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.

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.

Speaker’s Ruling

[The Speaker, 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.

Motions in Amendment

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the ironies with this piece of legislation is the fact that the government is trying to give the impression, by passing this proposed legislation, that it would be speeding up the process for citizenship once a person qualifies. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration himself is saying that he hopes, through this legislation, to be able to get the processing of citizenship in just under a year. Well, it is very interesting to find out that prior to the Conservatives taking office, that was what the processing time was; it was right around that one-year mark.

It is interesting that the Conservatives created a crisis so that today the processing time is well in excess of one year, at about 28 months. In certain situations, I would guesstimate that about 20% could go as long as four or five years in order to process citizenship.

My question for the member is this: if the government was sincere in wanting to speed up the processing of citizenship, was legislative change actually necessary or would it have needed more of a political goodwill on behalf of the government?

Even though it is nice to see that it is in the legislation, political goodwill is what was really necessary.

[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.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the work of my colleague, the NDP critic on citizenship and immigration. I know how seriously she studied this bill and proposed amendments during what little work could be done in committee.

I wonder if she could elaborate on the Conservatives' lack of respect for the work that would have resulted in an in-depth study of the bill before us. Perhaps she could also tell us how, as a member of Parliament, she was deprived of her right to such a study.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

As I mentioned earlier, we did a pre-study. It was not a real study of the bill. This is a lack of respect for standard procedures. In fact, they put a time limit on debate. We were denied the opportunity to hear more witnesses, very credible witnesses such as Amnesty International or UNICEF, for example.These organizations could not appear before the committee because, again, of the insufficient time provided by the Conservatives.

What is even more frustrating is that the government did not even listen to the witnesses that we were able to hear during the very limited time allowed by the government. It is one thing to invite witnesses and ask them to speak, but it is too easy to then wash one's hands of whole thing and say there was consultation. Was that consultation serious? We heard witnesses, but did we really listen to them? Did we take them seriously?

They all had important recommendations to make to improve the bill. They were concerned about human rights and the constitutionality of the bill. However, the Conservatives did not even listen to them, and that is very frustrating.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have this opportunity to highlight our government's commitments to protecting the integrity of Canada's citizenship system and add my voice in support of Bill C-24. This important piece of legislation would deliver on our Conservative government's promise in the recent Speech from the Throne to strengthen and protect the value of Canadian citizenship.

On this side of the House we recognize the important role immigration has played in building our country. Since 2006, our Conservative government has welcomed the highest sustained level of immigration in Canada's history. Each year we have welcomed an average of almost 260,000 newcomers who contribute to the economic, political, and social fabric of our country as permanent residents. Moreover, Canada remains a world leader in naturalization, with more than 85% of eligible permanent residents going on to become Canadian citizens.

We are proud of this enviable high rate of uptake in citizenship. Our important bill, the strengthening the Canadian Citizenship Act, would not only reduce citizenship backlogs and improve processing times for applicants, but it would strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship.

Canadians have no tolerance for the cheats and fraudsters who do not play by the rules and who de-value the integrity of Canadian citizenship. Most of us have heard anecdotal stories or read newspaper reports about police investigations into individuals who lie to become citizens of our great country. They concoct schemes to make it appear as if they are living in Canada when in fact they are not and nor do they have any intentions of planting roots here. Rather, they consider Canadian citizenship as nothing more than a passport of convenience, a revolving door or gateway to generous taxpayer-funded economic and social benefits available at their disposal as needed.

Canadians rightfully expect our Conservative government to put a stop to this selfish niche to protect Canadian citizenship, which truly is a privilege. It is shameful that the opposition does not understand why it is so important to protect the value of Canadian citizenship and why it should support this important legislation. Our Conservative government has listened to Canadians across the country and has committed to put an end to this abuse most recently in our last throne speech. Our government not only listened but acted to deliver on this key promise by introducing Bill C-24. We are committed to protecting the value of our citizenship and taking action against those who seek to cheapen it.

Our proposed reforms would strengthen the value of citizenship by helping to prevent citizenship fraud and by increasing the penalties for those who gain citizenship fraudulently. First, our reforms would bring the penalty of committing citizenship fraud in line with that of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by increasing the penalty to a maximum fine of $100,000 or up to five years in prison, or both. The proposed legislation would also add a provision to refuse an applicant of material facts and bar applicants who misrepresent such facts from reapplying for citizenship for five years. That is a serious way to deter citizenship fraud.

In contrast, existing penalties in the Citizenship Act have not increased since 1977 and are ineffective in deterring fraudsters. Our proposed increase in fines and significant jail terms would deter both applicants and crooked citizenship consultants from trying to undermine Canadian citizenship.

With respect to crooked consultants, our government successfully passed the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act in an effort to protect those in need of assistance from an immigration representative. That bill created a regulatory body to oversee immigration consultants and ensure compliance with the law. Bill C-24 would give the government similar legal authority to designate a body to regulate citizenship consultants. Proposed amendments would increase penalties for citizenship fraud to a maximum fine of $100,000 or up to two years in prison, or both.

I am proud to stand before the House today to address these important reforms that our government has introduced as a means to crack down on fraud and to preserve the integrity of Canadian citizenship and citizenship programs.

This leads to my last point, which focuses on our government's promised amendment to streamline the process to revoke citizenship from those who have lied or cheated on their citizenship application. As members are likely aware, our Conservative government has taken action to revoke citizenship from those who obtained it through fraudulent means. More than 11,000 cases of fraud have been discovered and we are investigating each and every one. However, the current revocation process is extremely lengthy and cumbersome. Shamefully, it has taken Canada years, often decades, to revoke the citizenship of fraudsters, including despicable war criminals who never should have obtained it in the first place.

One this side of the House, we are serious about cracking down on those who undermine the value of our citizenship. It is important, to achieve such an important objective, that we put our government in a position to be able to revoke the citizenship in a timely manner.

Under proposed changes to the new revocation process, it should facilitate the government's ability to revoke citizenships in a timely manner for those convicted of residency fraud. In these cases, the minister of citizenship and immigration, or his or her delegate, would oversee the revocation, but the decision would still be subject to review by court, as is the case for all immigration decisions. This streamlined revocation process would result in faster decision-making and faster removal, while still ensuring fairness.

Individuals who have had their citizenship revoked would also be barred from reapplying for 10 years, up from the current bar of 5 years. Our government believes that this is entirely reasonable.

Canadian citizenship is a unique privilege and is highly coveted around the globe. However, citizenship is a privilege that comes with responsibilities. It means that we share the commitment to uphold our common values that our brave men and women in uniform have fought to preserve and champion. These are values that include freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

Those of us who are fortunate enough to have Canadian citizenship share in all of the great advantages it confers. However, it is important to remember that citizenship is far more than just the right to carry a passport or to vote. It defines us as a people. As such, it is essential that we work to maintain the value of Canadian citizenship.

I have heard from many of my constituents on this issue. All of them agree that we must crack down on criminals and fraudsters who cheapen the value of one of our most precious commodities. It is shameful, however, that opposition members do not listen to Canadians and do not support this important bill.

Indeed, the measures in Bill C-24 represent the first comprehensive reforms to the Citizenship Act in more than a generation. They are necessary to strengthen the value and protect the integrity of Canadian citizenship for today and for the future. With this bill, our Conservative government is sending a crystal clear message: we will not turn a blind eye from those who commit fraud or help others to obtain Canadian citizenship by fraud.

If opposition members prefer to continue with their shameful tactics to oppose and delay passage of the bill, they will have to answer to the Canadian public, a public who is, thankfully, recognizing the necessary and common sense changes we are making.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many lawyers, such as members of the Canadian Bar Association and others working in this field, have been concerned about the concentration of power, in this bill, in the hands of the minister. In particular, when a minister, or delegated staffer, concludes on a balance of probabilities that a person has obtained citizenship by fraud, currently he or she has the ability to move that person on their own. The United Sates has a court process that could attend such an event, where naturalization is to be forfeited. That has been the practice in Canada in the past.

Does the hon. member share the concerns of so many lawyers and constitutional experts about the constitutionality of that and the propriety in a democracy of concentrating so much power in one individual?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before these decisions are made by the minister or any of his staff, they do have to go through a court process, so there is a process in place ahead of time for that to happen.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, most of the member's speech emphasized how happy he is that the minister is going to have the power to get rid of a person's citizenship.

One of the concerns that I have, and I have had the opportunity to express this on several occasions, is the significant increase in processing times for citizenship, to the degree that it is almost three years long. It is about 28 months, or two and a half years. That is up, well over 100%, in terms of time for processing citizenship applications since the government took office.

For the people who happen to be part of that percentage of, some would estimate, about 20% of applicants, it will take up to four or five years in order to be processed.

The government is bringing forward this legislation in the hope that it will reduce the time. No doubt the government will want to claim that it reduced the times of processing for citizenship, and will try to take credit for a reduction of times for processing in this crisis that it created.

Why is having decent processing times for people applying for citizenship been such a low priority?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the number of citizenship applications and the volume we have taken on since we have come into power has significantly increased from what it was prior to that.

There are some 260,000 people who are immigrating, and 85% of them are applying for citizenship. This has created a backlog that was much bigger than was expected.

Hopefully this bill will have some reforms that will reduce that time to approximately a year.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Liberals had 13 long and comfortable years to reform the Citizenship Act, but it did not.

That is why our government has set out to make the first comprehensive reforms to the Citizenship Act in 35 years. In economic action plan 2013, investments were made to reduce processing times.

Could my hon. colleague tell this House how Bill C-24 will complement the investments that the government has already made to strengthening citizenship, so that those who deserve it get it fast, and those who lie and hide their heinous crimes do not?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the way it is going to change is by the following: increasing the efficiency of the citizenship program to improve application processing; reinforcing the value of citizenship by strengthening the requirements and deterring citizenships of convenience; improving the tools we have to maintain program integrity and combat fraud; and protecting and promoting Canada's interests and values by honouring those who serve Canada, by revoking citizenships of dual citizens who are members of armed forces or recognized armed groups engaged in conflict with Canada.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. While I support the objective of clarifying the test for residency and also the approach with regard to the retroactive restoration of citizenship for additional lost Canadians, I have serious concerns with respect to the bill's principles and policies as a whole. I submit it will not strengthen, but in fact prejudice, Canadian citizenship, and in particular undermine the fundamental principles of Canadian law and policy that have long underpinned our citizenship regime.

There are too many problematic and constitutionally suspect aspects of this bill to address all of them in my allotted time. Accordingly, I would invite members who are considering voting in support of this legislation to consult, among other resources, the comprehensive and persuasive briefs of the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, submissions of constitutional experts, and others, who have identified the serious flaws in this bill while making the case for its rejection.

I will focus primarily on those proposed yet seriously problematic reforms to the Citizenship Act that would fundamentally alter the concept of Canadian citizenship, ultimately resulting in the creation of two unequal classes of Canadians. Indeed, Bill C-24 marks the unprecedented introduction of citizenship tiers for the first time in Canadian history. Not only would this bill make it more difficult to obtain citizenship, it would make it easier for the government to revoke it.

Specifically, Bill C-24 provides that an applicant seeking citizenship must intend to reside in Canada upon obtaining citizenship. This provision would ultimately empower the minister to revoke citizenship from naturalized Canadians based on a finding that they initially misrepresented their intent to reside in Canada. As a result, naturalized Canadians who, for example, engage in extensive international travel for legitimate reasons, such as to visit family or engage in work abroad, would be left in a state of standing uncertainty as to whether their international travel would provide the government with the basis for citizenship revocation on the grounds that they misrepresented their intent when making their initial citizenship applications.

Simply put, it is both wrong and unconstitutional to place this heightened and unequal burden on naturalized Canadians. Indeed, whether this threat is acted upon, the result would be a chilling effect on the mobility rights of naturalized Canadians, thereby creating two unequal classes of citizens under the law: naturalized Canadians for whom international travel may provide a basis for citizenship revocation, and Canadian-born citizens who may travel freely.

New immigrants to Canada are active members of our society. They pay taxes and contribute positively to our nation's economy. Indeed, I am extremely proud to be able to represent one of the most ethnically diverse ridings in the country, the rainbow riding, or comté arc-en-ciel de Mont-Royal. I myself have been witness to how a reasonable and respectful immigration system treats new Canadians as full and equal Canadians, and contributes positively to the community and the perception of Canadian society as constituting a multicultural mosaic. Indeed, section 27 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms refers to multiculturalism as a constitutional norm.

Simply put, there is no societal or governmental interest achieved in creating an arbitrary distinction and disparate impact and burden on mobility rights between birthright Canadians and new immigrants who have come here lawfully to better their own lives, and who in turn strengthen the fabric of our nation. Indeed, approaching immigration and integration in such a derisive and discriminatory matter is at odds with Canada's long history of being a welcoming and inclusive nation.

Critics such as the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers have argued that the “intent to reside” requirement will provide “broad discretion to a citizenship officer to speculate on the future intentions of a citizenship applicant and deny citizenship based on an alleged lack” of future intent to reside. While the government certainly has the right to restrict immigration, it should do so directly and with clear and express justification, and not based on fear, stigma, speculation, or prejudice.

Apart from the discriminatory effect of this bill that I have described, the legislation is also objectionable on the grounds that it would make Canadian citizenship impractical, if not entirely inaccessible, for many who would otherwise contribute positively to our country, and in particular to our economy.

Moreover, not only would this bill negatively impact permanent residents and naturalized Canadians, it would also establish new grounds for revoking citizenship for all Canadians, including those born here, subject only to a vaguely worded requirement that revocation not conflict “with any international human rights instrument regarding statelessness to which Canada is signatory”.

As the Canadian Bar Association explains:

Citizens who may be subject to citizenship revocation include those born in Canada who are presumed to be able to claim citizenship in another state through one of their parents....

Not only would this approach raise a whole set of interpretative challenges for the courts, it would enable the government to change the substance of this restriction by unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty without consulting Parliament. All of this, of course, ignores the glaring constitutional questions posed by this bill in general, and this specific flawed provision in particular.

I will remind the House of the wording of one of the foundational sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, subsection 6(1). It says:

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

There is no exception in the charter. subsection 6(1) does not distinguish between naturalized, dual, or Canadian-born citizens, as would Bill C-24.

While I regret the seeming presumptiveness of reading from the charter to hon. members in this place when we all have obligation to uphold, protect, and defend it, given the bill we are debating and the interventions in debate thus far, it does seem possible that some members in this place may not be as familiar as they should be with this and other charter provisions.

Indeed, one must wonder how it is possible that this bill is before us at all with no report of its charter non-compliance, given the requirements of section 4(1) of the Department of Justice Act that the minister review government bills for consistency with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and table a report of inconsistency, if such is found. Entrenched charter rights, in particular mobility rights under section 6, due process rights under section 7, and equality rights under section 15, are engaged by this bill and would likely be infringed.

Similarly, cases could be made that provisions of Bill C-24 would also infringe on sections 11 and 12 charter rights as well, let alone section 27, to which I have otherwise referred.

This is but a brief snapshot of why these charter rights are engaged and infringed. Whereas principles of fundamental justice include the basic entitlement to procedural fairness, the punishment of exile as it would be applied to Canadian citizens in this legislation could also infringe section 7 of the charter.

In another example, the new grounds for revocation, which would apply only to a class of Canadians deemed to be dual citizens under this bill, would violate the principle of equal citizenship and draw an impermissible distinction based on the enumerated ground of national origin, under section 15 of the charter. Time will prohibit me from elaborating further in this regard.

It is clear that this legislation should have been rejected, even by the government's own alleged standards of review as set forth in its court documents to the effect that the government considers a bill as being charter compliant unless its likelihood of withstanding a charter-based challenge is only 5% or less.

It does not take a constitutional expert to see that this bill is seriously constitutionally suspect, even allowing for the government's particularly low threshold. Therefore, I must take this opportunity to ask why, in light of the government's recent legislative record of constitutionally suspect provisions, it would today seek to pass yet another bill that would trigger expensive, time-consuming, and foreseeable litigation, which would ultimately be struck down in part, if not full. Even more troubling perhaps, it would put the Canadian citizenship regime in a state of flux and uncertainty.

I have only touched on the particulars of this fundamentally flawed and constitutionally suspect legislation.

I wish to emphasize that tiered citizenship as contemplated by this bill is both unethical and unconstitutional. I see no reason why the government should be seeking to restrict immigration to Canada. I would therefore put the question directly to the members to this place. Is there any reason, let alone a compelling one, to make it more difficult for law-abiding applicants to achieve citizenship? Is it the case that we have decided that diversity no longer represents a societal virtue and Canadian value? Is it the case that multiculturalism is no longer a constitutional norm?

The government has yet to justify the primary legislative changes accomplished through the bill in any compelling, let alone constitutional, manner, and its advancement will only continue to create stigma and prejudicial fallout for new immigrants.

For these reasons, I would urge all members to join me in affirming respect for Canadians, respect for the charter, respect for the foundational principle of equality, and respect for multiculturalism, and to therefore oppose Bill C-24 and uphold the rule of law.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. I know he has been campaigning for years for human rights and for the rights of refugees and newcomers to Canada. I am also aware of his deep respect for all these Canadians, for these newcomers who continue to build today's Canada.

I wonder whether the hon. member could elaborate on very contentious issues such as the revocation of Canadian citizenship, which would be put in the hands of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the clauses that could lead to an abuse of discretionary power. It is one of the many abuses mentioned in my presentation.

What concerns me—and it must be pointed out—is the problem of constitutional issues. In this bill, many clauses are basically unconstitutional and make it possible to abuse the rule of law, the fundamental principle of equality before the law, and the principles of right of mobility and multiculturalism, which are enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are fundamental and constitutional principles.

For this reason, and for all the other reasons, we must reject the bill.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for a wonderful few minutes of explanation about the bill so that all Canadians can get a better understanding of just how these kinds of changes in bill C-24 would impact future Canadians.

I would like to hear more from my colleague. Every new Canadian I speak to is very anxious to get citizenship. Would Bill C-24 make that more difficult for newcomers to Canada?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only would it make it more difficult to access citizenship, it would make it more difficult to keep citizenship.

I am unable to understand how such a piece of legislation that is so seriously constitutionally flawed could have been introduced to this chamber to begin with. I cannot understand how the legislative advice the minister received with regard to the requirements of constitutional compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding any proposed legislation could have passed constitutional muster.

Perhaps I should not be surprised. There is a record of introducing legislation that has been not only constitutionally suspect but constitutionally challenged. Again and again the courts in this country have pronounced the legislation unconstitutional. Effectively, it should not have been introduced to begin with.

The government should not be introducing yet another constitutionally flawed bill, imposing litigation, in effect, at taxpayers' expense, which at the end of the day will result, yet again, in another court pronouncement that this legislation is unconstitutional, putting our whole citizenship legislation in flux and uncertainty.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

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

I would first like to speak about LaSalle—Émard, the riding that I have the privilege and honour of representing. My riding is located in the southwest region of the Island of Montreal and it is quite diverse. Each year it becomes home to approximately 1,000 new citizens. Once a year for the past three years, I have organized an evening event to welcome new citizens. The event this year was held on May 22, and slightly more than 350 people attended. They attended along with their friends and family and they happily thanked me for welcoming them to Canada. They told me they chose to come to Canada because it was a democratic country with a good standard of living where people can freely express their views and work. These were the sentiments conveyed to me by these new citizens on this occasion held in their honour.

I would like to thank them from the bottom of my heart for helping me to appreciate once again how fortunate and privileged we are to live in Canada, a country that throughout its history has welcomed newcomers with open arms.

In 2017 we will be marking 150 years of Confederation, but well before then, Canada welcomed French explorers and Anglo-Saxon settlers to its shores. Later on, Ukrainians settled in Saskatchewan. I had an opportunity to visit the Ukrainian Museum of Canada during a stop in Saskatoon.

Year after year, my riding welcomes newcomers and refugees who come to Canada because of its highly democratic values and its tradition of welcoming people from every country in the world.

However, the bill now before us would slam the door in their faces. Since the Conservatives came to power, it has become increasingly difficult for people to come to this country. While I did welcome some new citizens to my riding, I have to mention the over 350 cases of people who sought the assistance of my riding office. These people are upset with the lengthy delays they have encountered. They are waiting to be reunited with their spouses and families. There is good reason to be seriously concerned about this state of affairs.

Since March 2008, over 25 major changes have been made to immigration practices, rules, laws, and regulations, adding even more confusion to the situation and making things even more difficult for refugees and applicants. The government wants to make waiting times even longer.

Since the Conservatives have had a majority government, there has been a moratorium on sponsorship of parents and grandparents. The number of family reunifications has declined. Vulnerable refugees are being penalized, while the number of temporary foreign workers, who have no rights and no chance of settling permanently in Canada, has increased. They are brought here to work and then sent home.

One would have thought that a bill to amend the Citizenship Act and make consequential amendments to other acts might have addressed all of these issues and all of the system’s inherent problems. Alas, the bill is silent on this score.

As my colleague, the official opposition critic for immigration and citizenship, so aptly said, some provisions of the bill do address important issues and will bring about certain improvements.

On the one hand, some effort has been made to resolve long-standing problems. However, as has been noted in the speeches made in this House, some of the bill’s provisions do raise extremely important questions and very legitimate concerns. Specifically, there is the fact that Bill C-24 gives the minister many new powers, including the power to grant or revoke citizenship in the case of persons with dual citizenship. Some witnesses said that they are very concerned about this new provision, because people will not have access to the proper recourse. This provision is indeed cause for some concern.

Furthermore, as I said, the bill offers no real solution when it comes to reducing wait times, which continue to grow, and citizenship application processing times.

