we have completely underestimated the costs of an actual disaster in these things. We are treating these nuclear power plants as just a piece of the landscape, but when in fact they go wrong, the cost is absolutely enormous.

Three Mile Island was a relatively small disaster. It was the first of the biggies, but it was a small disaster in terms of what actually happened. Nobody was killed and there were no bodily injuries, but the cleanup took 14 years and $1 billion, starting in 1979. A billion dollars was what was needed in 1979 for a small problem. Now we are in 2014, 35 years further along, and $1 billion is all that the nuclear industry has to put up if there is a liability involving a nuclear problem at a nuclear plant.

Let us fast-forward just seven years to Chernobyl. Chernobyl had $15 billion in direct losses. That is the plant itself, direct losses at the time on the site, a number of deaths, a whole lot of injuries; and over the next 30 years, it is estimated that because of the thousands upon thousands of residents of Ukraine and Belarus who will develop cancer, those costs could be over $500 billion.

We are not suggesting that the nuclear industry in Canada is capable of covering a cost of $500 billion, but to suggest $1 billion is all that is necessary is laughable, particularly when this industry is now quite robust and has been around a long time in relative terms.

The government is suggesting only $1 billion. That is actually a subsidy to this industry. We do not need to be subsidizing the nuclear power industry in this country, particularly when just two years ago the government gave away the CANDU licence to SNC-Lavalin. Now, a private corporation is actually in control of the development of our nuclear reactor system. It is not a corporation that is getting a whole lot of good reviews lately.

Then we come to 2011 and Fukushima. This is by far the worst of the nuclear disasters. It really brings home just how bad things can get when things go wrong in ways that are not expected. That is the essence of what nuclear designers are trying to do: figure out what we can do to protect against the unexpected.

Fukushima will probably cost between $250 billion and $500 billion when it is done. Nobody is absolutely certain. There is an untold human cost of Fukushima. They have had to evacuate and evict 159,000 people from the area around Fukushima. Though those people have not been told this, they can probably never go back to their homes.

Caesium-137, radioactive caesium, has a 30-year half-life. That radioactive material is now all over the ground, in the water, and in the air, in the area around that reactor. Because of a 30-year half-life, that means it will be centuries before those places are safe to inhabit again. Those people are still paying mortgages on their homes, but it will be centuries before they can go back to them.

That is the magnitude of what a nuclear disaster is really all about. I am afraid the government really does not understand just what it is dealing with in terms of tossing out the number $1 billion as if it is somehow an appropriate number to suggest the nuclear industry would have to come up with.

I am of two minds on the whole notion of nuclear energy as being a good thing for Canada. My father-in-law came back from World War II. He was a pilot in the RAF. He went to Chalk River and helped build those first few reactors at Chalk River. He was part of the design team that designed the CANDU system. His name was Roy Tilbe. He has passed on now, but he had a fierce loyalty to the nuclear industry generally and a fierce dedication to trying to make it a safe industry.

He would be appalled to think that the taxpayers have to pick up the ball if the industry is not safe enough. That is essentially what the government is suggesting to the industry, after six or seven years of dithering on what to do, by offering a paltry $1 billion as all that is required. The costs are of such magnitude that $1 billion is dwarfed by what those costs really are in the sense of a nuclear accident.

Let me talk about another cost that nobody here has talked about. Nuclear reactors in Canada and elsewhere have effluent, an output, waste. Nuclear waste is very toxic. It is something that people should not go near.

I was up on a little tour of Chalk River, where they showed us their nuclear waste management site. They did not call it a disposal site, but a management site. We went on a little bus. There was a bunch of Japanese and German tourists on the bus with us. We went around to the management site, and we were told that inside the steel cylinders encased in concrete was the waste. We know that the steel lasts about 150 years, and the concrete lasts about 75 years. So every 75 years, the concrete has to be replaced, and every 150 years the steel has to be replaced.

I asked the guide how long that would have to be done. I was told 75 years for the concrete and 150 for the steel. No, I said; I asked how long we had to manage the waste. I was told 500,000 years.