Another provision mentioned earlier is the requirement to state one’s intention of residing in the country. Under Bill C-24, a person who is granted citizenship by the minister must intend to reside in Canada after being granted citizenship. This raises the question as to whether—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard because we must proceed to statements by members. However, the good news is that she will have two minutes to continue her speech after oral question period.

We will now proceed with statements by members.

The hon. member for York Centre.

The House resumed from June 6 consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the chance to speak one final time on Bill C-24, a bill respecting the strengthening of Canadian citizenship. This is a challenge that has been before the House in one way or another for well over a century, since Confederation, as we have sought to understand and reinforce the value of the rights and privileges as well as the responsibilities and duties that we have as Canadian citizens.

It is important to realize that the bill has received wide-ranging debate, both in the House and across Canada, in committee and in this Chamber. We disagree perhaps with New Democrats on the nature of that debate. They have forgotten about the pre-study of the bill in committee; we have not. Earlier today in debate they declined to acknowledge that 25 very solid witnesses appeared before committee on the bill. We listened to their testimony with attention and found it extremely valuable.

There is a more fundamental issue, and this debate has revealed the fundamental difference of opinion between the NDP and ourselves on the bill. It revolves around the issue of revocation.

The NDP is silent on the issue of revocation of citizenship when it is fraudulently obtained. That is a power that we as a government already have under the current act. It is a long-standing power that has existed in one form or another through generations in the various versions of legislation governing Canadian citizenship. It is required, because as we in the House and all Canadians know, there was a phenomenon of abuse, particularly after 1977 with the Trudeau reforms to citizenship, of this highly prized program. People received the status of permanent residency but then actually failed to be physically present in our country. Instead, they paid lawyers and consultants to pretend they were here.

We have made great strides in understanding this issue. In collaboration with the RCMP, thousands of cases are being investigated, and they have led to dozens of revocations, as is proper in the minds of Canadians, who, as we all know, rightly have a low tolerance for abuse, for short-circuiting the system, and for rule-breaking of this kind, particularly when it relates to an issue as serious as citizenship.

Then there is the issue of revocation for gross acts of disloyalty to Canada. We on this side think that dual nationals who commit an act of treason or espionage or who are members of a terrorist group serving inside or outside our country have morally forfeited the right to be Canadian citizens. We think that moral forfeiture to the right to Canadian citizenship should be reflected in legislation. We should have the power, as a government and as a country, to revoke the citizenship of those who have taken up arms against the Canadian Forces or sold state secrets.

These are not widespread phenomena in Canada, fortunately. The loyalty of the overwhelming majority of Canadians is not in question. However, that same overwhelming majority understands that citizenship brings with it the concept of allegiance to a crown, to laws, to a political system, a democracy that has rules. When someone literally sells state secrets to a foreign power, betrays our country in fundamental ways, or takes up arms in a terrorist organization or in some other organized force against Canada and against international order, in the case of terrorism there should be a power to revoke citizenship when we are not making citizens stateless. That is a responsibility we take extremely seriously.

The bill would not create new classes, in isolated cases or larger numbers, of stateless persons, but it would give us a right that every other NATO ally, with the exception of Portugal, already has, which is to revoke citizenship for gross acts of disloyalty. This is a fundamental difference we have with the NDP and the Liberals, who do not seem to acknowledge that this power is relevant and that it should be reflected in the modernization of our Citizenship Act, which Bill C-24 would bring.

Second, we have a difference of opinion with a couple of stakeholders, notably, a few in the Canadian Bar Association, who have declared the bill unconstitutional. They do not listen to lawyers from the Department of Justice. They do not listen to lawyers across the country who are specialists in citizenship and immigration and see this bill as valuable, legitimate and entirely constitutional. They think that by asking permanent residents if they have the intent to reside in Canada as they begin the process of accumulating their residence in Canada to qualify for citizenship, is an unconstitutional request. We beg to differ.

If people are resident in Canada for three out of four years under the current law and four out of six years under the new law, they clearly have had the intent to reside in Canada. People do not take up residence in a country by accident, and it is entirely legitimate not only to ensure that there is physical presence for the requisite number of years but that people who are aspiring to attain citizenship have the intent to reside. If their intentions change, so be it. They may qualify for citizenship over a longer period, or their plans may change and they may go to live in another country, take up a job opportunity or follow family circumstances to another part of the world. They will not meet the residency requirements and they will not become eligible for Canadian citizenship. However, we are going to ask, and it is absolutely reasonable to ask, those heading toward the prized goal of Canadian citizenship if they intend to reside here.

Apart from those two criticisms, we have not heard much. There are isolated pockets of opposition to the bill, many of them badly informed, unfortunately, I think often by members opposite who have mischaracterized some of its provisions. There was an online poll, as I was saying in an earlier debate. Some of those who unwittingly signed were under a complete misapprehension of what the bill actually contained. If we on this side of the House had the opportunity to meet with these people, communicate with them directly, as we do in correspondence and emails every day, those misunderstandings would not have gone as far as they did.

The bulk of the reaction we have had from across the country, from the north and south, from the east and west, and everywhere in between goes along the following lines. I will quote Nick Noorani, managing partner of Prepare for Canada, who stated:

I congratulate the government on its changes [to the] Citizenship Act that combat residency fraud and ensure new Canadians have a stronger connection to Canada. With the changes announced today, processing times will be improved and new Canadians will be ready to fully participate in Canadian life.

Martin Collacott of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, a former Canadian ambassador, stated:

The government's new citizenship legislation addresses a host of long overdue issues relating to the acquisition of citizenship. Its provisions, such as strengthening residency requirements for applicants, will increase the value and meaning of Canadian citizenship...

Gillian Smith, executive director and CEO of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, stated:

Our organization works extensively with Canada’s newest citizens who tell us that measures taken to foster their attachment and connection to Canada have a positive effect on their successful integration. New citizens' sense of belonging comes in large measure from experiencing Canada first-hand-its people, nature, culture and heritage.

There are others, such as Sheryl Saperia on the need to send that clear message of deterrence to those who might contemplate terrorist acts and Bill Janzen, a consultant in the Central Mennonite Committee, who applauded us for the work to address the long overdue issue of lost Canadians.

There is a lot here. There is real value in this bill, such as faster processing, increased value for Canadian citizenship, honouring those serve and deterring disloyalty.

One hundred years ago, debate concluded in the House on the Naturalization Act, which is one of the forebears of this bill. Mr. Diefenbaker said the following on the last day of that debate, which took only one month:

If ever there was a time when we should assert and practise what our citizenship means, it is now....It is our duty and responsibility as Canadian citizens to maintain those principles and traditions which mean so much to us and to guard against infringement of the great principles of freedom; for...the hallmarks of liberty can be erased as a result of the acts of a zealous person who is misdirected, no less than by one who destroys those principles with evil intent. We will give a great citizenship to Canadians hereafter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thoroughly confused by the minister's speech. He says that Canadians are misguided. He says that the Canadian Bar Association does not know how to interpret laws and that it is a group of lawyers that is phony and does not know what it is doing.

When I listened, I did not hear him talk about UNICEF. It wrote a brief and sent it to the committee when we did the pre-study. It said that the bill was making so many changes that it was going to make Canada in contravention of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Lawyer after lawyer, committee organization after organization have said that the bill is not good completely as it is and have suggested many recommendations.

Why did the minister's parliamentary secretary, under his guidance I am assuming, not allow a single amendment to the bill that was proposed by any of the opposition parties? Why did the government did not listen to the experts who made suggestions? Why did it not propose a single amendment and did not accept a single one of the amendments that were put forward by any of the opposition parties?

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

Mr. Speaker, the reason that the NDP amendments were not accepted was because they were not very good. They would have watered down the provisions of the bill. They would have left us with an inferior processing model for citizenship. They would have left us with backlogs and long processing times.

Most crucially, they would have failed to address the issue of those who violated their allegiance to Canada, but somehow in the view of the NDP currently could continue along with their Canadian citizenship. We do not think that should be the case in future for dual nationals. That is why we have a fundamental difference of opinion with the NDP members who have no trouble defending these spies, traitors and terrorists and their right to continue to be Canadian citizens even after committing such gross acts of disloyalty.

There are serious improvements in the bill. They go in the same direction as that debate 100 years ago on the Naturalization Act, which happened in only one month. No one on the opposition benches repeated themselves in that debate. The quote I just gave from Mr. Diefenbaker was from the 1946 debate on the Citizenship Act. That too was a fast debate on a historic bill, with rich contributions from all sides of the House. We have not seen that from the NDP in this debate.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to pick up on the minister's gratuitous remarks about the Canadian Bar Association. I do not know whether that is because the minister is not a member of the Canadian Bar Association. I do not know why he would want to cast aspersions on the hundreds of thousands of lawyers.

However, I want to remind him that under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is compelled for every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a minister of the crown, that would be that minister, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The minister, in conjunction with the Minister of Justice, shall report any inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity. In other words, the bill has to be constitutional.

Could the minister please stand and table the legal opinions rendered by the Department of Justice lawyers, which actually prove the bill is in fact charter compliant and constitutional?

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill in our view and those of the government's lawyers is constitutional. The risk of a constitutional challenge to any of its provisions is low. We on this side simply do not think that the small group of lawyers, which expressed itself in radical terms on the bill, speak for the hundreds of thousands of lawyers across the country. We do not think most of those lawyers are aware of what was said in their name.

We also think it is the right of Parliament to legislate on citizenship to circumscribe the conditions under which revocation can take place. We think the provisions of the bill with regard to revocation are legitimate.

Does the Liberal Party agree with these provisions? Because in 1947, when Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King brought the first citizenship bill forward, there were revocation provisions for treason, for other serious acts of disloyalty to Canada. What has happened to the Liberal Party of Canada on these and so many other issues?

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

Mr. Speaker, I again speak to this bill as a member of the citizenship and immigration committee who sat there every day for at least six hours a week during the pre-study of the content and subject matter of the bill. Witness after witness, including expert testimony, said time and again that the clauses in the bill were either in contravention of the charter, un-Canadian, in contravention of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, treated different types of Canadians unfairly, such as naturalized Canadians verses born-in-Canada Canadians, and did not value their pre-PR time spent in our country. During our committee study, I polled every witness with whom I had a chance to speak. Every one of them said that the clauses about not valuing the pre-PR time people had spent in Canada should be removed and amended.

In the minister's answer to my previous question with respect to his speech, he made it clear that he did not value what any of the opposition members had to say or any of the amendments that the opposition had put forward. He also did not value the people who were putting time into our country and spending time learning what it was to be a Canadian and living the life of a Canadian.

For example, international students who live in Canada for four years, who go to school with our children, who become their best friends, who party with them, who build strong relationships with our Canadian students and who volunteer in our communities learn what life is like as a Canadian.

However, Bill C-24 states that those people and the time they have spent in our country have no value, that they are not learning what it is to be Canadian. It is easier for those who come to our country as landed immigrants and get their PR the day they arrive than it is for international students who spend four years learning what it is to be a Canadian and living like a Canadian. According to the bill, the time those students have spent in our country has absolutely zero value toward being a Canadian.

I want to talk about some of the amendments the NDP put forward, which the minister said made no sense and were of no value. I forgot the exact adjective he used, but he basically said that they had no value to add. I will not talk about all of the amendments. I want to go through some of the ones we put forward at the committee stage and we were unable to speak to any witnesses.

First was with respect to counting the value of PRs working abroad toward their citizenship application. That was with respect to permanent residents who were temporarily outside of the country for professional reasons. It could be somebody working on a United Nations project in any country around the world. We know that local businesses have operations outside of the country and their employees may have to travel for work. The government has said that even though those people might be living, working and paying taxes in our country, those days they spend working outside of Canada and bringing economic value and thrust to our country has no value. That is what the government said when it refused to accept one of the NDP's amendments.

Another amendment we put forward was to reverse the age changes the government made for language and knowledge requirements. Currently, the law states that 18 to 54 year olds need to pass the language and knowledge requirement tests. What the government members put forward was to increase the maximum age to 65 and lower the minimum age to 14. That means that children who are 14 to 18 are now being treated the same as the adults. I spoke earlier about UNICEF Canada submitting a brief to the committee. It spoke to how that was in contravention of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I will read a small portion from the actual brief UNICEF Canada sent to committee. It states:

In relation to the acquisition of citizenship, a number of Convention articles are engaged, including: definition of the child (including age) (article 1); equality and non-discrimination (article 2); the best interests of the child (article 3); family integrity (article 5); survival and development (article 6); birth registration, nationality and protection from statelessness (article 7); family relations (article 8); protection from arbitrary separation from parents (article 9); and, family reunification (article 10).

For those members in the Conservative Party who do not understand what I am saying, I have just finished saying that I am reading, from the brief from UNICEF Canada, which articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child would be breached by the bill.

UNICEF Canada made it very clear that a child-rights-based approach to citizenship requires that we continue ensuring that we are not in contravention of the rights of the child.The language and knowledge requirements testing would be, actually. To quote UNICEF again:

Bill C-24 proposes to amend subsection 5(2) of the Citizenship Act to expand the age requirements of applicants to 14 to 64 (currently 18 to 54) to successfully complete both the language and knowledge requirements. The proposed amendments would effectively put the onus on children aged 14 to 18 to successfully pass both language and knowledge requirements, without additional supports, in order to become a Canadian citizen.

That is telling us that the current government wants to treat children as it does adults, as equivalent to adults.

The NDP proposed two amendments to ensure that these children would not be treated as adults. Another amendment we put forward was to not increase the age from 55 to 65 at the top end of the bracket, because we know that many studies have shown that for older people in the community, it is actually harder to acquire a new language and to pass these knowledge tests in this new language they may be acquiring.

The government members opposed both of those amendments and did not pass them.

Another amendment the NDP put forward would have allowed an opportunity for the applicant to make a submission before a citizenship judge. This is about the minister increasing discretion for himself or herself and future ministers. There would be increased discretion for a minister, yet the applicant would not even have an opportunity to make a submission before a citizenship judge. The NDP put forward an amendment to try to make it more of a fair process so that applicants would actually have an opportunity to appear before a citizenship judge and make a submission themselves.

Another amendment was actually recommended by the Canadian Bar Association. We know how the minister feels about that association and its validity, but I value what the Canadian Bar Association had to say. It specified that this amendment would specify that law students must be articling and offering advice while actually supervised by a member of the law society. The current law does not actually require that. We tried to make it so that law students who were helping out would actually be supervised by a member of the law society. This is another thing that apparently the government members do not seem to value.

One last piece is about the revocation of citizenship, which the current minister likes, and how it would create two tiers of Canadian citizenship for those born here and those naturalized here. This is basically saying that the government, or the minister, would have the opportunity to deport people and strip them of their Canadian citizenship just because they are dual nationals. This would also mean that Canadian-born citizens who have Chinese, U.S., British, or Italian parents, for example, would have their citizenship revoked--

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order, please.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last point the member opposite touched upon, dual citizenship, there are not two tiers of citizenship. There is one Canadian citizenship. Dual citizenship is the choice of the person. If a child is born here and the parents choose two citizenships for that child, they have to be ready to accept the implications that come with it. There are not two citizenships. People do not have to have two citizenships. Whether they are naturalized or they are born here, they can have one. They could choose Canadian only, and they would not have any problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it funny that the member does not realize that there are many countries in the world where one cannot deny one's citizenship. For example, Canadians who may have been born in Canada or are naturalized Canadians and are of the Jewish faith have the right to return to Israel and claim their Israeli citizenship.

Bill C-24 says that for those who are dual nationals, or if the minister has reason to believe that they have a claim to another nationality, hence the example of a Jewish Canadian who potentially could have a claim to another nationality, the minister could, on his own volition, choose to revoke their citizenship. That is creating two tiers citizenship.

Those who do not have that option could not have their citizenship revoked because it would create a situation of statelessness. However, those who could be dual nationals or potentially have a claim to another citizenship could have their citizenship revoked. That would mean that there would be those who are full citizens and those who are kind of citizens. That is two tiers of citizenship.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when Jean Chrétien was the prime minister of Canada, we had citizenship processed in under a year. Under the current government, we have seen the processing of citizenship for those who qualify and meet the criteria taking 28 months, or almost two and a half years. Now the Conservatives are bringing in legislation to reduce the waiting period for citizenship by changing the process itself.

Does the member not believe, as the Liberal Party believes, that if the government made it a higher priority to process citizenship, it should have been able to do that without the proposed legislation and that there is no reason to have people in Canada waiting in excess of 12 months to qualify for citizenship? It is about making sure that the proper resources are in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, the Conservative government could have come up with many other avenues to reduce the backlog that exists in the citizenship queue right now. It is choosing, rather, to make it far more difficult for people to qualify to become citizens of this country. For example, there are proposed changes to the intent-to-reside provision. It would double fees for an application of citizenship from $200 to $400, and it would make it more difficult with the age requirements.

I could keep going, but I want to quote from a brief we received from the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, which said:

What Bill C-24 really does, however, is as follows:It reduces backlogs by turning down more applications and making sure fewer and fewer permanent residents will become citizens. It diminishes the value of Canadian citizenship both by making immigrants wait much longer to become citizens, and by creating a two-tier citizenship—by distinguishing between people who have dual citizenship...

This is something I have already talked about. It continues with:

It violates Canadian values of democracy and the principle of the Rule of Law by giving new and sweeping power to the Minister to revoke citizenship while simultaneously reducing judicial oversight of the Minister's exercise of power.

What I just read were from the briefs of three different organizations sent in to the committee on how the bill would increase the minister's discretion and ability to revoke citizenship. The bill would change the value of Canadian citizenship and make it so much harder for people to actually become Canadian citizens, when so many want to.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto to speak to Bill C-24. It is of vital interest to the people in my community of Davenport, in fact to people right across the greater Toronto area, because over half the people in the GTA were born outside of Canada, so any changes to our citizenship and immigration rules, laws, or structures are of vital interest to the people I represent.

What we have here is a gross failure on the part of the government to address the fundamental issue facing so many of our immigrant families in Canada, and that is the failure of the government, in this legislation and in other pieces of legislation it has brought forward, to deal with the growing wait times, not just for citizenship but for family reunification. The bill does not address those issues. In fact, it makes those issues worse.

Right now we have about 360,000 people waiting for their citizenship applications to be processed. What we would have liked to have seen is the government expedite this, bring this issue forward, in a way that would actually get some resolution for so many families who are in sort of suspended animation. They are doing the work. In every other way they are Canadian citizens, except that they have not had their applications processed. They are waiting and waiting.

The bill also underlines a strategy the government employs time and time again, and that is to pick the outlier problem and use it as the justification for massive changes that would maybe appease some of its base but that would not address the fundamental issues immigrants in Canada face today.

I would like to bring the attention of the House to the issue of fraud in the system. We have over 300,000 applicants for citizenship right now. The other day the minister admitted that only 3,000 of those over 300,000 are being investigated by the RCMP for potential fraud. Fewer than 1% are being investigated, and we do not know what those investigations will glean. Of that fewer than 1%, they may find some fraud. I am not saying that there is not some, but the government and the minister are using this fraction of abuse in the system as a rationale for sweeping changes, changes that would, as they do so often on the government side, amass more power in the hands of the minister, power that would allow the minister to retroactively change someone's citizenship status.

If the Conservatives had listened to stakeholder groups, they would have heard quite resoundingly the deep concern of Canadians, immigrants, and the organizations that support and advocate on behalf of both refugees and newcomers to Canada.

I would like to also underline the fact that the government has changed the language test requirements. It has made it now the rule that anyone between the ages of 14 and 64 needs to undergo a rigorous language test. The minister has never once revealed any data that would back up any reasons for the changes he has made. He says that young people would score great on this test, and it would be great. We know that.

However, he has never brought forward any study that shows that this is indeed the case. The minister has never answered the question regarding what would happen if the child does not pass the language test, but the adult does. What happens then? I believe that one of the reasons that the government moved time allocation on the debate is because it does not want to answer the tough questions that are being raised on this bill. The questions just keep coming.

Today, there are families in my riding who have been waiting eight to nine years for grandparents and parents to come to Canada, and for the government to fulfill the promises that it made to newcomers when they first came that they could bring their parents or grandparents with them. What we have now is a government that says it going to fix the wait times for citizenship by making it much harder. In other words, the government would make the process and the system longer.

Some of it seems to make absolutely no sense. It the government wanted to ensure that those who were seeking Canadian citizenship would forge a real attachment to Canada, why on Earth would it then disqualify all of the time that a person has spent here as a non-permanent resident from their application?

That makes no sense. It sends a huge message to people. It tells them not to attach to us because we are not going to attach to them right now. That is fundamentally the wrong way to go, and it was not the case here in Canada until now, when the government politicized this debate.

The extended times required to stay in Canada are also an issue for many immigrants. In case the government has not realized, Canadians travel abroad for work all the time. We are in a globalized economy. We have Canadians working in the United States and we have Canadians working all across Europe and Asia, looking for opportunities. When they arise, Canadian citizens can take those opportunities, but the changes that are in this bill would make it more difficult for permanent residents who are waiting for citizenship. Indeed, after they are granted citizenship, it would make it harder for them to take the opportunities that are there in the global economy.

This seems incredibly unfair, and it brings up the point that my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River made earlier about the creation of two-tiered citizenship. Making it more difficult for new citizens to take those opportunities elsewhere in the economy is also a way of creating a two-tiered system of citizenship in this country.

People should not be surprised that this is the direction that the government has gone in. After all, when we are giving a message to immigrant families that their grandparents and parents are not as important to Canadians as Canadian-born grandparents and parents, of course, we have a two-tiered system.

We have always had families at the basis of our immigration system. The government, through its policies, whether on refugees or immigration, has moved Canada away from family values. It has seen families being torn apart. Quite frankly, we have to build an immigration that has, at its core and as its central function, the goal of keeping families together and a part of the Canadian community. The New Democrats on this side are committed to that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

That brings the debate to an end at this time. The member will have five minutes for questions and comments when we resume debate.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill and to announce that the Liberals will be voting against it.

We do not like this bill at all, except for the part that deals with lost Canadians. We think that all of the other aspects of this bill are bad for Canada, so we will be voting against it.

There are two main aspects that we do not like at all. First, the Conservatives believe that the more difficult it is to get Canadian citizenship, the more valuable it is to be a Canadian. We do not think that makes sense. On the contrary, if we make it difficult for people to become citizens, they will go elsewhere, such as to Australia, the United Kingdom or the United States.

Otherwise, we in Canada are competing for people around the world with countries like Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. When the Conservatives erect barrier after barrier to make it harder for people to become citizens of this country, as they do in this bill, in no way does that increase the value of citizenship. Rather, what it does is turn people off of becoming citizens of Canada and induce them to become citizens elsewhere. Indeed, I would say this bill devalues Canadian citizenship, because while it makes it harder for newcomers to become citizens, it makes it easier for the minister to arbitrarily remove someone's Canadian citizenship. In that sense, it devalues our citizenship and makes it less durable against attack from a minister of the crown. The individual Canadian would have limited right to appeal to the courts.

We in the Liberal Party believe that we should reduce the barriers to citizenship and welcome people to this country, whereas the Conservatives would erect more barriers. Instead of welcoming newcomers with a smile, they welcome newcomers with a scowl and force them to climb all of these hurdles to achieve citizenship.

If we look at the hurdles, we see that most of them make very little sense. I would like to name a few.

First of all, until now international students have been able to claim 50% of their time as students as credit toward becoming citizens. Under this bill, the Conservatives would make that amount zero. This is foolish in the extreme. We are encouraging international students to go elsewhere. Who are better candidates to be citizens of Canada than students, who by definition are educated, have experience in this country, and presumably speak English or French? They are giving students a kick in the pants when instead we should be welcoming them to our country.

Second, they impose language tests on older newcomers. Up until now, beyond age 54, one did not have to pass a difficult language test. Now one does if one is between the ages of 54 and 65. We believe this is unnecessary. We believe many loyal Canadians who have come here and become citizens speak less than perfect English as older citizens, but I have no doubt their children and grandchildren will speak perfect English or French. We do not think that the imperfect French of the older generation has been any impediment to becoming good citizens and contributors to this country.

The third barrier, also inappropriate, is that the Conservatives have increased the length of time that people have to be residents. They have tightened the definition of “resident” so as not to allow any more time spent abroad if, for example, the person is working for a Canadian company.

In all these ways, the government has increased the barriers or the difficulties in becoming a citizen. We believe this is bad for this country, particularly in the world of 2014, when we have an aging population and are competing with many different countries around the world for new citizens.

Finally, as if that were not enough, they have increased the wait time for becoming a citizen from 16 months to 31 months, which is double, and for many people it is even longer than that.

None of these aspects of the bill are positive for this country.

For that reason, we in the Liberal Party are very pleased to vote against this bill.

The second component of our objection is, in one sense, even more serious. What I have just said is serious enough: we compete for immigrants, we need immigrants, we want to welcome immigrants. However, the second part has to do with infringing upon the Constitution by passing laws that many lawyers agree would be unconstitutional and would not be able to stand a test in the Supreme Court.

I have a letter here. I might not have too much time, but I will read a bit of it:

...removal may occur despite the fact that they have not, do not, nor wish to apply for dual nationality. A Canadian-born citizen may be removed and wake up to landing in a country which may not recognize the dual nationality and thus become stateless.

The letter, from lawyers Messrs. Galati, Slansky, and Azevedo, representing the Constitutional Rights Centre, goes on to say:

...the Federal Parliament has absolutely no constitutional authority over the citizenship of persons born in Canada, but only over “Aliens and Naturalization”.

It adds:

This aspect of C-24, in its seismic shift from the historical and constitutional understanding of the citizenship of those born in Canada, should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada...and not simply passed through Parliament....

It concludes that:

The Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. intends to take every judicial proceeding possible against Bill C-24.

In the good old days, governments assured themselves that a bill was constitutional before passing it through Parliament. Under the current government, bill after bill seems to go through Parliament with no assurance that it is constitutional, and indeed with assurances from well-reputed lawyers that it is not.

We object in principle to the arbitrary removal of citizenship from individuals for reasons that are highly questionable and to the very limited opportunity for the individual to appeal to the courts against that removal of citizenship. We object to the onus of proof regarding dual citizenship being placed not upon the government to prove that the person is a dual citizen but upon the individual to prove that he or she is not. That also is wrong.

For all of these reasons, we and many legions of lawyers across this country are convinced that the bill would fail the test of the Constitution, and well should it fail that test, because it would do things that are inconsistent with not only the Constitution of Canada but also with the spirit of this country as developed over many decades of our history.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is very long and, as the member mentioned, some measures are worse than others.

Could my colleague talk about the omnibus nature of this bill? This does not allow opposition members to fully debate this bill, which contains a number of measures that affect potential new Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of both content and procedure. I indicated that we do not like the content of this bill at all.

With regard to the procedure, I agree with my colleague. It leaves much to be desired since we have not had much time to debate the bill. Since the government is rushing Parliament, we have only a few hours to debate this bill. As a result, hundreds of legal experts who would like to share their opinions have not had much opportunity to do so.

Both the content of this bill and the procedure surrounding it are inadequate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that there has been a significant jump in the time involved for processing an application for citizenship. I can recall when Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was in power the citizenship process would take roughly 12 months once a person had qualified. It now takes close to 28 months, well over two years, to process an application.

It seems to me that this legislation would change the way in which an application is processed but if the government had the political will to speed up the process, the legislation would not be required in the first place. People should not have to wait more than two years to acquire citizenship. That is being generous, especially if we look at those who meet the residency requirement where it could go well beyond four or five years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my hon. colleague. The average processing time is now 31 months, which is two and a half years. It used to be just over one year. These are the government's own numbers.

I should add that it could add a lot more time for some individuals who have to fill out the residency questionnaire, and it is a rather arbitrary and mysterious process by which it is decided who has to fill out the questionnaire and who does not, and we do not know according to what criteria. That is another element that can impose a huge burden on individuals in terms of the time it takes.

This is a general problem across the board. We are looking at a doubling of citizenship wait times but if we look at processing time for all components of immigration, whether it is family class, parents, grandparents, children, spouses, economic immigrants, provincial nominee programs, visitors, and citizenship applicants, all have experienced dramatic, sometimes two or three times higher, processing times under the Conservative government. Perhaps departments have been starved of funds, perhaps the government does not care, perhaps it has erected new bureaucracies, we do not know all of the reasons, but across the board it is totally unacceptable. This case of doubling wait times for new citizens is terrible but it is just typical of what the government has done across the board.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Markham—Unionville was on CBC recently. He was being skeptical about the government's promise to reduce the processing time from upward of 36 months to under one year. He went on to say that it was just in time for an election year.

Is he really that cynical?

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I lack the idealism of some of my NDP colleagues, so perhaps I should simply take the government at its word.

In general, members of the NDP and the Liberals, and I dare say a good chunk of the Conservatives themselves, would be skeptical at some of the more daring promises of the Conservatives when waiting times have gone up egregiously for seven years. Are they suddenly going to plummet in the one year before the election? My colleagues can believe that if they will, but I suggest it would be dangerous to indulge in such beliefs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in opposition to the piece of legislation that is here before us today, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Just as other pieces of legislation are seen in the House, the Conservative government has a knack for taking a few things that we can really support and, instead of moving them ahead and getting consensus on them, throwing them in with aspects that we absolutely cannot support. That what is we have in the citizenship bill.

There are bits in here that I have really been pressing on the ministers and the government to change. One of the bits that I really want to acknowledge is that, at long last, the “lost Canadians” issue has been addressed. This issue was addressed previously because the NDP pushed so hard to get it addressed, but it left out those who were born before 1947, people who served on behalf of Canada in wars but were not given citizenship. That right has been addressed. I would like to acknowledge the work done by Don Chapman and others, who carried on and put in an incredible amount of hours to see this injustice righted. I am glad to see that.

I am also glad to see in this bill that tougher measures would be taken against fraudulent immigration consultants. They absolutely should be, and I am really pleased to see this. I am so proud of an ex-colleague of mine, the former member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina, who put in a lot of work on this file and really pushed to get something done about the fraudulent consultants. Let me tell members that not all immigration consultants are fraudulent, but where we are hearing of abuse, it is quite grotesque.

There are other little bits in here about fines for fraud from the current fine of $1,000 to $100,000. We are fine with that. However, there are bits in this bill that I absolutely cannot support. One of those is the process by which this piece of legislation has landed in the House.

I know that members are going to be shocked at this. Did they know that this piece of legislation, after it came through second reading and was sent to the committee stage, never heard any witnesses? The committee never heard any expert testimony. Instead, the Conservatives used their majority at committee to move straight into clause-by-clause study.

This, once again, goes to a trend that I have seen in the House. There is an allergy to data, an allergy to science, and an allergy to expert opinion. The Conservatives had already made up their mind. They did not need to be informed by experts of the dangers of some aspects of the bill, and maybe even be enlightened and accept some of the amendments that the opposition put forward. Why would they do that? Despite this, I have heard the minister stand in the House and say that they heard lots of testimony. They did a study in general, without having the legislation in front of them. No report of that study has been tabled in the House on this legislation, which has seven key components, and where we heard no expert witnesses. There are probably more components, but I have identified seven.

This is a bill that should cause every Canadian living in this country or overseas to be worried, because what we have in this bill, for the first time since Canadian citizenship was established, is a two-tiered citizenship for some. By the way, when people talk to me, they say, “Oh yes, it must only be two-tiered for people who were born in other countries.” Oh no, this bill would actually create two-tiered citizenship for those who were born in this country and those who became citizens through naturalization.

One of the things that has been truly amazing about Canadians and Canada's history is that we accepted a long time ago that a citizen is a citizen. If a citizen does something wrong, we have a penal system and there are consequences that the citizen has to bear.

Under this legislation, some people will be more citizen than others. I am talking about those who end up with dual citizenship.

By the way, I was shocked after I became an MP, when there was that income tax fiasco for many of my Canadian constituents who then found out that they were still American. They had thought they had let that go a long time ago, but apparently it is very difficult to let go of American citizenship. They found they had dual citizenship. I would say that there will be all kinds of people who do not even know they have dual citizenship, and yet they do through birth, through their parents. For example, my children have the right to dual citizenship from England. There are people who come from different countries. Historically, when we have accepted them into this country, we have said, “Yes, we accept dual citizenship.” Then, when they have their children, their children have that right to that dual citizenship.

We are not really debating dual citizenship or the pros and cons of that. What we are really looking at is what it means to have Canadian citizenship. What we are saying, as I said previously, for the first time in our history is that some citizens will have different rights than others.

I am not a lawyer and have never tried to pretend I am, but I could see that there could be some legitimate legal constitutional challenges with this. How could two Canadians who were born here or two Canadians who came here to this country be treated differently, just because one happens to have a dual nationality?

This bill takes components of the bill that the government tried to rush through this House under the guise of a private member's bill. When it did not get that, it brought it back here and threw in quite a few other components. It should really concern us.

As I said, I am still shaking my head that, here we are, a country that has been a country built through immigration, and the only people who can really say they were here long before the rest of us, first, second, third, fourth, fifth generation, are the aboriginal communities.

What we are seeing once again from the government that likes to spend a lot of money and resources wooing the immigrant community is it is sending a very different message through the legislation. It can be an attack on family reunification. We have a government that is always talking about the importance of family. At the same time, we say we want the young and the brightest from other countries. Of course we do.

However, the young and the brightest do not fall out of the sky. In many cases, they are coming from families where they may be the only child. Then we are saying to them that family reunification, the chance of their families ever coming to join them, has now been turned into a lottery system, and they just have to keep trying.

I do not think that is the way to build a country. I do not think that is the way we want to build our communities.

We also tried to address the long wait lists. We shredded applications for people who waited legitimately. We have shut the door on immigration in so many ways, and yet under the government, the floodgates have been opened for the temporary foreign worker program that has kept wages down at entry-level jobs and in the low-skilled sector. I would say there are abuses throughout that program that we are hearing about over and over again.

The government says it is going to address the lengthy wait lists for citizenship. I could more than pack this chamber with people who have been waiting and waiting. After they have qualified for citizenship, they could wait another 32 to 36 months to get their actual citizenship papers.

There is a little throw-in here for men and women who served in the armed forces. They are going to get to apply for their citizenship one year early. That sounds good on paper, and we support it. On the other hand, when a citizenship system is so backed up and people are waiting for years and years, it seems like a gift that is not really a gift, or a reward that is not really a reward.

As I was saying, once again, the government has tried to pull a sleight of hand by throwing in a few good things in this bill, and quite a bit that is not acceptable to the opposition.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who always gives such incredible speeches that are nuanced and balanced. I congratulate her.

When the bill was studied in committee, all the amendments were rejected. The Conservatives are also not rising to discuss this bill, defend it or answer questions. I have difficulty understanding why the Conservative government takes this tack when people want to improve the bill. The government, which has probably already made up its mind, does not want to listen at all and is letting things go. It is not allowing Canadians to contribute to the debate.

Can my colleague talk more about this?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very thoughtful question. As I said earlier, what we have is a government that appears to be scared, or the Conservatives are so determined to exercise their majority that they have stopped respecting parliamentary democracy.

Once again, there was a huge number of amendments made and not one taken. The Conservatives also skipped hearing from experts during the committee stage. Even though they did a prestudy, this shocked me. While I was not there, it showed that those who were testifying, without seeing the bill, said there were about 106 amendments or things that need to be in the bill that we do not have there.

When we think about it, the current government has very little respect for democracy. If it did, it would have speakers. Those speakers would be up debating. They might even hear a thing or two and then be persuaded that they should change their minds on some things. However, we have a government whose members are so convinced that they are right, and only they are right, and that nobody else, whether experts, scientists, or citizens, can possibly share a different point of view than theirs, that they shut off debate.

Here we are sitting until midnight, night after night, which is not a problem. However, where are my colleagues across the way?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Where are your colleagues?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

You complained and complained, and now we do not speak.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but we stand up and speak. We are taking up all of the speaking moments.

In Parliament, for a debate to take place, speaking spots are allocated according to the number of MPs that a party has in the House. The Conservatives get the most speaking spots; then it is the official opposition, the NDP; then of course it is the third party, the Liberals. However, the ruling party, the Conservatives, using bullying tactics, cannot find speakers to defend a bill that they are trying to rush through Parliament without going through the committee stage and without hearing from witnesses. Right now they do not even want to hear from members of Parliament. They have wool in their ears or their fingers in their ears, and they are quite happy to be like that. They smile quite gleefully that they accept the bill as it is.

If we were to carry on with that kind of logic, and they have the majority, we would never have to debate on anything. They could just bring forward something, vote on it, and it would be done. However, that is not how parliamentary democracy was set up. Parliamentary democracy was set up with checks and balances, and the members of the current government are bludgeoning those checks and balances that defend the democracy that I am so proud of.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at legislation in the House and talk about the thoughts or ideas we have about it, there is no better way to look at legislation than through the lens of our work as members of Parliament. We have a lot of opportunities as MPs to talk to people, to hear different things, to meet with experts, people who have studied different issues and done academic work on things. We also talk to front-line workers, the people who experience the front lines of issues and have good feedback about potential impacts of legislation.

We also have the experience of talking to people in community, who will feel the impacts of potential legislation and have to live with the impacts of our legislative decisions. That is some of the work that we do as MPs that gives us a unique perspective.

As MPs, a lot of us also have caseworkers in our offices. The caseworkers help people to navigate through the federal government, get people information about files, or where someone's file is at on a particular issue. MPs having caseworkers has been long standing. Our caseworkers are doing more and more casework since the Conservatives have started whittling away at the basic services that people need to understand the federal government, whether it is applying for employment insurance, a veteran applying for services, someone asking for information about permanent residency, or even student loans. They are confronted with 1-800 numbers, voice mail, or waiting on hold forever. It is hard for them to talk to real people.

Many of us have caseworkers in our offices to help folks navigate these systems. Over the last six years, my office in Halifax has seen a growing wait list for citizenship. Phyllis Larsen does casework in my office, and she is fantastic at it. I have had a lot of assumptions made about the kind of casework that she must do. People think that because it is the east coast, there must be a lot of EI applications or working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Actually, the number one issue in my office is immigration.

Every day that Phyllis works in my community office on Gottingen Street, she sees new residents in Halifax who want to become Canadian citizens. These are people from all walks of life. There are university professors, truck drivers, families working to get the rest of their family to Canada, so family reunification, and there are families looking to adopt children from other countries. It is a whole range of different situations, and it takes a lot of courage, a lot of bravery, and sometimes even desperation to come here. However, lately it takes more skill, more tenacity, and more patience to become a citizen of this country.

Phyllis used to work for my predecessor Alexa McDonough, so she has been doing this kind of work for a long time. It was not that long ago that Phyllis saw routine citizenship applications moving through the system in about a year. Today, thanks to the government, the average processing time on a routine application is about 23 months. That is a routine application. That is not all of the strange things that can happen, like someone coming from Ethiopia whose birth certificate is in the Ethiopian calendar, and the age does not match up. We have seen all kinds of non-routine applications, I can certainly say that. Keep in mind that the option to apply only comes after three years of permanent residency.

Even worse is somebody who is give a residency questionnaire, an RQ. This is a questionnaire that will automatically increase the processing time from 23 months to 37 months. The frequency with which residency questionnaires are being given out is alarming. People who sometimes cannot afford bus fare are now being asked to supply everything, from pay stubs to tax returns to airline tickets, to prove that they meet the residency requirements. It does not make sense to do this. However, the government is continuing to add this extra layer of bureaucracy to an already lengthy process, a process that is fearful for a lot of people and uncertain for everyone.

It is no surprise that these constituents, these individuals and families, are angry, frustrated, and sometimes they feel like giving up hope. They pay their taxes, study, and work. They do all of the things that Canadian citizens are expected to do, yet they are not offered the full rights and benefits of Canadian citizenship.

New Canadians build strong communities and healthier families, and this is key to creating a strong and proud Canada. However, it is becoming harder and harder to do so. We are seeing wait times that are so long that medical and fingerprint tests are expiring. This forces people to resubmit their application, which means increased costs for them. Often it means long perilous journeys to obtain these documents.

This is not an issue addressed by the bill, but we have had reports in my riding, especially from the universities, that there is a systematic denial of visas for international students who come from eastern and southern parts of Africa. There is no accountability when it comes to those missions abroad in how they process and deny visas. Oftentimes we are hearing reports that applicants are refused before their applications are even viewed. Therefore, it is broader than the citizenship piece. It goes to a lot of different things that the immigration office is dealing with. We get these kinds of stories from our constituents.

I want to share a story from a recent case that we are working on. Unfortunately, it is a case that is not unique. It is a case where a family has gone missing.

A mother in Canada is trying to bring her children here under the one-year window program. In December 2013, she travelled to her home country, in Africa, to see her children at the address where she knew they were being cared for by friends. Upon her arrival, she discovered that the children had been taken to an orphanage in the capital city. She went to that orphanage, but she could not find her children.

CIC wait lists are so long that while this woman waited for her children's file to be processed, they went missing and she cannot find her family. Can members imagine what it would be like if their children went missing while they were waiting for paperwork to be processed?

This woman is trying to be reunited with her family, but it is our system that has resulted in her not knowing whether she is ever going to see her kids again. During her time there, someone went through her personal belongings, and the only things that were taken were pictures of her children.

I was hoping that the minister would commit to working with us to bring real improvements to citizenship laws, especially when it comes to this backlog.

I have concentrated on some issues that have not been fixed in the bill, and I do not have a lot of time left. However, I want to talk about a problem that I have with in the bill, and that is the ability to revoke citizenship. I believe that the bill would create two tiers of citizens in this country, and it is reprehensible that a government would do that.

I had hoped to read from a brief by the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, or CARL. As members have heard from some of my colleagues, Bill C-24 has not been studied in committee. There was a motion tabled by the Conservatives to study the purpose of the bill, but the bill itself has not been studied. No report on the subject matter of the bill has been tabled.

I have in my hands a copy of a brief that CARL put together. These folks are the experts, and not just legal experts. They are working on the front lines and know what this immigration process is like. They have done a fantastic job of pointing out some of the key problems, especially around the ability to revoke citizenship and the fear that it creates. With the time that I have left, there is one line that I will read. CARL calls it “a way to foster a citizenship of fear”.

I highly recommend the brief to anybody who is interested in this issue. They should read the brief by CARL. The Canadian Bar Association and the BC Civil Liberties Association have done excellent work on this as well. They are giving us advice. They are telling us that the bill is not constitutional. They are telling us it is creating a citizenship of fear. They are saying that this is not the way forward when it comes to reforming our immigration law.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened, with great attention, to the presentation of my colleague opposite. I am a first generation of immigrants in our country and I defended our country in Afghanistan and so on.

Is the member opposite defending those who engage in armed conflict against our country? She was speaking about civil liberties, that they were so nice to the people, that they were so concerned about people and that this legislation was not in line with the issues giving citizenship for everybody maybe.