Has anybody really recognized what that means? What will $1 billion be worth in 500,000 years? Who will be around? Will SNC-Lavalin still be around? Will I still be around? The safety of Canadians should be paramount, and the industry should be held accountable.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me start by acknowledging the support shown on Tuesday night for our motion to have the House work hard for all Canadians to ensure that we have a productive, hard-working, and orderly House of Commons. It was not just this side of the House that voted for this ambitious plan to let MPs reach decisions on many important issues, and I want to thank the Liberal Party for agreeing to join Conservatives in rolling up their sleeves this spring.

I know my hon. friend has a different definition of what our work is here in the House of Commons. He believes that our work here is to filibuster and fill every moment possible with as many speeches as possible to avoid decisions being made. I have encountered one or two Canadians who think the problem with politicians is too much talk and not enough action. Now we know where they get that impression.

On this side of the House, we are committed to action, we are committed to delivering results, and we are committed to decisions being made and to people participating in votes and making decisions on behalf of their constituents at home. That is why we need debates to also come to a conclusion so we can make those decisions and so we can have those votes.

Last night, for example, we had a great debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. That is our government taking steps to modernize the Citizenship Act for the first time in some 35 years. What is even better, we just had a vote and a decision. Every single member, not just a dozen or so who might have spoken for a few hours but every single member of this House, got to have a say on behalf of his or her constituents and got to make a decision and advance a bill through the legislation process. That is what it is really all about.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday morning—before we adopted the government's ambitious work plan—a number of New Democrats expressed their support for Bill C-17, Vanessa's law. However, they did not walk that talk.

The honourable member for Chambly—Borduas said, “we do recognize the urgency [of this matter]”. Nevertheless, seven other New Democrats then got up after him to block this bill from going to committee. Among them was their deputy leader who said, “I also hope that the bill will go to committee quickly...”.

I wish that the New Democrats listened to their deputy leader. It would be disappointing to think that the NDP might be using Vanessa's law as a political hostage by filibustering it as a means to avoid debating other bills.

I would not want to ascribe such cynical motives to the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and I trust this is not a preview of how he wishes to approach the business of the House for the forthcoming three weeks, when Canadians actually expect us to accomplish things for them.

Looking forward to these three weeks to come, I am pleased to review the business the government will call in the coming days.

This afternoon, we will carry on with the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. Once that has concluded, we will take up Bill C-6, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, at report stage. If time permits, we will get back to third reading and passage of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, will be considered tomorrow at report stage and hopefully at third reading as well.

After the weekend, we will consider Bill C-20, which would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Honduras, at report stage.

Following Monday's question period, we will consider Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, at second reading. That will be followed by second reading of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

On Tuesday morning, we will start second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act. The hon. member for Richmond Hill spoke a couple of nights ago about this wonderful bill, Quanto's law, which will have a chance to be considered, thanks to having additional debate time in the House. Since I cannot imagine New Democrats opposing this bill, the only question is how many speeches will they give supporting it, and of course, how will giving more speeches make this bill become law sooner.

Following question period, we will resume debate on Bill C-20, on Canada-Honduras free trade, as well as Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, which I discussed earlier, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, and Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act. After private members' hour, we will begin report stage of Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which underwent clause-by-clause study at the Standing Committee on Finance this week.

A week from today, on Thursday next, we will continue debating our budget implementation bill. Ideally, I would also like to see us finish third reading of the bill on the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of the Honduras that day.

Finally, any remaining time available to us that evening will be spent on the bills on which the NDP will be able to offer more, remarkably similar speeches confirming, time after time, their support. Although I appreciate their supportive attitude towards many parts of our government's legislative agenda, it would be great if they would let all members of Parliament have their say, in an ultimate expression of democracy and to help us move from mere words to actual deeds, so that all of us can tell our constituents that we have actually accomplished something on their behalf.

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made Tuesday, May 27, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at second reading of Bill C-24.

The House resumed from May 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are perils in the tyranny of the majority.

Thoreau said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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