What does the member think about people who are engaged in conflicts against our country? Should they get citizenship or should we not revoke their citizenship?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell that the member has been handed his marching orders on what question to ask me. He said that I talked about civil liberties and all these fantastic things when actually I did not. I was talking about something else entirely, but he has his cue card in front on him and he asked me a question, so I will answer it.

If someone is a citizen of Canada, he or she is a citizen of Canada. There should not be two tiers of citizenship. I am also the first generation born in Canada in my family, the child of an immigrant family, and we are Canadian. It is not conditional Canadian.

With the bill, for example, if the minister thinks that there is fraud on a balance of probabilities, he or she can revoke citizenship. That is the minister saying “Yes, probably, so I'm going to take your citizenship away.” Absolutely not. The test should not be yes, probably. What it means is that citizens of our country do not have due process and that is something we need to stand up against.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments especially when she highlighted an area that has caused a great deal of frustration for me, as a local member of Parliament who deals considerably in issues like immigration and citizenship.

The processing times have increased significantly. In fact, it is just over two and a half years. That is how long it takes for people who qualify today, meet the criteria, want to have their citizenship and put in their applications. They can anticipate waiting a minimum of 28 months.

The government created this crisis and now it comes in and says that it has wonderful legislation and its purpose, in part, is to reduce the waiting times for the processing of citizenship.

Does the member believe that because of this legislation, it will cause the wait times to go down, or does she believe it is because of the government's low priority of processing citizenship that is the root of the problem of unacceptable wait times for processing citizenship?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member posed it as a question, but in there was also his point of view, and I agree with it. It was sort of implicit in the way he asked the question. I do not think this has anything to do with money. It has to do with priority. Do not forget that this is not the first time the Conservatives have promised and failed to address the backlog. The backlog of requests has doubled under their supposed leadership.

There is a strategy there. I do not know that I have the psychological training to peel back the layers of what that strategy is, but it does not seem that the Conservatives are taking seriously the citizenship system and real reforms to immigration to actually help people get through this process and deal with the backlog.

I will add to it, it is not just immigration. We see the same backlog when it comes to EI and when it comes to veterans trying to get services. When people call our office and ask for any information about their file, we could tell them to call a number for MPs, but it will not change anything. It is not going to make anything go faster. When we call, we get the news that it is being processed. That is the best we can do.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, who did incredible work on this file. She made sure that we on this side of the House understood just what a tangle we were getting into with this change to the Citizenship Act, and provided the background so we knew, absolutely, what we had to push back against, which is a bill that would not serve the people of Canada.

I would also like to thank my colleagues from Halifax and from Newton—North Delta for their arguments and for their very clear understanding of what this bill means.

I have some real concerns as does the entire NDP caucus. These concerns stem from the fact that all of the Conservative legislation we have seen, which purport to make positive change, actually do precisely the opposite.

This bill purports to improve the situation for those seeking help by becoming part of our Canadian community. It seems to me that it would actually, in many ways, hurt the very people and communities that governments are supposed to support. Governments that take their job seriously are supposed to protect them.

I will give a rundown of the process of the bill. As members know, in February of this year, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tabled Bill C-24. The purpose, apparently, was to introduce sweeping changes to Canada's citizenship laws. At that time, the minister stated that the bill represented the first comprehensive reforms of the Citizenship Act since 1977. He said that it 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.

That sounds absolutely wonderful, and we agree that Canadian citizenship has enormous value. The world recognizes the citizenship of Canada. I am sure that you go to citizenship court on a regular basis. Mr. Speaker. I certainly do. The pride, the joy and the incredible sense of happiness that we see among those new citizens tells everyone in that court just how important Canadian citizenship is. It has enormous value. This is why it is very troubling that the government would play politics with such an important issue.

Some of the changes to the Citizenship Act are quite good and they are long overdue. They address the deficiencies in the current system, and we need to applaud that. It is important to say that, because we are not just naysayers. We are very diligent, and we recognize and are willing to say that some changes are good.

For example, the implementation of stricter rules for fraudulent immigration consultants is good. There is a provision that would authorize the government to designate, by regulation, a regulatory body whose members would be authorized to act as consultants and make it an offence for any person who had not been duly recognized by the regulatory body to offer immigration consultant services for a fee.

I have seen in my riding of London—Fanshawe the terrible harm that these fraudsters can cause. It is very expensive. I have had people come into my office who have said that they have been waiting two or three years and have given this person all the money they have, which might be tens of thousands of dollars. When they go to find out where they are in the process, they find out nothing has been done.

This kind of fraudulent behaviour leaves people desperate. They are people who came with great hopes and aspirations, who are left without any hope and very often without recourse. They feel very vulnerable. They are not Canadians in a country where maybe they will not be believed. Maybe they will not be able to speak out against this fraudster.

I am glad that immigration fraud will no longer be condoned. We actually pushed the government to crack down on these crooked immigration consultants, so we are very supportive of the anti-fraud measures.

The provisions of expediting citizenship for permanent residents serving in the Canadian Forces is, again, very good. Bill C-24 would shorten the residency requirement from four years to three for permanent residents serving in the Canadian Forces during this period. That is a very important change to the Immigration Act. We need to understand that it applies to only a very few people.

However, it is important to show gratitude. I just wish that same level of gratitude also applied to our veterans, the veterans who gave their service and their absolute dedication to our country. They seem to have been forgotten by the government.

The provision for extending citizenship to lost Canadians is also good. The NDP was involved in this issue as far back as 2007. Therefore, in response to NDP pressure, the government introduced measures in 2009 to extend citizenship to most of these lost Canadians. Unfortunately, in the first go-around, the amendments did not apply to people born before 1947. Bill C-24 would close that loop. Unfortunately, it has taken five years. The government dragged its feet. However, at this point in time, I would say better late than never.

Bill C-24 would also significantly increase fines for fraud from the current level of $1,000 to a maximum of $100,000. Under the bill, a maximum prison sentence would also be extended from 5 years to 14 years, depending on circumstances.

As I said, I have had many people come to my office who have lost all that they had. Again, if the government is to address this kind of fraud, because it is extremely lucrative, to make it onerous on those who would commit fraud, that is very good.

It would also increase the requirement from three out of four years, to four of six, and would clarify the requirement of physical residence in Canada prior to citizenship. One of the benefits of the bill is that it specifies how long individuals must physically be present in Canada before applying for citizenship.

While I have outlined some of the things we think are very good and very positive, there is the other side. I mentioned that at the beginning of my remarks.

Bill C-24 would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration many new powers, including the authority to grant or revoke citizenship of dual citizens. Unfortunately, the government has a strong tendency to develop legislation that concentrates power in the hands of ministers.

As I said the last time I spoke to this bill, governments come and governments go, and there has to be a respect for the fact that no one individual will be in a position of power forever. To grant that individual this kind of power, even for a short period of time, frightens me.

This is a very punitive government, as members will know. It lashes out against those who criticize it. We saw that at the beginning of its mandate. Women lost equality rights because the Status of Women department lost funding. First nations and first nations women have not been given the kind of supports they deserve. We have seen the deaths of far too many first nations women being swept away and not considered.

KAIROS was an organization that criticized the government for its failure in terms of the environment and housing. Well, KAIROS was punished and was told that the funding it was expecting would not be forthcoming.

The National Association of Women and the Law is an organization that reports on women's equality to the UN and on Canada's progress. When it reported that there had not been any progress for the last 30 years, NAWL had to be disposed of.

I hope members would agree that the very idea of giving the minister the power to revoke or to allow citizenship is putting too much power in the hands of one person. We have courts of law. It is very important that we in this House and those in the government respect the authority of the courts and leave that determination to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech.

I would like to remind members that this bill was introduced in 2013 as a private member's bill and it contained the same provisions.

To the NDP and all members in the House, citizenship is extremely valuable. We must acknowledge the importance attributed to citizenship. We need not give further proof of that.

However, this bill would make it possible to revoke citizenship, which has given rise to major legal concerns. Furthermore, there is a real concentration of additional powers in the hands of the minister, including the power to revoke and grant citizenship.

Could my colleague elaborate on that?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the revocation or granting of citizenship should not be based on incomplete evidence or the whim of anyone. It does not matter who the minister is. That individual does not have the expertise of legal advisers or people who practise citizenship law or the courts. He or she simply does not. To allow that individual to decide the fate of someone based on speculation or incomplete information is absolutely terrifying.

We in the NDP were hoping that the minister would commit to working with us to bring some real improvements to the citizenship laws. We were hoping for wait times to be reduced, and in fact, they have increased significantly: 320,000 individuals are still waiting for their citizenship. This is not acceptable. We need to demand better.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite spent quite a bit of her time praising the bill. She discussed regulating citizenship consultants, fast-tracking the process for PRs serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, and tougher penalties for those who have obtained citizenship through fraud.

Does the member opposite believe that those who gained Canadian citizenship through fraudulent means deserve a tough punishment, or was she just talking in front of the camera?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member did not mean to insult me and question my integrity. I will say that it is important, and I did indicate what the minister got right.

However, in the balance of things, they have to get more than just a few things right. They have to get it all right, because people's lives hang in the balance. The very fact that they have not reduced the wait times and that they have given incredible power over people, verging on the power of life and death, to a single individual or his or her department, is just not acceptable. We have courts. We have processes in this country. We should be following them.

As wonderful as this place is, it is not without its weaknesses, and it is not perfect. Mistakes are made. I would like to see the mistakes in regard to this hurried and unamended bill corrected. I would like the Conservatives to have the integrity, the honesty, and maybe even a bit of courage to say that they were not exactly right with all the provisions and could have done better. They should have and need to do better.

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

Mr. Speaker, this evening I rise to participate in the debate on a very important subject: Bill C-24.

Seventy-five months have passed since March 2008. During those 75 months, the current Conservative government has changed the citizenship processes, rules and regulations about once every three months on average.

Of course things change. Of course a government can recognize that it made a mistake. Of course the government can change its policy. However, when a government changes its mind every three months about an issue as serious as immigration, of course we are going to wonder whether it knows what it is doing.

This government is so incapable of understanding the implications of a situation, so incapable of understanding its options and looking for a lasting solution that will benefit Canadians that it frantically starts over every three months.

This government spends its time bashing the public service. That is its stock in trade. It keeps dumping on public servants' supposed inefficiency and making wholesale cuts to every budget in sight.

In his March report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom the Conservatives continue to ignore because they cannot handle the truth, revealed that only two-fifths of the public service's goals were achieved in 2013.

How can we expect the right hand to know what the left hand is doing when the brain is AWOL? Either this government does not realize how absurd it is to change the rules every three months yet expect them to be useful, or it realizes exactly how absurd that is and is manipulating immigration rules purely to get votes.

Plainly put, the government's immigration policy is ineffective. Once the had their majority, the Conservatives imposed a moratorium on sponsoring parents and grandparents, they made family reunification harder, and they started punishing refugees. Then they gave us their masterpiece: they opened the floodgates to temporary foreign workers.

The result of this absurd and unjust policy was not long in coming. The Conservatives became mired in a historic scandal involving abuses of the temporary foreign worker program. Now they are fighting tooth and nail to get out of it, but they cannot find a way to solve the problem. This government could not care less about reality. It would rather make all of the issues political and attack the credibility of anyone who dares to contradict it.

How can we give such an irresponsible government the right to decide who should get citizenship and who should have it revoked at the minister's discretion? This is a clear case of feudal arbitrariness.

This bill raises some serious legal concerns. According to the bill's provisions, the minister could revoke the citizenship of someone who has supposedly committed fraud. The individual's citizenship could be revoked based on something the minister or one of his employees believes. It would be based on a balance of probabilities that the individual obtained his or her citizenship fraudulently. Simply put, it means that the minister will now have the power to strip someone of their citizenship based on a mere suspicion.

Even in a country with strict immigration laws such as the United States, any individual who is prosecuted for illegally obtaining citizenship has the right to plead his case in court. Every ruling can be appealed, and the individual is guaranteed due process.

From now on, under Bill C-24, none of that will exist in Canada. One word from the minister and someone can lose their citizenship. The decision cannot be appealed.

The icing on the cake is that the minister announced that he would not disclose the list of people to whom he will be so kind as to grant Canadian citizenship.

I want to remind the government, which cares so little about civil liberties, that in the legal system we inherited from Great Britain, such a process is labelled as being arbitrary.

I would also like to remind the government, which does not care, that prohibiting arbitrary government decisions is a fundamental principle set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It comes to us from British law, which in 1215, with the Magna Carta, and in 1679, with the principle of habeas corpus, made it clear that arbitrariness was a principle to fight against.

I want to warn the government about what it is doing. In addition to being completely immoral, the possibility that the minister can revoke or grant citizenship at his discretion goes against the underlying principles of our legal system.

Once again, the government should expect a long, bitter battle with the Supreme Court concerning one of its many unilateral decisions.

Everyone in the country recognizes the value of Canadian citizenship. There is no need to start such a battle on this subject. That is why we were hoping that this government would change its ways a little and consult the opposition in order to come to an agreement.

However, those hopes were in vain: the Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration once again showed just how stubborn this government is by rejecting all of the amendments proposed in committee. We continued to hope in responsible people who believe that the government can and must change people's lives.

That is why we in the NDP strive to find a constructive solution to all of the problems confronting us, regardless of the circumstances. When it comes to immigration, this government's inadequacy has led to unacceptable delays in the processing of applications. We understand that these delays make applicants frustrated and bitter.

However, this wasted time also translates into economic losses. Economic immigrants who knock on our door to come work in Canada may very well turn to other host countries because of the long wait times for their application to be processed. They will then be helping to build economies other than ours.

When the government announced its intention to reduce backlogs, we applauded this commendable intention. However, we reminded the Conservatives that they themselves had created the conditions leading to these delays by making systematic budget cuts throughout the public service. Since 2009, the average time to process an application has more than doubled, going from 15 to 31 months. Since the NDP will have to fix the Conservatives' many mistakes when it forms the next government, we might as well start now.

In order to make processing times reasonable, this government is proposing to merely simplify the process for handling applications by getting rid of the middle man. This is another example of the Conservatives' wishful thinking and simplistic announcements. They were unable to deal with the backlog by putting $44 million on the table as part of the economic action plan, and now they think they will be able to do so by introducing administrative mini-measures. Given these circumstances, why is the government once again making amendments to Canada's immigration system?

In truth, there is only one explanation for the government turning a blind eye to the negative consequences of this legislation: it does not care about the consequences. This government is only interested in how to make itself look good. That is the foundation of its policy. This government does not care about the best interests of Canadians. It is pandering to its voter base. This government is not showing its determination. It is showing its stubbornness. This government does not take action. It acts out.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her great speech on Bill C-24. She certainly has expertise on the subject of citizenship and immigration.

Like me and a number of experts who have looked at the bill, does she have any concerns about the constitutionality of the bill, especially with regard to revoking citizenship?

Does she think that this bill might be challenged if it is passed in its current form?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Indeed, as far as the revocation of citizenship is concerned, this bill will definitely be challenged.

This is a classic example of two-tiered citizenship. If a person with dual citizenship has their citizenship revoked, they are at risk of becoming stateless. In other words, their country of origin might not take them back and they will be in limbo.

The revocation of citizenship, a power that will be concentrated in the hands of the minister, will constantly be appealed in court.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just touched on something I wanted to ask a question about. She talked about the minister's discretionary powers to deny or approve immigration applications.

What concerns does my colleague have about that, since we are talking about a major overhaul of how this department works? I would like to hear my colleague's concerns about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I said in my speech, concentrating powers, such as the power to revoke or grant citizenship, in the hands of the minister, takes us back to a feudal time when seigneurs had the power of life or death over their tenants. Fortunately here we are talking about citizenship.

This raises an ethical problem. We cannot be judge and jury. Before, people had the possibility of appeal, but now they will no longer have that option once their citizenship is revoked. That is quite simply unacceptable in a country that abides by the rule of law as we do.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague tell us more about how this bill could be subject to constitutional challenges? We know that the government does not always bother to make sure that its bills respect human rights and comply with the Canadian Constitution. Could my colleague talk about the problems with this bill and how it might not meet constitutional standards?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. As some witnesses pointed out in committee, there will certainly be some constitutional challenges, and I think this will likely go to court.

We are all familiar with the universal principle that all human beings are born free and equal. Our country has the charter to protect all citizens, and the provisions in Bill C-24 clearly interfere with those protections. There will obviously be challenges.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

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

I should mention that the Conservatives limited time for debate on this bill. This is really problematic and it infringes on our right to express ourselves on bills that will affect the lives of Canadians and immigrants.

It is more or less an omnibus bill. In fact, it is the first major reform of the Citizenship Act since 1977. We really ought to do our homework to come up with the best legislation possible.

I oppose this bill and I will take my ten minutes to explain why.

I would like to begin by recognizing the work done by groups in my riding that welcome immigrants, such as ABL Immigration, which works in the Lower Laurentians to help immigrants better integrate into our society and country and have access to services that can help them.

My fellow Canadians are ready to welcome newcomers, to have new people come to live here, but this bill goes against Canadian values.

I would like to mention that I was a panellist at a meeting in Montreal on Bill C-24. Julius Grey, a very well-known lawyer in Montreal whose name is probably familiar to all members, and the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, which is active in Montreal, also participated in this event.

With the people who took part in the discussion, I was able to see that this bill raises a number of concerns about the Conservative government's approach. There were also concerns about the negative impact of that rather complex legislation, which includes many measures.

Since March 2008, or since the Conservatives took office, over 25 major changes have been made to immigration practices, rules, laws and regulations. We found that not all of these changes have been positive, including the moratorium on sponsoring parents and grandparents.

In my riding I met people affected by this measure. In fact, I meet people from across Canada who are affected by the fact that they cannot bring their parents and their grandparents here. In recent years, fewer family reunifications have taken place. This threatens the well-being of Canadians.

We saw that the government also chose to punish vulnerable refugees. On this issue, I want to note that Bill C-31 imposes a number of measures that experts deem dangerous for refugees. These provisions give the minister the power to hand-pick which countries are deemed safe, without consulting independent experts. They also give the minister the power to detain asylum seekers for one year, without reviewing that decision.

This bill also contains provisions to deny certain refugees access to the refugee appeal division. Bill C-31 also imposes a mandatory waiting period of five years before legitimate refugees can become permanent residents and be reunited with their families.

As we can see, these are very tough measures that adversely affect the safety of refugees who come to Canada after fleeing unstable situations in their country of origin.

We have also seen that under the Conservative government there has been an increase in the number of temporary foreign workers to the detriment of Canadian workers. Furthermore, and I am sure that I am not the only member to have noticed this, our riding offices are reporting that processing times, which are currently 31 months, are harming our constituents who come to our offices looking for help. Unfortunately, too many of these people want to know the status of their file. The only thing we can tell them is that they have to wait, even though the processing times are unreasonable. Instead of attacking refugees and preventing families from being reunited, this government should instead be tackling processing times. That should be the priority.

I will now focus on the measures in the bill that the NDP members are concerned about. First, we have seen that Bill C-24 concentrates many new powers in the hands of the minister, including the power to grant citizenship and to revoke it from dual citizens. This creates two tiers of citizenship and penalizes people with dual citizenship. It allows a minister to revoke the citizenship of a person who has dual citizenship and commits illegal acts, whereas someone without Canadian citizenship will be punished in the criminal justice system instead.

We believe that this is rather arbitrary. We should not have two tiers of citizenship. I am very proud of my Canadian citizenship and I know that my parents, who immigrated from China, were as well. A Canadian is a Canadian, period. We should not have two types of citizens, those who have dual citizenship and those who have single citizenship.

Under the provisions of the bill, the minister may revoke citizenship if he, or any staffer he authorizes, is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a person has obtained citizenship by fraud. That poses significant problems because this clause is based on the balance of probabilities. If the minister has reason to believe that the person has obtained citizenship fraudulently, he has the right to unilaterally revoke that citizenship. Clearly, that prevents the individual from appealing to the courts and it places more arbitrary powers in the minister's hands.

This bill is problematic for another reason, namely the provisions related to the declaration of intent to reside in Canada. The minister can arbitrarily choose to strip someone of citizenship if he believes that the individual does not intend to reside in Canada. That penalizes those who obtain citizenship and then perhaps get a job offer elsewhere but still plan on returning to Canada. It penalizes people who find themselves in rather unique situations.

The final measure in this bill that I would like to raise is the fact that the length of time someone spends in Canada as a permanent resident will no longer be taken into consideration for the granting of citizenship.

Clearly, the NDP feels it must oppose many of the measures. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill as well, for the reasons I have just presented.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the issue of people who leave Canada to work. I want to give a specific example of how this legislation would have a very real impact.

I can recall a case where a family from the Philippines came to Canada and the husband was not able to get his credentials recognized as an auditor. Therefore, after his family was settled here, he went to another country and was able to continue on as an accountant. Now, there are serious restrictions within this proposed legislation that would prevent that individual from being able to do that today, even though his entire family is here and the only reason he left the country was to practise that which he was trained to do with the full intention of coming back.

I wonder if the member might want to comment on the fact that, by rushing the bill through, we were not able to have that thorough discussion so that examples such as this would have had much more attention given to them.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the only example of its kind. When I talked to groups of immigrants in Montreal, they gave me this example: a person gets a scholarship to Oxford or Harvard and has to leave for a period of months or years but fully intends to return to Canada and live as a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil.

These are opportunities our citizens should have. They should not be punished for wanting a chance to live or work elsewhere for a period of time. This bill goes way too far. Clearly, the Conservative government really did not do its homework on this one.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for letting me ask my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles a question. She spent a few seconds, possibly a minute, talking about wait times, which have gone up considerably in the past few years. Nowadays, it can take 31 months for a person to get citizenship. The government boasted that this bill would reduce wait times.

Does my colleague think that any of the measures in this bill will really tackle this problem effectively? Perhaps the government is saying this just for the sake of argument when ultimately, there is really nothing here that will reduce wait times. Why is it important to tackle wait times in this system? I will not answer the question; I will let my colleague answer it.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. I imagine that in his riding office he must also provide services to people who are waiting to get their citizenship.

Since the Conservatives came to power, wait times have doubled and today, 320,000 people in Canada are still waiting for their application to be processed.

Of course, humanitarian cases have to be processed as quickly as possible. My colleague from Halifax mentioned the case of a mother who was waiting to sponsor her children. For the months she had to wait, she lost track of her children who were in her home country. The wait times are unreasonable. They penalize people who live in Canada, who want to be good citizens and contribute to our country. For humanitarian reasons, we have to address the processing times problem.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to have a few minutes to speak to Bill C-24. As an interesting coincidence, I was recently reading the latest issue of Novyi Shliakh, or the New Pathway, a Ukrainian newspaper published here in Canada. On page 6 of the May 15 edition, there was an article by the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, and the very fact that this article appeared in the New Pathway to me is a clear indication that there is a concern about Bill C-24 in the Ukrainian Canadian community and, I would venture to say, in many immigrant communities. Readers of the article who had concerns were asked to contact their local member of Parliament.

This article states:

This new law changes core aspects of Canadian citizenship as we know it.

If passed, Bill C-24 will make it more difficult for new immigrants to get Canadian citizenship and easier for many Canadians to lose it, especially if they have dual citizenship. Most Canadians do not understand the ways in which Bill C-24 will undermine their fundamental right to be a citizen of Canada. The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers has provided a summary of the most important changes to the Citizenship Act.

It goes on later in the same article to say:

In Canada, citizenship has always been secure. Whether native-born or immigrant, once you are granted Canadian citizenship, you are secure. Under the current system, you cannot lose your citizenship unless you obtained it by fraud, and even then, a Federal Court judge must make that decision after a full court hearing. Under the current system, if you do not agree with the judge, you have a right of appeal. Under the new law, there will be several ways to lose your citizenship. As well, the decision as to whether you lose your citizenship will be made by a government bureaucrat who will inform you in writing with no opportunity for a live hearing to defend yourself.

Why will citizenship be harder to get?

New immigrants will have to wait longer before they can apply for citizenship. Older and younger people will now have to pass language and knowledge tests to qualify for citizenship. The citizenship application fees have been tripled. There will be no right of appeal for those who are refused.

Everyone recognizes the considerable value of Canadian citizenship, but we do not want to politicize this issue. We have seen that approach far too often since the current government came to power.

As far as the bill is concerned, it is high time that we resolve the issue of lost Canadians. This is an unfair situation that has been going on for far too long.

Other parts of the bill raise concerns. For example, the revocation of citizenship gives cause for major legal concerns. We are always worried about proposals to concentrate power in the hands of the minister.

Since March 2008, more than 25 major changes have been made to the methods, rules, laws and regulations related to immigration. More and more changes have been made since the Conservatives formed a majority government, changes such as a moratorium on sponsoring parents and grandparents, fewer family reunifications, punishing vulnerable refugees and increasing the number of temporary foreign workers in order to meet the needs of corporations.

The considerable changes the Conservatives have made to Canada's immigration system have not helped improve the efficiency or fairness of the system.

That is what is troubling. All these proposed changes are not necessarily going to make the system more efficient. In a sense, we can understand why the system cannot be more efficient. If we cut people who are working, the numbers of public servants, increase their hours, and make it more difficult for them, obviously the system will not get more efficient.

I would like to argue as an aside that maybe a good way to improve our immigration system is to make it more efficient by hiring more people so we can get the job done and process all the immigrants that we have today.

However, I will return to my speaking notes. Bill C-24, as I said earlier on, gives the minister many new powers including the authority to grant or revoke the citizenship of dual citizens.

As we know, the government has a pretty strong tendency to develop legislation that concentrates more power in the hands of ministers. Obviously if we have ministers who understand the situation and I would hope they do, things could work okay, but there are people who do not. We on this side condemn this practice. We cannot trust the Conservatives or any government by giving a minister new powers because we open the door to arbitrary politically motivated decisions.

I guess we all should know that there are politically motivated decisions in any government. What we as parliamentarians have to do is to ensure that we take those politically motivated decisions away from people making decisions.

Let us look at revocation of citizenship. The very idea of giving the minister the power to revoke citizenship raises serious questions and it is on this principle that we should be looking at the bill. Canadian law already has established mechanisms by which we can punish individuals who commit unlawful acts. It should not be the job of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to make these judgments.

Another problem with revoking the Canadian citizenship of dual citizens is that it creates a two-tier citizenship where some Canadians could have their citizenship revoked, while others would be punished by the criminal system for the same offence.

As an aside, let me say a few words about dual citizens. We have already seen discrimination by the government against Canadians who are subject to U.S. tax laws. My colleague, the MP for Victoria, has raised the issue of FATCA and the problems it poses for U.S. dual citizens and family members of dual citizens. I would say that once a person is a Canadian citizen, he or she should have the full protection of our government. It does not matter if one is born here or somewhere else, once one is a Canadian citizen, we should all be on the same level playing field.

There should be no question, for example, of the U.S. government obtaining banking information or for a Canadian citizen to file unnecessary U.S. tax forms when a person already pays taxes here in Canada and fills out the forms. We have had that debate earlier on in this session.

Coming back to this bill, under the provisions of the bill the minister may revoke citizenship if he or she, or any staffer he or she authorized, is satisfied in the balance of probabilities that a person has obtained citizenship by fraud. Until now, such cases have all typically gone through the courts and cabinet, which makes sense. It will not be the case anymore. This aspect poses serious issues to the extent that the minister would have the power to revoke a person's citizenship solely on the basis of suspicion without an independent tribunal to rule on the veracity of the allegations. This is not the case in the United States where that person has the legal right to have the issue resolved in a court of law.

In closing, the bill, although it has some good provisions in it, is another slow erosion of our rights as democratic citizens and for this reason we should oppose the bill in its current form.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my hon. colleague is aware, but currently many permanent residents wait for four years to make a decision. I have met many people at citizenship ceremonies for whom it was 20 or 30 years before they made that decision. Choosing to become a citizen of Canada is a very important decision and people learn to feel an attachment to the country.

Does the hon. member really believe that people with little or no connection to Canada, who have spent very little time in Canada, should really be handed Canadian citizenship? Sometimes it is through fraudulent means. Is he objecting to having some time limits around people getting to know us before they make those decisions?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that we have a system in place that works. The overwhelming majority of people who apply for citizenship and become citizens under our current system become good Canadian citizens. My parents are immigrants. Many of us here have family members who have immigrated. The current timeline in place is a workable timeline, and I do not really see why we need to change the system. What we need is to ensure it becomes more efficient, and that implies hiring a few more people to increase the efficiency so that we can process more immigrants at a faster pace.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-24. He mentioned some of our concerns about this bill.

I would like to hear him talk more about the constitutional aspect of this bill, given that the government has been told three or four times to change course, if I may use that expression, or go back to the drawing board. A number of bills have already been rejected in part by the Supreme Court.

Does he think that the same thing could happen to this bill? That is obviously a hypothetical question. A number of experts have already commented on this. Does my colleague have the same concerns as the experts who appeared before the committee and said that they were concerned that the Conservative government is again passing a bill that will very likely be challenged, with good reason, before the different courts?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention to my colleague from Sherbrooke that I attended the graduation ceremony at a high school in my riding. I mentioned that he is the youngest MP to ever be elected to Parliament. I told the graduates to follow his example. My colleague was 19 years old when elected and they could become MPs as well.

I am very pleased that he has asked this question. Yes, I do have some concerns. On a number of occasions we have seen the government trying to go down a particular path too quickly without having really thought about the consequences. If people have concerns like the ones I just mentioned in my speech, that means that there are problems.

I hope that this government will nevertheless try to improve this bill. As we have already mentioned, it does have some good elements. There are some things in this bill that work well. Let us try to improve it and make it into a bill that serves all Canadians.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in this broad discussion on Bill C-24, introduced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I want to commend my colleague, the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard and the official opposition's critic on this file, for her excellent work.

Unfortunately, once again, the Conservatives have failed to follow the rules and do the right thing, as serious parliamentarians should do. There was no real study of this bill in committee, even though this bill could have some potentially serious consequences. I will talk about those later on.

I do not understand why the government did not take the time to listen to the experts in committee. My guess is that it was because the Conservatives knew that the expects would probably disagree with them. That is the impression we got from the testimony during the pre-study and afterwards. People are very worried about this bill, which affects something very basic—citizenship and the minister's power to grant or revoke citizenship.

I think it is rather absurd and even shameful that the Conservatives decided to extend our evening debates in the House of Commons—which is something I am very comfortable with; I am pleased to be here tonight—but they do not show up, do not do their job and do not speak to their own bills. Since the Conservatives decided to extend our evening debates, they have missed 67 shifts. They have turned down 67 opportunities to speak, often on their own bills. That is an insult to people's intelligence. The Conservatives are flouting the rules of Parliament.

This bill is extremely serious because previously, a person's citizenship could be revoked only in cases where it could be demonstrated that fraud had occurred and the person had become a citizen through fraudulent means. Even though that was the only case where a person's citizenship could be revoked, the person could still appeal to the Federal Court so that his or her case could be heard properly. Today, that is no longer true. The government is lengthening the list of reasons why a person's citizenship can be revoked and, at the same time, concentrating a huge amount of arbitrary, discretionary power in the hands of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration alone. That is very risky and hangs a sword of Damocles over the heads of millions of individuals in our country.

I want to begin this speech by quoting some people who are somehow involved in the conversation about this bill and the type of status the government wants to give Canadian citizens.

A French writer, Amin Maalouf, had this to say, not about the bill specifically, but in general:

It is first up to your country to keep a certain number of commitments to you: that you be considered a full-fledged citizen and that you suffer no oppression, discrimination or undue hardship. Your country and its leaders have the obligation to make sure that is the case. If not, you own them nothing.

Here is another quote about the bill from Thomas Walkom, a columnist for the Toronto Star. He said:

The federal government’s new citizenship bill is a Trojan horse. It is presented as an attempt to reduce fraud and rationalize the process of becoming a Canadian citizen, both of which are sensible aims.

But it would also give [the] Prime Minister['s] Conservative government unprecedented authority to strip Canadians—including thousands born in this country—of their citizenship.

The more we read about the bill that is before us this evening, the more reasons we have to be concerned. It seems we are at a point where citizenship is like the prize in a box of Cracker Jack. Citizenship can be given or taken away on a whim or based on the minister's goodwill.

Last year, I had the opportunity to attend my first official citizenship ceremony in my riding, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. I must say that the people who were there were deeply moved and very pleased to officially become citizens. I cannot imagine having to explain to them that now a minister can choose to take that citizenship away from them, and this is actually part of the legislation, if they have dual citizenship, meaning that they are citizens of another country as well.

The minister is giving himself the power to take away their Canadian citizenship in a number of situations, simply because they already have another nationality or another official citizenship. We already heard the former immigration minister say that it was too bad that Canada has to fulfill its obligations under international treaties because the government cannot create statelessness. I get the feeling that if the Conservatives had the opportunity to do so and if it did not contravene the treaties that Canada has already signed, they would not hesitate.

Barbara Jackman of the Canadian Bar Association said this in April:

Taking away citizenship from someone born in Canada because they may have dual citizenship and have committed an offence proscribed by the act is new. That's a fundamental change. For people who are born here and who have grown up here, it can result in banishment or exile. It's a step backwards, a huge step backwards—and it's a huge step being taken without any real national debate or discussion about whether Canadians want their citizenship amended in that way...

That's a fundamentally different concept of citizenship that needs to be addressed. It needs to be discussed and debated. We think that it could raise serious human rights concerns. It does raise serious human rights concerns. It may well contravene the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled in the past that we can't exile Canadians. By redefining who a Canadian is, you achieve exile. That's not right. It's against the Charter.

We have good reason to be very worried about this government's apparent desire to resurrect a situation that, for all practical purposes, has not been seen since the Middle Ages: forcing one of its citizens into exile, kicking a citizen out of the country. If a person has another nationality—be it French, Algerian or Burmese—and if that is enough to strip him of Canadian citizenship, that is very serious because that means condemning him to exile and forcing him to leave the country, banishing him. I do not think that is what Canadians and Quebeckers want or are prepared to accept, particularly not in the overall scheme of this bill, which, as we will see, gives tremendous powers to the minister.

In May of this year, Dr. Patti Tamara Lenard, an assistant professor at the University of Ottawa's Graduate School of Public and International Affairs and an expert on the subject of ministerial discretionary power, which she was concerned about, had this to say:

Finally, the bill grants the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the discretion to revoke citizenship in too many cases. Currently, as written, the bill would give the minister discretion to revoke citizenship in cases of fraud, but there is no requirement—as there was in the previous bill, or as currently enacted now—for a court to evaluate if fraud in fact did occur. If the revocation provisions are kept, every such decision must be considered by, or appealable to, a court, even in cases where citizenship is revoked under suspicion of fraudulent applications. This is for at least two reasons. First, some forms of apparent misrepresentation are made for legitimate reasons—that is, to escape genuine and real harm. Second, judicial proceedings provide the only mechanism to protect against the otherwise inevitable suspicion that the minister is using fraud as a reason to revoke citizenship of people who are suspected of aiming to harm Canada where the proof doesn't exist.

Like many people, I am very concerned about the fact that we will kick people out and force them into exile. We will revoke the citizenship of those who should keep it. If someone commits a crime, there is a penal system for that. We must use that system to ensure that people pay for their crimes. There is nothing wrong with that.

I do not see why we have to do something as radical as revoke someone's citizenship, especially when these convictions could be handed down in foreign countries, including those for terrorism, which could give rise to concerns about the legitimacy of certain convictions. Just look at Burma, North Korea or Syria. I do not think we should rely on the justice systems of those countries to decide whether or not someone should keep their Canadian citizenship.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his speech.

My colleague knows what is happening, including this government's way of doing things. We see how it deals with bills. Bill after bill goes against the charter and the Constitution. We saw how the current government disregarded Quebec in the securities commission case. Then, the whole thing went to the Supreme Court. Again, taxpayers had to foot the bill. This bill is not the only example. We see this time after time.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on that and on the approach of this government, which disregards the law, the charter, and everyone's opinion.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his pertinent question.

As the English would say, there is a pattern with this majority Conservative government. It is my way or no way, or the bulldozer approach, and too bad if there are judges, laws or courts in the way. All this government wants to do is impose its vision and its views and too bad if scientists contradict it. The government tells itself that it will disregard them, muzzle them and that it will thus be able to act in a very high-handed way.

This bill is unprecedented in that it creates two classes of citizens in Canada. If someone only has single citizenship, such as Canadian citizenship, it cannot be taken away no matter the circumstances. However, if this person has dual citizenship, they do not have the same rights and they could lose their Canadian citizenship. It is unprecedented. I do not believe that the Supreme Court or Parliament will permit it.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite appears to oppose stripping citizenship from convicted terrorists. We are talking about terrorists.

I believe that the member is not aware of Bill C-24's revocation process. It would start only after a terrorist had been convicted. Once a terrorist was found guilty of terrorism, that person would have the right to appeal up to the Supreme Court of Canada about the conviction, if that person believed it was a false conviction.

I would like the member opposite to tell Canadians whether he believes that under any circumstances a convicted terrorist should have his or her citizenship revoked.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if a person is accused of committing terrorist acts, they must be tried and, if found guilty, they must be imprisoned in the interest of public safety. It is as simple as that. It has nothing to do with their citizenship.

One of the problems with this bill is that it does not distinguish between democratic countries that have a reliable justice system and authoritarian countries or dictatorships that will convict their political opponents of terrorism.

Can my colleague really tell Canadians whether the people opposed to the political regime in Syria are all terrorists?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand one aspect of the question from the member for Calgary Northeast. Does he realize that if we committed the same offence, he could be treated differently than I would be because of his background?

Would my colleague like to comment on that?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the intent behind the question, but I cannot answer for my colleague from Calgary Northeast.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Ask me.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot do that. I would like to take this opportunity to say that this bill does not fix some serious problems.

Wait times and processing times have doubled under the Conservatives. The average processing time of 31 months could skyrocket to six, seven or eight years. That is not a respectful or dignified way to treat people who want to become Canadian citizens.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-24 on citizenship and immigration.

It is no secret that I was born here to parents of Vietnamese origin. Immigration issues hit close to home and are often close to my heart.

This is not the first time that I have been disappointed in the government's actions, but I am particularly disappointed here. The government is not fixing the existing problem. There is a problem with wait times, and that is obvious. Since I was elected, one of the biggest files my constituency office has dealt with is immigration, whether we are talking about visas or citizenship applications.

I represent a very multicultural riding that works very well. My riding includes the city of Brossard, which is incredibly multicultural. On the weekend I watched a high school graduation ceremony. There were people from all over. It is extraordinary to see.

I would like to come back to the bill we are debating today, and I am going to start by talking about an aspect of the bill that is a bit more technical. My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who spoke before me, mentioned it. In our opinion, it is a very good example of how this government operates.

First of all, the government comes up with a bill that is unconstitutional and goes against the charter. That is not surprising coming from this government. I am talking more specifically about the fact that the government wants to be able to revoke citizenship in certain cases.

The government is giving the minister the power to revoke citizenship. Of course, we are talking about cases where the person in question has dual citizenship. The minister can revoke that individual's citizenship by saying that the person committed fraud or wrongdoing or that other situations warrant it.

The question is not whether the government can revoke citizenship or not, but the reasons for which it can do so. To be more specific, we are wondering how the government came up with the idea of revoking people's citizenship.

The fundamental problem is that the government is creating two classes of citizens: those who have dual citizenship and those who have only Canadian citizenship. For example, the government will not be able to revoke the citizenship of a person who does not have dual citizenship, but will be able to revoke the citizenship of someone who does.

In this case, what is worse is that the minister could say, based on a preponderance of evidence, that he is of the opinion that a person's citizenship should be revoked for such and such a reason. The problem is that there is no appeal process. There is no process whereby the courts can verify that decision at the federal level. The government is putting that power into the hands of the minister. This could lead to an excessive abuse of power. In fact, experts, lawyers and the Canadian Bar Association are opposed to this bill.

Earlier in the debate, the minister said that some people were opposed to this measure but that it was only a small group of lawyers. The minister dismissed the Canadian Bar Association out of hand. This clearly shows that the Conservatives believe that everyone who opposes their opinions is useless. The way the government treats the Supreme Court, among others, has become truly disgraceful.

I am going to come back to how this government operates, instead of solving a problem. There is the problem of the ever-growing wait times and the fact that the government decided to make cuts to immigration. Clearly, immigration is not a priority for this government.

I would like to remind all of my colleagues opposite, none of whom are likely to be listening, that Canada was created by immigration.

This is a personal issue for me because I am from an immigrant family. Thanks to family reunification, my family and I integrated well and now I am an MP. Family reunification is therefore very important to us. However, I heard comments from people on the other side of the House about how grandparents were a burden on society. There is a disconnect over there. They are losing sight of the human side of things. That scares me because this majority government does whatever it wants.

Even though we made recommendations and proposed amendments in committee, we do agree with some aspects of the bill. For example, we agree that some people, such as middlemen, are abusing the system and should be punished. However, in general, the Conservative government does not really want immigrants to feel welcome in Canada. It has made all kinds of promises about improving the system, but the truth is that it is bringing in temporary foreign workers. That is exactly why its management of this file has been criticized.

My family, my NDP colleagues and I all understand the importance of Canadian citizenship, and it is something that is quite obvious when we attend citizenship ceremonies. Having attended many of them, I know that the new citizens in my riding are very proud. However, the Conservatives prefer to give priority to temporary foreign workers, to the detriment of immigration and families who want to settle here and become part of society.

I would like to sincerely thank the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, our critic, and the hon. member for Saint-Lambert for their hard work on this. It shows how important we feel the human element is. The NDP is making this much effort perhaps because our caucus is made up of many nationalities and cultures, so we are very open-minded.

I know that some of my Conservative and Liberal colleagues understand because they also come from immigrant families. This is an important debate, yet those members are allowing the government to take this sort of action and push family reunification aside.

Processing times have nearly doubled. That is incredible. People are not advancing through the system. I have seen processing times increase with my own eyes since I was elected, and that was only three years ago. When we want to serve our constituents, we are sometimes faced with a system that is overloaded. The government is choosing not to find solutions or invest to integrate immigrants better and work with them better so that they settle here with their family and participate in Canada's economy as well.

When my parents came here, it really helped to have their family here, their brothers and sisters, who took care of us. It helped my parents find a job, get settled and move forward. I am disappointed that my Conservative colleagues are not on the right track.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I have found it a little unusual tonight, in terms of some of the comments that members of the NDP have been making throughout their speeches. On the one hand, we often hear from them how they do not have enough time to debate. We are giving them plenty of opportunity to put up speakers to put their views forward, yet they are complaining because we are not using some of our time. I think it is very bizarre that on the one hand they complain about not having enough time to debate, and then on the other hand are saying that they should not have to speak so often.

Having said that, we heard the member talk about his parents who came here, raised a family, and stayed here. They made a very strong commitment to this country, and it sounds like they took great pride in their decision to become Canadian citizens. Does the member not believe that four years provides the opportunity for a permanent resident to come here, to understand the country and make that very important decision? Is four years a good time in terms of making those important decisions about how they are going to spend their lives and where they want their citizenship to be?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour for asking a question.

There are two parts to her question. In response to the first part, I just wanted to explain that we want a debate. The fact that my colleague asked a question is a step in the right direction. We also want answers. Why do we not hear anything about the government's vision? That is what we call having a debate. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing today.

In response to the second part of the question, the thing that is important to me is really the way we deal with the system. The problems I mentioned are the fact that things are delayed, the government does not invest enough, and the wait times keep getting longer. All that slows down the system. As I was explaining to my colleague, citizenship is very important to me. People here are struggling to get it, but when I ask why the system takes so long and why there are no solutions, I unfortunately do not get the answers I want.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He reiterated, as other NDP speakers have, that we want a fair, efficient, transparent and accountable immigration system. Obviously, we completely reject the measures in Bill C-24, which will result in a restrictive immigration system based on arbitrary decisions made in secret.

Could my colleague comment on a quote from the president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Lorne Waldman? He said:

The US Supreme Court got it right over 50 years ago when it said that citizenship is not a licence that the government can revoke for misbehaviour. As Canadians, we make our citizenship feeble and fragile if we let government Ministers seize the power to extinguish it.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question that we can indeed debate. I am quite pleased, as the objective is to have another vision.

The question raised by my colleague from Saint-Lambert is very important. The bill creates two categories: citizens and citizens with dual citizenship. Citizenship can be removed and revoked for one category, but not for the other. Furthermore, this can undermine the significance of or the confidence that we might have in the system.

At present, we have a system in place that can arrive at solutions or penalties, when necessary, for people who contravene the rules and the law. With the current version of Bill C-24, the government wants to give the minister the power to actually grant or revoke citizenship in an almost haphazard way. That is very problematic. That is why lawyers have objected.

That is deplorable because the minister has simply dismissed the objections. This happens regularly with the Conservatives: they could not care less about the law or about anything coming from the Supreme Court. Then, we will have to deal with it. Who will end up paying? Taxpayers, and that is deplorable.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in this place to debate legislation, whether members on the other side have a contradictory view or not. That is a decision that those members will make, of course. They decided to have us stay here later because they wanted to debate legislation. However, I am more than happy to fill up the time.

Let me start by offering a few words of encouragement to my friends on the other side because there are a few decent things in Bill C-24.

Heaven knows, we have been asking the Conservatives, for years, to crack down on consultants who victimize residents living in our constituencies. Our constituents come to us, faced with the same dilemma they faced at the beginning of the process when they went to a consultant. Consultants charge individuals thousands of dollars to perhaps fill out a form, but they do not give them any decent advice. In some cases, the consultants steer them in the wrong direction after extracting a great deal of money from them. These people are quite frantic because they are trying to either reunify their family or they are trying to bring loved ones over here. Some of them are trying to expedite their own situation with respect to citizenship. They end up being faced with someone who literally takes the money from their bank accounts.

The government has probably done a decent thing here. We should crack down on illegal consultants because it is time that they be stopped. In my previous life, before I came to the House, I heard about basically the same thing happening with respect to Ontario's compensation system. Consultants would get folks, usually widows in a lot of cases, to sign over a form, giving them 15% to 20% of anything they wanted. They knew full well that the only thing they had to do was to have the individual sign the bottom of the form and send it off because a loved one had died of an occupational disease and they were entitled to some money. The consultants would take a big percentage from what the people received in compensation. Kudos to the government. Conservatives do not hear that from us too often, but I do think they would be doing a decent thing by cracking down on consultants.

My good friend Olivia Chow was a great advocate of cracking down on crooked consultants, who literally bleed immigrants of their financial resources, the limited financial resources that many of them have, in the hope that their family will arrive quickly.

This brings me to the question of why we do not bring their families over here sooner. I had the pleasure of being born somewhere else, but I also have the great pleasure of being a Canadian citizen. I am a dual citizen. People born here are Canadians by birth. Some Canadians, because one of their parents was born in another country, may have dual citizenship of which they are unaware. In some cases, this may work for them. For example, they can go back to where their parents came from and use that citizenship if they so choose. However, some individuals with dual citizenship do not do that. Some believe they are just Canadians.

If this legislation were to pass, citizens with dual citizenship could find themselves in a precarious situation, albeit the crime that is purported to be adjudicated in the bill is a heinous one, I agree. Many of my colleagues in the House are also like me. They were born elsewhere and became Canadian citizens, obviously, because one must be a Canadian citizen to be in this place. That is a requirement of the Parliament of Canada Act. We would not find too many more passionate Canadians than those of us who have acquired our citizenship after coming here from somewhere else.

Many constituents in my area are Slovak, Hungarian, and Italian. They are passionate Canadians. These individuals would be the first to condemn anyone who would dare to slight the Canadian flag or our armed forces or talk negatively about Canada. They are the first ones to defend Canada, long before natural born Canadians. Why is that? It is because they see the seriousness in it. They understand what it means to acquire Canadian citizenship, to work for it. They get that.

They also have a sense of fairness. They believe that one should be adjudicated fairly because many of them came from places where they were not.

The great disparity in my riding is that I am probably one of the few Scots who actually resides in that riding. When we have heritage week and I ask where the person is who will wear a kilt for the Scottish heritage, the executive director tells me that unless I put one on, there will not be one.

However, there will be Ukrainians, Slovaks, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles, and Italians, and many of them came at a time when they were oppressed. They are now older, of course. Their kids were born and raised here. In fact, their grandkids are being raised here now.

They are passionate Canadians. They understand when things are taken out of a stream that looks like it is not fair and put in a place where it is not fair, even if that place is going to be fair. “I will judge it fairly”, says the government. If my constituents who came from the other side of the wall at that time were asked, they would say “Oh, not so fast. That is what they used to say too”.

Now, I am not suggesting that the government is anything like the other side of the wall. That would be reprehensible. It would not true either.

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

You just did.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

No, not quite, Mr. Speaker.. What I said was that is why one has to make sure it is seen to be fair, and then there would not be a comparison. If it is deemed to be fair, then nobody will make the comparison.

The issue is when it is isolated, when it is put in the hands of a minister who says he is fair, but it is still in the hands of a person not a system. That is part of the problem, when it looks as if it may be in the hands of a person.

What else is good in the bill? The fact that it will expedite citizenship for those who are landed or in the armed forces is a good thing. If they are willing to serve Canada, to go abroad, to put their lives in harm's way, I think there should be a reward for that. Expedited citizenship would be fair.

Then I would ask, on the other side, what about those temporary foreign workers who have been here for 10, 12, 15 years or more? If we decide at some point to put them on a path to citizenship, should we not count the time that they have been here?

I know workers in my area. I come from Niagara where agricultural workers come in. I know employers who have had the same employees for 20-plus years. If we finally grant them the opportunity to work towards citizenship, which I believe they should get, and most of the industry in this country says they should get, whether it is the horticultural industry, the meat-packing facilities, they believe that is the direction it should go.

These workers should be allowed a path to citizenship. Why should we then restart the clock when they have been here for 20 years? They work for 10 or 11 months a year and go home for vacation. They do not work for four months anymore. In the old days, workers used to come to Niagara and pick fruit for four months and then leave. Those days are gone.

There are temporary foreign workers in the agricultural sector, which is really not a temporary foreign worker program but a foreign worker program. By and large, it is a 10-month job. They live for ten months in Canada and go home for two months, wherever home happens to be. It is perhaps Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, or Jamaica.

If the government decides in its wisdom, as I think it should, to start that group of folks on a pathway to citizenship, why does the clock have to reset? Why can we not simply say that they have been here for 10 years? We would still have to look at some time and there would be things to work out, and the other requirements would still hold. The language provisions would be there. In most cases, the workers speak one of the two official languages in this country, especially those who have been here for 10 or 20 or more years. We actually would not see any of that.

Clearly, there are opportunities here for some things that work, but there are some things that do not work. I am a passionate Canadian. My father used to call the family five-dollar Canadians. I always used to wonder why. One day, when I was a little older, I asked him why he called us five-dollar Canadians. He said it was because he paid $5 for our cards.

He did not mean that we were only worth $5 or that our citizenship was only worth $5. When we got our citizenship cards, in the 1970s, if we wished to get one with our picture on it, which was a great ID, it cost $5. That is all it cost to get that card. I still have it, albeit I look a little younger in that picture.

Ultimately, it is and always will be about being equal under the law, being equal not only under the law but equal amongst all Canadians. For folks like me who are dual citizens, we take this seriously. It is a personal piece. It is almost a personal affront. I know that was not the intention. It is about making sure that bad folks do not do bad things.

Unfortunately in life bad folks do bad things. That is why we have jails. We lock bad folks up for doing bad things. Why should we discriminate or decide to change the rules for one group versus another group? Why do we not just simply say bad folks are bad folks? If they deserve to go to jail for doing things that are criminal and heinous, we should send them to jail.

However, there is a process for that called “the rule of law”. I know the government always talks about law and order. Let us use the rule of law, in all cases, and apply it equally to all of us, so that for those of us who have dual citizenship, it ends up being what it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was a promising beginning for the member opposite. There was some praise for the bill. Then, as we suspected, he repeated the criticisms of some of his colleagues, that there should not be grounds for revoking citizenship for dual nationals when we would be unable to do that for those with only one citizenship. The member then went on to make a more serious point, which was that those tried for and convicted of acts of terrorism, espionage, or treason in our country might not actually have received due process.

I thought I heard the member say that in some countries of the old Eastern bloc these were political charges, politically inspired, ideologically applied in a court system that was never just and that in our country sometimes there had been this kind of miscarriage of justice for those very serious crimes.

Could the member cite one case where someone has been prosecuted for the crimes of terrorism, espionage or treason in our country and the conviction has been unjust, overturned or not accepted in the eyes of the Canadian people?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is right. I made somewhat of a convoluted statement. However, I was not suggesting that the court systems was wrong or that there was a miscarriage of justice in that they did not follow through with the proper procedure if people were charged with crimes of treason and did not get due process. They do.

Some of my constituents are suspicious when they hear that perhaps a minister of the crown will have the authority to do something. They feel this is not necessarily due process, that somehow this is a slippery slope.

With all fairness to the minister, I was not accusing the government. Those passionate Canadians are dual citizens. When we say to them that the rules will be changed and the minister could have a certain authority, they want to know what that means. There is always that sense around things about how one sees it versus the reality.

Yes, if people are charged with treason, they go to court., they are found guilty and they should go to jail. Quite frankly, the key should be thrown away.

In my book, you're quite right to send them to jail if they are guilty. Take the keys and I will hide them in the bottom of the Welland canal for you. How is that?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I remind all hon. members to direct their questions and comments to the Chair rather than directly at their colleagues.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague for his speech about citizenship. His speech was very passionate. He obtained his citizenship when he was younger. I am not saying that he is no longer young, but that is a debate for another day.

I would like to come back to the fact that we must have a fair and equitable process if we really want to move forward with revocation of citizenship. Considering the importance of Canadian citizenship to Canadians, it is important that people follow a fair and equitable process and that the decision is not made by only one person or as a result of rather secret processes, something that we find hard to swallow. In the case of this bill, why is it so important?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having an open and transparent system ensures that the rule of law is not only done but is seen to be done. That is why we have a transparent legal system and a court system. That is the essence of it. It cannot be about secret tribunals hidden behind a curtain somewhere. This leads to suspicion that perhaps it has been unfair, and I used the word “perhaps”.

The issue becomes how we ensure everyone is treated equally. Presently, people do not get their citizenship revoked. In the case of a heinous crime it should be revoked, and no one dismisses that fact, but this would allow it to happen to those who have dual citizenship.

For those of us who do hold dual citizenship, whether we choose it or not, sometimes we just end up with it. We do not get a choice to say no, but quite often cannot revoke it. It seems that those of us who have it would be treated under a separate standard than those who perhaps would not have it. However, as I said earlier, if people commit heinous crimes, they should be sent to jail if they are found guilty, full stop.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to this bill, which proposes significant amendments to the Citizenship Act and, as a result, to the lives of our immigrants.

I am particularly interested in this issue because there are many immigrants in my riding. There are also a lot of refugees, who also struggle to get citizenship, and I see that this bill will not make their lives earlier, even though they in no way deserve to be treated like this.

To provide some background, on February 6, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration introduced Bill C-24, which significantly amends Canadian immigration legislation.

The minister said that Bill C-24 represented the first comprehensive reforms to the Citizenship Act since 1977.

He went on to say:

[The bill] will 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.

I doubt it. I have had a chance to carefully study this bill and I do not see a single change that will make the process faster and more efficient. This remains to be seen, but there is nothing concrete there.

Since March 2008, about 25 major changes have been made to immigration procedures, rules, laws and regulations. More and more changes have been made since the Conservatives won a majority, including the moratorium on sponsoring parents and grandparents. There have also been fewer family reunifications, which is very problematic. There is no point in elaborating on this because the expression “family reunification” is self-explanatory. I believe that in life we need to be with our family.

There is also the punishment imposed on vulnerable refugees. Do these people really need to be punished for crimes they did not necessarily commit? I doubt it. Then, there was an increase in the number of temporary foreign workers to meet the needs of large businesses, at the expense of many Canadian workers.

The significant changes made by the Conservatives to the Canadian immigration system did not improve the system's efficiency or fairness. Absolutely not. Some changes to the Citizenship Act proposed in this bill are long overdue. They address some flaws in the existing system and they should be mentioned. When our opponents do good work, we recognize it. We are not stupid.

However, certain clauses are changing the rules. They are totally unacceptable and, in my opinion and in my colleagues' opinion, they must be condemned. Before explaining the provisions that we will support and those that we will not support, I want to describe the changes proposed in the bill.

The bill gives the minister some major new powers, including the power to grant or revoke citizenship. It does not provide any real solutions to reduce the ever-increasing number of delays and the citizenship application processing wait times. It eliminates the use of the length of stay in Canada during a non-permanent residency. It bars individuals who have been convicted of what would constitute an indictable offence in Canada from acquiring citizenship. It includes a clause on the intention to reside in Canada. It increases residency requirements from three years out of four to four years out of six, and it specifies the requirements on physical presence in Canada before obtaining citizenship. It includes tougher sentences for fraud. It extends the granting of citizenship to lost Canadians. It provides an accelerated process to citizenship for Canadian Armed Forces personnel. It applies stricter rules to fraudulent immigration consultants. Also, applicants aged 14 to 64—it used to be 18 to 54—will now have to pass a test assessing their knowledge of French or English.

As I said earlier, we nevertheless support some provisions of this legislation. Other aspects raise a lot of concerns and must be condemned, such as the fact that Bill C-24 concentrates many powers in the hands of the minister, including the power to grant or revoke citizenship in the case of persons with dual citizenship.

I have often told the House that I am always uncomfortable when we give discretionary powers to ministers, because they are human. We all agree that they are not gods. These are very serious issues that should be examined by a committee made up of several individuals. Such issues, including the fate of political refugees, should not be in the hands of a single individual. It is unacceptable. Under the bill, the minister or an authorized official can revoke the citizenship if he is persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that the person obtained citizenship by fraud.

Until now, these cases were usually referred to the courts. That will no longer be the case. However, these situations lend themselves to interpretation. A person suspected of fraud still has the right to a fair trial, like everyone else. In Canada, we are still innocent until proven guilty. That principle also applies to these individuals.

The minister may also revoke the citizenship of a person convicted under section 47 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment for treason, high treason or espionage; or the citizenship of a person sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment for a terrorism offence under section 2 of the Criminal Code, or an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence as defined in that section.

This provision does not in any way distinguish between convictions for terrorism in a democratic country such as Canada, with a credible and reliable justice system, and convictions in undemocratic regimes whose justice systems may be corrupted. We should look at this issue. I am going to give the minister the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he did not think about it, but I doubt it. Still, it would be pertinent to review these issues.

Bill C-24 also does not provide any real solutions to reduce the ever-increasing number of delays and the citizenship application processing wait times. I have said it many times, but it is important. Except for eliminating go-betweens and granting the minister a discretionary power, nothing is done to reduce processing times.

In other words, the quality of the processing is reduced. An application can be botched or it can be properly dealt with. A person could end up not being granted citizenship because the minister is not in a good mood. That is a little far-fetched. As I said earlier, I always feel uncomfortable when discretionary powers are given to ministers.

The declaration of intent to reside in the country also poses a slight problem. The bill introduces a requirement whereby a person to whom the minister grants citizenship must intend to reside in Canada after obtaining citizenship. The government maintains that this requirement is designed to send the message that citizenship is reserved for people who want to live in Canada. The law that is currently in effect does not include a provision on the intent to reside in the country.

The president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Lorne Waldman, said that this amendment gives public servants the power to speculate on a citizenship applicant's intentions and then refuse them citizenship based on that speculation.

I would like to briefly quote what he had to say. I find it very interesting. He said:

The provision also holds out the implicit threat that if a naturalized Canadian citizen takes up a job somewhere else (as many Canadians do), or leaves Canada to study abroad (as many Canadians do), the government may move to strip the person of citizenship because they misrepresented their intention to reside in Canada when they were granted citizenship.

That is rather problematic. In the end, people are basically trapped in the country. That is not really fair. People should be given the freedom to choose where they want to live. If they are not happy in Canada but they want to keep their citizenship, they should be able to study or work abroad and have that experience. I do not see what the problem is with that, and I do not understand why the government would prevent people from having that sort of experience.

In closing, I will quote section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Every individual...has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

She mentioned a provision of Bill C-24 that concerns the declaration of intent to reside in Canada. It is quite obvious that this provision will be challenged in court. This was mentioned by one of the witnesses, who belongs to the Canadian Bar Association, because this provision is contrary to the free movement of people, which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What can our colleague tell us about potential court challenges?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question.

As I mentioned in my speech, I find it very problematic that the government is depriving future citizens of experiences abroad that could be extremely interesting. That is something that could be challenged under the charter and that, in the end, could be unconstitutional.

I would like to say to the government that this is not the first time that their bills have ended up before the courts and have failed. That will be the case with the bill before us. The government should do its homework and try to introduce bills that adhere to our constitution and do not violate human rights. That would really be something.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member opposite is simple. Bill C-24 would actually allow for a lot of flexibility for people to be able to move around if they need to leave the country. They would need to have been in Canada for four of the last six years, in accordance with provisions in the bill. That would allow for up to two years for someone to be flexible and move around.

It is not the government that wants the intent to reside to be a key element in the bill; it is Canadians who are telling us to put it in there. Canadians have worked all of their lives, as have those who are naturalized and work hard here in Canada to contribute to our nation. We think that it is only reasonable to expect people who want to have the benefits of Canadian citizenship to have the intention to reside in this country.

That is what citizenship is. It is someone who wants to live in the country and be a part of Canadian society. They have the intent to live here and actually be present in this country. I do not understand why the member feels it is asking a little bit too much of people who aspire to get Canadian citizenship to abide by what Canadians themselves are doing by being citizens.

The member is a Canadian. Does she not feel that it is important for those people who have the same benefits and rights that she has in this country to live in this country or intend to live in this country before they get the privilege, not the right, of Canadian citizenship?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally disagree with my colleague. In fact, I was born in Canada. I am not an immigrant, however I know many immigrants and political refugees. There are a number of communities in my riding, and I do not see why we would deprive those people of some great school or work experiences by forcing them to remain in Canada if they become Canadian citizens. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

I do not see why that is so important. I do not understand that and I find it somewhat stupid.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-24, particularly in light of the fact that later this week, on Friday, I will be at a citizenship ceremony in Thunder Bay. I try to get to as many as I can. I have not been to all of them, of course, but I will be there.

A citizenship ceremony is a wondrous thing. It is filled with people who have worked long and hard and who have spent a lot of time, and in many cases a lot of money, to get to where they are at that citizenship ceremony. One thing that really stands out above all at a citizenship ceremony, as I know my colleagues will agree, is that it is clear from looking at the faces of these new Canadians that Canadian citizenship is something of enormous value. For everyone who is becoming a new Canadian on Friday, with their families, friends, and relatives in attendance, Canadian citizenship is really something that is an apex for many people in their lives at this point.

Unfortunately, with Bill C-24 and with many other things the government does, we see an approach that plays politics with the issue. We have seen that a lot with the government. I would like to take my time today to speak about the good—because there is some good that I can certainly agree with—the bad, and in some cases, the ugly in the bill. I will try to use my time wisely.

First, as a little background, we were hoping that the minister would commit to working with the NDP to bring real improvements to our citizenship laws. Instead, he opted to go on with a bill that in many cases is likely to be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Conservatives on the committee rejected every one of our proposed amendments to the bill, amendments that perhaps could have made it good and good, instead of good and bad.

Canadians expect us to collaborate in this place and come up with absolutely the best bills possible for the benefit of all Canadians. However, since the 2011 election we have not seen that. We have not seen the collaboration that Canadians expect in this place.

Now, here is a bill that will likely be passed. It is a majority government. The Conservatives were not willing to listen to any amendments. On top of everything else, they do not care if it is challenged in the courts. They just want to go right ahead and do it and let someone else worry about it. That is not what Canadians expect us to do in this place.

Let me speak about some of the provisions that I just cannot agree with and some that I can. Let me start with the ones that I cannot.

Bill C-24 gives the minister many new powers, including the authority to grant or revoke citizenship of dual citizens. It should not be the job of the minister of citizenship and immigration to make these kinds of judgments. Before it was done by Governor in Council, by cabinet. It was done by a larger group of people. At one time, up until now, a judge would be involved. The judge would have to make some details known and make a determination of some kind. However, this government has a very strong tendency to develop legislation that concentrates more powers into the hands of ministers.

Needless to say, we condemn this practice. We do not trust the Conservatives, and by giving a minister new powers, we open the door to arbitrary and politically motivated decisions. The very idea of giving the minister, by himself, the power to revoke citizenship raises serious concerns, and it is on this principle that we can talk about this issue.

Another problem with revoking the Canadian citizenship of dual citizens is that it would create two-tier citizenship, where some Canadians could have their citizenship revoked while others would be punished by the criminal justice system for the same offence.

Let me talk about how the minister, under the provisions of the bill, could revoke citizenship. If he or any staffer he authorizes is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that a person has obtained citizenship by fraud, until now such cases have all typically gone through the courts and cabinet, but that will not be the case anymore.

A person could be convicted under section 47 of the Criminal Code, and these are serious offences, such as treason, high treason, or spying, or of an offence outside Canada that if committed in Canada would constitute a terrorism offence, for example, as defined in that section, or sentenced to five years imprisonment.

We cannot rely on justice systems outside of this country. We have a justice system in Canada that we believe is fair, honest, and decent, but frankly, some countries in the world do not have the same kind of justice system we have. To base the revocation of citizenship on something that may have happened in another country, and I will go into more detail about that later, does not make any sense at all.

The minister would have the authority under the bill to grant citizenship. At present, and I think I mentioned this before, it rests with the Governor in Council, which is the cabinet. Bill C-24 would transfer this power directly to the minister. This measure was introduced by the minister as a means of improving services for applicants by simplifying and speeding up the process. Specifically, the measure raises concerns, because the minister has indicated that the list of persons to whom he would grant citizenship would not be disclosed. Once again, we see the government's lack of transparency, and that should raise red flags. It certainly does with us, and it certainly does with the third party, and it should with all Canadians.

Bill C-24 provides no real solution to reducing the growing backlog and citizenship application processing delays. There has been some money allotted in the last two budgets to help speed up the process, but the fact remains that there are 320,000 applications still waiting to be dealt with.

Let me go back very quickly to Friday when I will be at the citizenship ceremony. The people who are becoming new Canadians this Friday in Thunder Bay are very fortunate and very, very lucky, because 320,000 people are still waiting to have their applications dealt with.

I do not want to belabour this point, because some other speakers have talked about it, but it is about the declaration of the intent to reside. The bill would introduce a requirement that if granted citizenship, a person would intend to continue to reside in Canada. I do not know what the government would do if a person became a Canadian citizen and then received a job overseas and was gone for two years working in another country and was not actually resident here in Canada. It is not addressed in the bill, and it is going to be a problem.

The bill would prohibit the granting of citizenship to persons who have been charged outside of Canada with an offence that if committed in Canada would constitute an indictable offence. Again, we would have the minister, who would be the sole arbiter now, if the bill were passed, of who could stay in Canada and who could not stay in Canada, which would depend partly on the justice systems of other countries. In other words, a person convicted of practising homosexuality in another country, and we know that there are many countries where this is illegal, would be prohibited from becoming a citizen of Canada. That just does not make any sense.

I see I have three minutes left, so I will try to be very quick here. There are some provisions we can support.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The member has about 10 seconds left, if he would like to wrap up.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will forgo some of the things we do like. I know I have a question or two from the other side. I would just ask the other side if someone is going to stand and explain to us how it is that his or her government feels that it is acceptable to bypass judicial due process in revoking citizenship. I would like someone to explain that to me.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to allow the member to continue and conclude all of that important speech.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

There does appear to be unanimous consent but not for the position the member is putting forward.

This is not a point of order. If the hon. member is making a legitimate point of order, it will be heard.

I appreciate that it is getting well into the evening, but at this point we will have questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech and congratulate him in advance for attending the citizenship ceremony in his riding this Friday. It is an emotional time for a lot of people, and it is certainly rewarding for us to see the bestowing of citizenship on new Canadians. I wish him the very best of luck with that experience on Friday.

Unfortunately, the member's speech was fraught with a lot of inaccuracies, one of which was the fact that the minister will be the ultimate decision-maker. If the member has a good read of the bill, he will see that there is provision in the bill for an appeal to the Federal Court. Of course, the Federal Court is not controlled, managed, or influenced by the minister.

My question for the member opposite, who I happen to have a lot of respect for, is simply this. He mentioned the possibility of someone convicted of an act of homosexuality in another country being able to lose their citizenship in Canada. Does he not realize that the bill speaks to an equivalent crime, something that would be a crime in Canada as well, before he or she would lose his or her citizenship? The example he stated is absolutely false and would not happen.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Before I go back to the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, I would like to remind all hon. members in this place that the Chair gives the members signals when their time needs to be wrapped up and would appreciate the co-operation of all hon. members, even at this late hour.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for wanting to take a little more time, but there is a lot to say about this bill.

The preface to the member's question was interesting. He is a member I have a lot of respect for. We work together and have had a number of chats. Why would the Conservatives introduce a bill that they know would be challenged? There is a provision to go to the appeal court and so forth. Why even introduce a bill that they know would be challenged in court? One of the things I mentioned is that there is a real possibility that this would be found unconstitutional and would go to higher courts to be appealed. It just does not make any sense.

I used that example in the question my friend had. However, there are situations in other countries where something could be considered aggravated assault but really was not. Perhaps that person was living in a country where he had to defend himself. There are so many instances, it just does not make any sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier today in debates we heard the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration say that he did not understand why members of the opposition parties were not prepared to accept the advice of the Department of Justice lawyers and were instead relying on advice from numerous jurists as well as the Canadian Bar Association.

The difficulty I have, as a former practising lawyer and a member of the Canadian Bar Association, is that I have not seen the advice from the Department of Justice. I do not know that the advice from the Department of Justice has not included that which any lawyer, I believe, familiar with the charter, would raise as a concern. The bill violates the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Does the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River think we can press the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Justice to have presented to this chamber the so-called advice from the Department of Justice?

Over and over, these bills passed by the Conservative majority are being defeated in the Supreme Court of Canada. I want to know what the advice is from the Department of Justice.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not being transparent in the bill, as with just about every other bill the Conservative government puts forward, is a hallmark, a trademark, of the current government. Even in the situation where the minister grants automatic citizenship, he does not have to provide a list. He does not have to name who these people are. He does not have to provide that kind of information.

There were 29 individuals who spoke on Bill C-24 in committee, and the vast majority, to varying degrees, were opposed to the bill. It has all kinds of problems.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. I will say a couple of things at the outset.

First, with regard to the question that was just asked, that point is worth underscoring. Traditionally, laws are passed here in good faith. There is a requirement to check to make sure that they are constitutional. If advice is given that they are constitutional, then they proceed. In the rarest of cases, there are occasions when a law is challenged in the courts, all the way to the Supreme Court. It would be big news if the Supreme Court ruled against a piece of government legislation not only because it was a big deal but mostly because it happened rarely.

Now we seem to have a system where the government really does not care about the appropriateness of a bill. I believe this is true. It does not care about whether it is building the right kind of legal infrastructure that a modern democracy like Canada should have. It does its polling, focus groups, decides what the hot button issues are, and how it can turn those into some policies that it can make into laws. If it happens to be unconstitutional, so what, and besides, it will go to the Supreme Court and it will fix it, for anybody in the cabinet who has that kind of a conscientious moment.

[An hon. member]

They are smoking something over here.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I thought I had the floor, Mr. Speaker, but it seems that maybe somebody else actually has the floor over here, or at least they should heckle louder so I can hear them.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Nobody heckles louder than you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's true, Mr. Speaker. The government House leader just responded to me and said, “Nobody heckles louder than you”, and he is right. I give him that. It is the first time I have agreed with the government House leader in I cannot remember how many months. However, that is not the point.

The point is that the government sends these things to the Supreme Court. In this case, it is also hoping that it will take longer than the next election cycle so that it does not become a nuisance during any kind of election campaign. What is really interesting and is the great big question here is how the government believes that it can be consistent when it recognizes that the Supreme Court has the right to pass judgment on these laws and yet when it does, oftentimes what we hear from the government and other right wingers is, “We have an activist court again. There are the courts going beyond their mandate, there they are making laws rather than interpreting them.”

We mostly hear that in the U.S., but we hear an echo of it here in the chamber when it suits the government's purposes. It needs to be said that this is another case. There are serious issues, politics aside. I am not a lawyer, but those who are and who have a reputation that they care about when they speak publicly are saying that this has some real constitutional questions. I am underscoring from the get-go that is not unusual with the current government. It really does not care about that part of the process at all. In fact, we know how it feels about any entity that presumes to have more power than it does, or more authority. Look at what happened to the chief justice of the Supreme Court recently because the Prime Minister got into a bit of a snit over a recent decision by the Supreme Court.

For the rest of us in Canada, all we can say is thank God the court is there and thank God that so far it still is the body that Canadians have come to rely on to be their absolute final line of defence in terms of defending their rights in this country. However, make no mistake, if it had the opportunity in any way to change that and bring the Supreme Court under its thumb, where it wants everybody and everything else in Canada to be, it would do it in a blink.

I do not know how much it has been talked about, but the fact that this is retroactive is always worrisome. Also, that is a rarity. It is certainly not the regular course of events where legislation is made retroactive, and yet this one is.

The question mark at least has to be raised, what cases have the Conservatives got in mind that are not currently out there, where individuals may not even know they have a problem, but there is trouble coming. We do not know, and what is more worrisome is that some of the new powers the minister has, he or she does not have to divulge to the public. It is not necessary put in as secrets with CSIS, but the Conservatives certainly are not going out of their way in any way, shape, or form to publicize, be transparent about, and account for the power they are giving themselves.

This is all so very troublesome. Having been around here enough, when we start seeing retroactive, people who thought their legal matters were over and done with should be paying a little extra attention. The feds could be coming when individuals thought they were already through whatever system they were involved in.

I have to say that I am rather shocked, and we say this about every wrong thing the government does, but I really am shocked that there is not a greater outrage. I have heard colleagues talk about how much they enjoy speaking at the citizenship ceremonies, and I do too. They are one of the best events that we could attend, because at that very moment, happening right in front of us, ordinary people of the planet suddenly, in a blink, become Canadian citizens. Anybody who has ever attended knows the magical moment when these individuals go from being non-Canadian to Canadian.

I am sure I am not the only one who says, during all those speeches when we are given a chance to say how proud we are of our new citizens, “welcome to the family of Canadians”. They are in, they have made it, they are Canadians, and unless they have fraudulently made their way there, and there are processes and procedures as there should be to go after people who fraudulently make themselves Canadian citizens, it is fair game.

When we start going beyond that, we say to people, “You are a Canadian, mostly. You have this big bag of rights over here and the charter, but one minor little technicality, a little catch in terms of your citizenship versus my citizenship, and that is, yours can be taken away.”

This is Canada. The rest of that story does not matter. If they have done something absolutely horrible to humanity, we have laws to deal with that just the same as if it were one of us who were born here. That is the whole idea of citizenship: we are equal. We do not stand before a judge and say, “Madam Justice, I have to admit to being a dual citizen, so you have to bring out the other book of rules for Canadians, because I am not in that first tier of Canadians. I am in the second tier, the one where you can take away my citizenship”.

This is so wrong. It is so un-Canadian, and I have not even gotten to all the stuff about what the minister can and cannot do without having to be transparent. I have touched on it, but it is, I cannot think of a better word, ugly. It is ugly in terms of what it does.

I agree with my colleague, there is so much to be said about this, but of course, we will respect the rules. However, I have to say this is wrong. In my opinion it is un-Canadian. That is not what it means to be a Canadian citizen with a string attached, where we can pull the string back whenever we want if we do not like an individual's actions.

No, that is not right. We stand before the court and before our justice system as equals where nothing is supposed to taint the decision, nothing.

Yet in this case, we would have a law where people can be punished by having their citizenship taken away, but it could not be done to someone who was born here. It is wrong, it is un-Canadian, and we can only hope that, since the government will pass this, our precious Supreme Court of Canada does step in and deem that this is outside the Constitution and that this would not become the law, but if it does we will get a new government—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech, which was passionate as usual. This time, he spoke about Canadian citizenship, a subject that all of us are even more passionate about. He clearly explained how the system would create two classes of citizens that do not have equal standing. I do not think that I have to ask him a question that deals specifically with that issue because he already talked a lot about it.

My question deals with the false measures that the government put in this bill to deal with the wait times that have been getting longer and longer over the past decade. It now takes 31 months for an application to be processed. The government says that it wants to address the wait times, but those wait times have more than doubled since this government came to power.

Does my colleague think that it is important to worry about wait times, given how important Canadian citizenship is to all residents here in Canada? Why do we need to continue to reduce wait times, rather than continue to extend them, as this government is doing?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who, of course, is the youngest person ever elected to this place, an historic figure, very cool.

When I listened to the question, I immediately started to think about a detailed answer, but it struck me that back in the bad old days of the Mike Harris government in Ontario, the education minister was actually recorded saying that the government was looking to create a crisis in the education system so it could fix it. Create a crisis that does not exist, tell everybody, “Look at this mess, it is falling apart”, much like the length of time they are talking about, saying “Oh look how awful this is, and we are going to solve it. We will step in.”

Then the solutions they provided were much worse than the circumstance and even worse than the crisis they had generated. However, that is how they did it. They created a crisis and told everybody, “See, it is not working. We have to fix it.” They call the horrible thing they do “the fix”. That is an easy storyline to follow and it is very difficult to counter that, to get people to focus long enough to understand that they have artificially created this problem and it gives them the opportunity to say, “Here is the solution”, which of course is something they could not have done if they did not have the crisis in front of them.

It is not surprising that a number of the front-line cabinet ministers are from the Mike Harris government. It is not surprising that the former chief of staff to the Prime Minister used to be the chief of staff to Mike Harris.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I too listened to that passionate speech from the member opposite, and I was quite surprised at a couple of his comments, particularly that it seems to be a continuation of the NDP attack on this bill to keep saying “two tiers of citizenship”, as if there are two tiers of citizenship somewhere inherent in this bill. What the member is referring to is those people who are dual nationals and have a benefit of being a citizen of another country as well, and that Canadians who do not have the dual nationality do not have those benefits.

However, I want to bring something to the member's attention. I am going to point him to the oath that people take when they come here from another country and they lawfully go through the process and finally get to the citizenship ceremony, and then here is what they say, “I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.”

Does the member not think that if individuals perpetrate an act of terror or treason against Canadians and Canada that it is in direct violation of the oath that they took when they came to this country and said, “I want to choose Canada as my country; I am making this oath but I am going to be unfaithful and untruthful because after I make this oath I am going to perpetrate treason and I am going to do terror against my country, Canada”, those people should lose their Canadian citizenship? That—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the member there. There are only about 25 or 30 seconds for the member for Hamilton Centre to respond.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you know what a challenge that is in that short period of time, so between us we will do our best, and you will win.

I want to respond by taking on the member directly and saying that it is two-tiered citizenship. That is what my whole speech was about. When we have those ceremonies, we welcome people to the family and tell them that they are Canadian. Now, if they violate any law, like anybody else they will be held to account, and if the crimes are serious enough, they are probably going to do some time. That is the same for everybody.

However, one thing that does not happen to a Canadian citizen who is born here is that their citizenship is threatened. This takes that principle and shreds it. That is wrong. It is not Canadian. It is not the way we do things. It needs to be changed back.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought there was a law that said that the hon. member for Hamilton Centre always has to speak last. With all the energy he has, there is a different atmosphere in the House after he speaks. I would like to recognize the excellent work that he does and the excellent speech that he gave just before me.

Today, I am rising to speak to Bill C-24, which was introduced at first reading on February 6. According to the minister, this bill is very important, but it was all but forgotten after February 27. The media spoke about it a little bit, but it was not debated again until May 29. The government did not put this bill back on the House's agenda for many months.

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

This approach will have a negative impact on experts and people in general. It will prevent them from having an opportunity to study the bill, testify before the committee and contribute to the study of this bill. Many people have talked to me about this in my riding. They wanted to know how they could contribute to the study of Bill C-24 with their analysis and their expertise. Unfortunately, we have had to tell them that it is already too late. The usual procedures went out the window. Experts and individuals were not able to contribute because the government rushed the committee's work and because we were not allowed to have a normal debate in the House.

The NDP wanted to call more witnesses but our requests were denied. The NDP put forward a number of amendments in committee. The Conservative committee members rejected our amendments. Then debate resumed in the House. A week later, it was report stage. The Conservatives rushed the committee's clause-by-clause study. Because a reasonable study was not done, we have before us today a poorly written, botched bill.

The NDP wanted to remove several clauses or at least study them in depth. Many experts and individuals are concerned about these clauses. The government rejected all of the amendments proposed by the experts who appeared and by the opposition.

One of the problematic measures is that Bill C-24 places a lot of power in the minister's hands. This is an unfortunate trend we have seen across many different bills. One of these powers is the power to grant citizenship to dual nationals or revoke it from them.

The government has a marked tendency to create laws that concentrate power in ministers' hands, which is something the NDP does not support. We cannot and will not trust it, and by giving a minister new powers, we are exposing ourselves to the possibility that the minister could make arbitrary, politically motivated decisions. It will be sad if that is how things turn out. That is what is happening in other countries, and it is bad for democracy. I truly hope it will not come to that.

The very idea of giving the minister the power to revoke citizenship raises serious questions. Canadian law already includes mechanisms to punish people who commit illegal acts, so why would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration need to make that type of decision? The minister could revoke citizenship when he, or one of his authorized employees “is satisfied on a balance of probabilities” that the person has fraudulently obtained citizenship.

Until now, these issues were generally sent before the courts and cabinet. This element poses serious problems in that the minister would have the power to revoke citizenship based on suspicion, without an independent court ruling on whether or not the accusations are true.

In the United States, the government may file a civil suit to revoke an individual's citizenship if it was obtained illegally, if the individual concealed information that was relevant to eligibility for citizenship or if the individual made false statements. In that situation, the individual in question has the legal right to refer the matter to the courts. Every ruling can be appealed, and the individual is guaranteed due process. However, here the government wants the minister to have the right to veto.

The minister could revoke the citizenship of someone who was convicted under section 47 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for treason, high treason or espionage; or someone who was convicted of a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code—or an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence as defined in that section—and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment.

The problem is that this measure makes absolutely no distinction between a terrorism conviction handed down in a democratic country with a credible and reliable justice system and a conviction in an undemocratic regime where the justice system could very well be corrupt or beholden to political interests. This revocation process can be used without the Federal Court ever seeing the file. In addition, the measure is retroactive.

What is more, candidates between the ages of 14 and 64, instead of 18 and 54, will now have to pass the test that determines their knowledge of French or English. A 14-year-old child belongs with his parents. Denying him citizenship on the grounds that he still has not mastered either official language is questionable. In this case, family reunification is paramount and that child is young enough that he has enough time ahead of him to learn one language or even both. Again, a 14-year-old child belongs with his parents.

Last but not least, this bill could be subject to constitutional challenges. The use of revocation of citizenship as a legal consequence for dual citizens could, in some circumstances, be inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Revoking the citizenship of those found guilty of treason and terrorism by a Canadian or foreign court could be perceived as a punitive measure imposed in addition to other criminal sentences.

Among other problems, treating people with dual citizenship differently by exposing them to the possible loss of their citizenship creates a double standard and raises major constitutional questions, particularly under section 15 of the charter. This section states that everyone has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Section 11 of the charter could also be invoked in cases of revocation of citizenship, when the legislation is not about revocation for fraud, but rather imposes a punishment after the fact. If the revocation is perceived by the courts as an additional punishment for crimes, then it is even more likely that the accused will point to the key elements of section 11, including the presumption of innocence and the right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal, which are fundamental rights in our country.

Increasing the government's powers to revoke citizenship causes not only moral problems, but also constitutional problems, which might occur because of this bill.

The government is doing away with the process of passing a bill in the House at first reading, at second reading, in committee and at third reading.

Then it moves a time allocation motion to limit our debate in the House. That shows utter contempt for our parliamentary institutions. We have a duty to make excellent laws for our constituents, and I think this Conservative government should keep that in mind.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and I hoped I would hear something new, but it was once again a regurgitated, repetitive speech highlighting the very same things we heard many times from NDP members in the debate on this bill.

It is unfair when members of the NDP talk about the witnesses who appeared before committee. It is unfair when they suggest that they proposed amendments and we did listen. This is why it is unfair.

Prior to the bill even being studied at citizenship and immigration committee, prior to listening to a single witness, the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, the NDP critic for citizenship and immigration, stood in the House and put forward a motion that the bill not be heard a second time. That was even before we heard from any of the witnesses, who today those members have been highlighting as experts. The Canadian Bar Association, which the NDP considers independent, former directors of the bar association and individual lawyers who are members of the bar association do not, in our opinion, constitute an independent view of the bill.

Amendments were proposed but they did not make sense. One amendment that did not make sense was the requirement for a 15 to 17 year old, after having spent four of the last six years in the country, to speak an elementary level of one of Canada's two official languages, English or French. Would the member not agree that this is an obvious ask of Canadians, that people learn one of the two official languages?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we would not separate a 14-year-old kid from his parents. That is basic. That is our position and I do not understand why that would not be the position of the Canadian government.

Unfortunately, this evening no Conservative members are rising to speak and answer questions. I have heard some twisted analyses in questions to us. It would be good to hear a Conservative speak to this Conservative bill so that we could ask questions and get some answers.

I think that Canadians across the country are watching us and would like some answers to their questions. As the official opposition, we are doing our job and would like some answers to our questions and an opportunity to contribute to this parliamentary system.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on my colleague's answer. I was astounded to hear our Conservative colleague say that he was tired of hearing NDP members repeat the same things in this debate, when we hear nothing from them.

They are silent on their own bill. This evening they have missed 18 chances to speak. They decided to extend our sitting hours until midnight. We are happy to work and debate. That is no problem. However, they are not showing up to do their job.

I would like to know what my NDP colleague thinks about that.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is what is difficult about all this. It takes two to tango. It is a partnership. Therefore, in order for the system to work, people have to engage in debate, ask questions and so forth. We currently have a stakeholder who refuses to use our parliamentary system and our Canadian Parliament. Therefore, the system is already lopsided.

That is unfortunate because, in the end, Canadians lose out. We have less debate and fewer studies. At the national level, in the media, Canadians see less happening on Parliament Hill, in Ottawa, because the government currently does not want to be part of our system that helps make our country a better place by introducing bills that advance our communities. That is unfortunate. The Conservatives must stand up. If they do not, one of the partners—the government—is missing from the parliamentary system.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-24. As the member for the beautiful city of Sherbrooke, it is truly an honour to speak to this bill. In fact, most of Sherbrooke's residents will be interested in this bill.

Sherbrooke is one of the most important immigration hubs in Quebec. Every year, we welcome hundreds of new immigrants. As an MP, I am proud to welcome them. They sometimes get a lot of help in my riding office, which is located at 100 rue Belvédère Sud in Sherbrooke.

I invite all Sherbrooke citizens, if they are interested or need help, to contact my office anytime during our office hours. One of the things we work on the most is helping new immigrants with the citizenship or permanent resident process.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Nancy and Martine, my two assistants who work hard on citizenship cases. They are often assisted by interns. Previously, we had Roxanne, Samuel, Christophe, Véronique and Joannie helping us out. At present, Aline is helping new immigrants with the citizenship process.

The reason I am thanking all these people is that citizenship issues are something my office deals with the most. One of the things I take the most pride in as the member for Sherbrooke is helping newcomers navigate a process that can be quite murky, very difficult, filled with roadblocks and quite time-consuming.

We all know processing times for citizenship applications have increased a great deal in the last few years. They have in fact more than doubled in the past decade and have now reached 31 months. Applications for permanent residence take even longer to process. This can be very stressful for newcomers. It can lead to very difficult situations, on a personal and professional level. Newcomers who have been waiting for months can start wondering if there is a problem with their file. They see no end in sight.

That is why I am delighted to speak to a bill that directly and fundamentally affects the citizenship process as a whole in Canada.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of the Service d'aide aux Néo-Canadiens, a well-known institution in Sherbrooke. It offers support to newcomers to the city. Mr. Marceau is the organization's president, and its director is Ms. Orellana, whom I know quite well. I would like to commend them on the help they give newcomers, who sometimes come here as refugees from countries fraught with economic and political difficulties. These people have a hard time learning the fundamentals that may seem obvious to long-standing Canadians. Africans sometimes arrive here in the middle of winter. Some of them have never known winter and are completely disoriented when they arrive in Sherbrooke. The Service d'aide aux Néo-Canadiens is a remarkable institution that helps newcomers every single day.

That brings me to the content of Bill C-24, which proposes substantial amendments to the Citizenship Act and others.

One of the things that stood out as I read the bill is the establishment of a two-tier citizenship system.

I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration smiles when I talk about a two-tier system. He does not seem to believe me.

I think this bill creates an imbalance when it comes to citizenship, whether a person is born in Canada or in another country, or whether his citizenship was obtained later on by taking an oath before a judge, swearing allegiance to Canada and Queen. There is now an imbalance. Beforehand, all Canadian citizens were on the same level, whether they had obtained their citizenship at birth in Canada, or later on under different circumstances.

This bill affects, among others, people with dual citizenship who have been convicted of heinous crimes. I am not saying these crimes are not horrific. They are, and the individuals must be punished to the full extent of the law.

However, as a Canadian citizen holding only one citizenship, I will first face justice, and a judge or a jury will find me guilty or not guilty, based on the evidence adduced. I will then have to serve my sentence and I may end up spending the rest of my life in jail. That is the likely scenario for a person born in Canada.

A Canadian who obtained his citizenship later on in life and who holds dual citizenship will go through the same process and may end up being convicted by a judge. However, his sentence will be harsher than mine, because he may be stripped of his citizenship. I cannot be stripped of mine because I only have one. Under international treaties, I cannot be made a stateless citizen.

I thought this Canadian and I were equal, but he could be stripped of his Canadian citizenship, in addition to having to serve his prison sentence. This is like a double sentence, simply because he is not an ordinary Canadian citizen with only one citizenship. I am sure the hon. member will ask me a question on this issue.

I think Bill C-24 creates an imbalance in the existing system, and that is only one of the problems. That is also the main concern raised by the majority of those who spoke on this legislation.

If the bill is passed, revoking citizenship will be done more secretly and more easily than before, because we are giving this power to the minister or his agent. While it is possible to appeal such decisions, this is a fundamental change in revoking citizenship, sometimes for nebulous reasons. There is also the provision on the intent to reside in Canada, which gives the minister or his agent more power to judge the case of a particular individual who could be stripped of his citizenship, or who could be denied Canadian citizenship.

A number of concerns have been raised. In my opinion, as in many experts' opinion, the bill may be challenged in court. For the umpteenth time, the government will see one of its legislative measures being challenged in court, which is becoming almost a tradition with Conservative bills. The Conservatives do not seem to follow the usual process of asking the Justice minister to ascertain whether a bill is constitutional.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and, of course, I take exception, because here, once again, another NDP member stands to give us a speech very similar to the previous one we heard, speaking about the issue of dual citizenship. The difference in the example he gave about himself personally being born in Canada and having only a Canadian citizenship and the person with dual citizenship is that the person with the dual citizenship, as the member ought to know, also has dual benefits in that other country. However, that person would not have acquired Canadian citizenship had he or she not stood and sworn or affirmed that he or she would faithfully observe the laws of Canada.

I submit to the hon. member that if people perform an act of treason or terror against a country, they are not fulfilling that very pledge that they made on the day they made the commitment to become a Canadian citizen. It is their responsibility to abide by that commitment that they made.

The member spoke about wait times to obtain Canadian citizenship being upwards of 30 or 31 months. I do not disagree with him on that.

The bill, however, would provide for the process to go from a three-step process to a one-step process, which would give more decision-making authority to senior officials who are familiar with files to process citizenship and would reduce that backlog from 30-31 months to under a year.

Would the member agree that this would benefit him and his constituents?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to my colleague's second question, I will believe it when I see it.

How long have the Conservatives been in government? Waiting times have been increasing ever since. Even before my election to Parliament, the Conservatives were promising to shorten waiting times. What happened instead, however, is that waiting times have just kept increasing.

The parliamentary secretary would have me believe that these superficial changes could, within a few weeks of a few months, bring waiting times down from 31 to 12 months. I will believe it when I see it, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I hope that it does work out, for the sake of everyone who is hoping for shorter processing times. The current 31-month waiting times are unacceptable and need to be cut down as much as possible.

Going back now to the first issue that my colleague raised regarding the oath of citizenship, I would like to ask him a question. He mentioned that people who come to Canada take the oath of citizenship, but someone who was born in Canada and got a French citizenship, for example, would have dual citizenship without having taken the Canadian oath, having been born here.

All that to say, this bill has a number of flaws. I hope that my colleague will address them later.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

Clearly, everything points to the fact that this bill creates a two-tiered citizenship system. It introduces a kind of double punishment that allows the government to revoke the citizenship of individuals who have already been punished by the criminal justice system. Those individuals will be punished twice.

Can my colleague comment on that?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Yes, under this system, dual nationals will be punished twice as much as those who hold only Canadian citizenship. They will be stripped of something they had, and that is a double punishment. It does create a two-tiered system.

I will go back to a point I made earlier. I hope that we will get an answer from the Conservatives and that they will stand up to speak.

If I were a dual national, that would not necessarily mean that I was, for example, a Moroccan citizen who came to Canada and got Canadian citizenship. It could be the opposite. I could be a Canadian citizen who obtained citizenship elsewhere. That would make me a dual national. I would be subject to the rules for dual nationals even though, at birth, I was just a Canadian citizen.

I hope we get an answer. Many questions about this bill remain unanswered, and I hope that the Conservatives will use the speaking time they have tonight to respond to these concerns and reassure Canadians citizens and the people of Sherbrooke who are watching us and asking themselves the same questions. I hope that the Conservatives can provide some reassurance in the next few minutes when they have a chance to speak.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this evening.

So far, I have found that all of this has been too complicated. Citizenship is a universal human value. It is a right in all civilized countries. Citizenship is a fundamental human right. We often send our troops to defend that right, to protect a country's citizens and their citizenship, as in Ukraine, for example. Some Ukrainians are going to find themselves with Russian passports without having asked for them.

Citizenship is part of our identity. Citizens of every country, wherever they may be in the world, know that they have a country they can depend on to help them and support them in difficult times. They know that that is an inalienable right.

There are a few exceptions. Some countries have unfair systems. For example, there are people who have been living in Switzerland for five generations who have not been able to obtain their citizenship. A public referendum is required to obtain Swiss citizenship. That is completely unfair.

The Poles have known the greatest suffering that can be inflicted on a people. They have been passed from hand to hand many times since the Middle Ages and have spent time as part of East Prussia, Russia and Ukraine. The borders were extremely fluid, which caused major problems for the Polish people.

There is the case of the Ukrainians, who lived under the rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Some of them came to Canada with Austro-Hungarian passports and were interned in camps during the Second World War because they were citizens of an enemy power. However, that enemy power no longer even existed because the empire had been dissolved. Canada was unable to sign a peace treaty with that country. These people, who were law-abiding citizens, were interned and forced to work under terrible conditions.

There is also the case of the Kurds in Syria. For 30 years, the Syrian government has refused to issue them identity papers and give them passports and travel documents. These people do not exist.

Our citizenship should be much simpler than that. We should meet the conditions for becoming a citizen and commit to obeying the rules for a certain time for confirmation. If all goes well, then we become a citizen. This should be irrevocable. If we commit a crime, then we should face the same punishment as other Canadian citizens. I do not see why there would be two categories.

Where there are arbitrary decisions, there is always injustice. Crime has to be dealt with by the justice system and the courts. That is what we make laws for. If we decide to punish someone by revoking their citizenship, we are adding extra punishment. That is where we start to violate section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by imposing the equivalent of extra punishment because we do not consider these people will already have been sentenced by the justice system.

On top of that, they have to go back to a country they once fled, usually for their own safety.

When we think of people convicted abroad for crimes punishable in Canada, that means we may be putting our trust in countries that are not governed by the rule of law. For example, in China, the Uyghur have been beaten, tortured and persecuted by the Chinese government for decades. They end up in prison for completely frivolous reasons. Many have criminal records. They might suffer as a result of such a measure. We must not create more victims. There are already too many in Canada, such as the Italian and Japanese citizens who suffered during World War II.

By making arbitrary decisions and creating a very complex maze, we are making things complicated for people for no good reason. Citizenship is not just a privilege that we give to someone. For example, a British lord who renounced his British citizenship and his Canadian citizenship can become a Canadian citizen again, even when he gets out of a U.S. prison. There are limits. We have to look at whether we are giving the same value to human life and the same rights to everyone, without making distinctions or creating categories.

As for the slow-moving immigration system—and all of my colleagues will likely agree with this—the majority of the work being done in my offices consists of dealing with endless immigration cases, which go on forever. I have seen only one satisfied person in three years. That was last month. He was able to bring his wife of eight years to Canada. He was happy that day because it was the culmination of eight years of working to bring his wife to Canada.

There are plenty of little traps and arbitrary things in this bill. There is a lot of information that is to be kept secret, but that kind of thing should be left to the KGB or its modern-day equivalent. We are not in that kind of country or, at least, we never used to be and we never want to be.

I hope that my colleagues opposite will think things through. It is a waste of time to pass a bill that will very likely be rejected by the Supreme Court. Winning a vote and then screaming like a band of Vikings bursting into a church in the Middle Ages does not lend legitimacy to the bill or the process. It takes frank and honest discussion to create a legitimate law that offers a solution to a problem. The government should not be trying to set traps.

There may be some good ideas in the bill, but the Conservatives usually find the wrong way to do the right thing.

There are still some flaws. For example, it is good that the government is taking action against the fraudsters who exploit immigrants and use extortion. There are some good measures, but we need to discuss all of the other points more seriously.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here for a few hours today, and it is a pleasure to do that, of course. It is interesting that the member opposite said he wants to hear a frank and honest discussion when we have heard the same two talking points. I think the New Democrats have been handing the same sheet around all day over there because it has basically been the same discussion for the entire time. One is about wait times, and the second about citizenship and whether Canadian citizenship is a right or privilege. I am a little disappointed in the NDP.

Typically we hear this moral equivalence thing that happens over there. Tonight, one of the NDP members was giving an indication that if someone is walking down the street and says, “Oh, oh, oh”, somehow the Canadian government is going to be able to revoke that person's citizenship. Another comment was made that people may find themselves in precarious situations and lose their citizenship. A third one was that people who commit crimes might lose their citizenship.

The New Democrats talked about doubly victimizing people, but I think we need to be clear on what we are talking about. It is not a problem of someone walking the streets who all of a sudden loses his or her citizenship. We are talking about specific acts of terrorism and treason. If I go to another country and get citizenship, I make a commitment and then decide that I do not want to follow the laws of that country, that I want to betray that country or carry out terrorist acts in that country, I would suggest that I probably do not have the right to citizenship.

My question for the member opposite is this. Is it too much for the NDP to ask that someone who has sworn the oath of citizenship refrains from acts of terrorism and treason in order to maintain Canadian citizenship?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always the same thing with the Conservatives. They try to claim that we side with criminals, terrorists and pedophiles. If someone commits a crime, they should be punished. If that person has not yet been granted citizenship or just recently became a citizen, they could even risk losing their citizenship. That could make sense in some cases. What bothers me is the fact that the government is creating two classes of Canadian citizens and that some citizens would have more rights than others. I find that worrisome.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The minister says that this bill is meant to reiterate the government's commitment to reduce backlogs and improve processing times while strengthening the integrity of Canadian citizenship. The examples my colleague gave and the ever-increasing backlogs and processing times prove the opposite. Could my colleague give us some examples he has seen in his riding that prove how wait times have had adverse and negative consequences on his constituents?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we see this every day in our constituency offices. Wait times are sometimes so bad that the health certificates sent in with applications expire. This delays the process by several months. No one wins at the end of the day.

I even saw one case in which a citizen was forced to return to his country. After being attacked by fanatical Islamic terrorists, receiving death threats and being attacked in his own home, he left his country and his business. He then tried to return to settle his affairs and recover some of his property. Because he was absent for a few months, he was forced to start the process over. The last I heard, he was still facing deportation.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand up as the deputy critic for citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism on behalf of the official opposition to speak to Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I would like to start by making a few introductory comments and observations about citizenship.

There are a lot of things we debate in this House that we can have varied opinions on whether they are a matter of policy and philosophy, but there are certain issues that I think are foundational. They go to the very fabric of who we are as a country. Our democratic system and electoral system is one. We saw a vigorous debate over the Conservative government's attempt to change the rules about our democratic elections in this House, and how they were forced to back down when Canadians saw the Conservatives trying to use politics to bend the rules of the system to benefit themselves. I think we are seeing a bit of the same thing with citizenship.

Citizenship is something that invokes a feeling of pride in Canadians. There are a number of values that Canadians want to see surrounding the concept of citizenship. One of those concepts is equality. Fundamentally, I think Canadians believe in the equality of all Canadians. It is something that is a benefit of citizenship, and something that once one becomes a citizen, whether it is by being born here or naturalized here, a person aspires to and receives an equality that ought not be taken away from them.

People want to see integrity in our citizenship process. They want to see fairness. Canadians are known around the world, and in our self image, we quite rightfully like to think of ourselves as being a people who believe in the fundamental concepts of fairness and due process. It is something that attracts people to this country. When I think of why people immigrate to Canada, some of what they are attracted to are the concepts of democracy, equality, and fairness.

Canadians also want due process. Fundamentally, we believe in the rule of law. I hear the phrase “rule of law” tossed around and used in this place a lot. I am not sure that we have a lot of discussion about what that means. Rule of law means that decisions that affect people's rights are not taken precipitously or capriciously. Rather, they are done by independent people in accordance with rules that are independent, objective, and impartial. They do not want politics injected.

Another reason that a lot of people like to come to Canada is because a lot of states around the world are marked by corruption. If people want to get their utilities, water or lights, hooked up, they have to know someone or to pay money to a government official. That is the most egregious example of the mixing of politics with the rule of law. That leads to the separation of politics and the judicial/quasi-judicial process.

I have heard successive Conservative ministers of immigration rise in this House repeatedly and say that it is inappropriate for them to rule on or decide individual cases. They will not even talk about them in the House. They talk about having arm's-length, independent, professional civil servants make the rulings on individual cases that deal with immigration or citizenship. The reason I bring this up is because I think this bill contains some things that are worthy of support, but it offends a fair number of the concepts I have just raised.

About eight months ago, I had a conversation with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He decried the use of what he called dog-whistle politics. Dog-whistle politics are where we raise a political issue to send a message to people that is not really what we are saying, but it is the message it conveys. I hope it is not the case, but I fear that this bill has underneath it some dog-whistle politics. Messages are being sent to the Canadian public that sow fear, division, and distrust.

When we start introducing concepts that introduce two-tier citizenship, and when we are being invited to judge who is a real citizen and who is not, who has bona fides and who does not, who can be a Canadian citizen forever and who can lose it, these are fundamental questions that involve the fabric of our country.

This bill does a lot of things, some of which I will speak positively about, and some that I think are problematic.

On February 6, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tabled Bill C-24, which includes sweeping changes to Canada's citizenship laws. The minister stated that it represented the first comprehensive reforms to the Citizenship Act since 1977. He claimed that it “will 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.”

First, it is news to me that we have not had valuation of Canadian citizenship. People in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway do now value Canadian citizenship and always have. This is a solution in search of a problem. I have never heard a Canadian in our country who has said that they do not value Canadian citizenship.

In terms of a faster and more efficient process for applying to get it, with respect, I see very little if anything in Bill C-24 that would speed up the process of citizenship, which, by the way, has been a problem under the current government and the previous Liberal government as well. Wait lists in our country across the board in the immigration system are unacceptably long, and they are getting longer.

Bill C-24 would do a number of things. It would put more power in the hands of the minister, including the authority to grant or revoke citizenship. It would provide no real solution to reduce the growing backlog and the citizenship application processing delays.

It would eliminate the use of time spent in Canada as a non-permanent resident to count toward the residency requirements before one could apply for citizenship. It includes an “intent to reside” in Canada provision whereby an official in government could make a determination of people's intentions to reside in Canada and strip them of their citizenship if they believed that the intent was not there.

It would prohibit the granting of citizenship to persons who had been charged outside of Canada with an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence. In other words, we can strip Canadians of their citizenship if they commit an act abroad that is an indictable offence if they have dual citizenship.

It would increase residency requirements from three out of four years to four out of six years, and it would clarify the requirement of physical residence in Canada prior to citizenship.

It includes stiffer penalties for fraud.

It would extend citizenship to lost Canadians.

It would expedite citizenship for permanent residents serving in the Canadian Forces.

It would also implement stricter rules for fraudulent immigration consultants.

It would require applicants aged 14 to 64 years old—previously 18 to 54 years old—to pass a test demonstrating an adequate knowledge of French or English.

Although it is not in Bill C-24 but concomitant with the bill, the Conservative government has tripled the application fees for citizenship.

Everyone agrees that Canadian citizenship is something of enormous value. I do not think anyone wants to see an approach that plays politics with this issue. It is something that we have seen all too frequently from the Conservative government.

With respect to the bill, it is high time that the issue of lost Canadians is addressed. This has been a very unfair situation that has gone on for far too long, and I am pleased to see it addressed in the bill.

However, other parts of the bill are, of course, increasingly and very seriously concerning. For example, the question of revoking citizenship in various scenarios has raised significant legal concerns. We are always concerned about and opposed to the concentration of more power in the hands of a minister of the crown, inherently a political figure.

We were hoping that the minister would commit to working with us to bring real improvements to our citizenship laws, but again, the government has opted to go with a bill that is, in many people's view, likely unconstitutional. The amendments that the official opposition brought to committee were, again, par for the course for the Conservative government, as every one of them was rejected out of hand.

Since March 2008, more than 25 major changes have been made to immigration methods, rules, legislation, and regulations by the government. More and more changes have been made since the Conservatives formed a majority government. These have included a moratorium on parental and grandparental sponsorships, reducing family reunification, punishing vulnerable refugees and increasing the number of temporary foreign workers to meet the requirements of the business sector in our country. However, the extensive changes to the Canadian immigration system have not made the system more effective or fair.

As an MP with a riding that is fundamentally made up of new Canadians, I say we should be making citizenship more valuable. We should be making it more streamlined and faster for those honest, hard-working people who seek it. The bill before us has been rightly described as a bill that makes citizenship harder to get and easier to lose.

People come to our country so they can get a passport, vote, and to participate fully in a democratic society. However, the bill would not do that. When we give the minister power to make decisions on a balance of probabilities that someone has obtained citizenship in a way that the minister does not like and we do not have a court process to check it, that is worrisome. It has no place in a country with the rule of law.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 11:10 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 10, at the conclusion of the proceedings related to the business of supply. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 to 13.

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, June 9, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-24.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 13.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #199

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 13 defeated.

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

moved that Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be concurred in at report stage.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you seek it you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to the current vote, with the Conservatives voting yes.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, and we will vote no.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals vote no.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes no.

[Dean Del Mastro, Independent, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I support the government.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I vote no.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #200

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.