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.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to say a special thank you to our witnesses for being here with us today, and for coming back to this committee. I know you've appeared in front of us before.

Mr. Gupta, for me, born and raised in Montreal and growing up in this country, June 23 was always the last day of school. It was a day when kids were happy. We were all excited that it was the end of the school year. There we were, going into the summer, which was, for me and my family and my friends, generally a happy time. All of that changed, of course, on June 23, 1985, on that very bleak Sunday. I'm sure it was a lot bleaker for those families who were directly affected by the tragic and heinous crimes that took away so many lives, including, as you said, sir, 86 children and 29 families.

I want to thank you for sharing your personal story here with us today and for the courage you've shown in bringing up your boys and building a new life, if you will, moving forward but never forgetting, of course, the impact that the tragic event had in your family. I have to tell you that your being here so many years later, talking about it with such passion, is not only commendable but very inspiring to see. Thank you for being here and for appearing before us today.

I have to say, Madam Siddiqui, that your description in your presentation today of your story as an immigrant to this country is pretty well my mother's story and my father's story. Many of us on this committee can identify with the families who came here for a better life, always respecting and never forgetting the language, the traditions, and the culture of where they came from, but so appreciative of all the great things this great nation has to offer. I thank you for sharing your story with us today.

When Minister Alexander appeared before us on Bill C-24, the minister said that in his deliberations across the country, he was hearing uniformly from Canadians, those born here and those who immigrated here, in many instances new citizens, that the residency requirement and all of the measures to back up the integrity of Canadian citizenship, to make sure that the rules are followed for obtaining Canadian citizenship, are the right moves for today. That's generally what he heard going across the country and continues to hear, as do I and many other folks on this committee. But as we've been told, it's not only important to come up with a bill; it's also important that we enforce these rules and we make sure that the value of citizenship is enhanced.

I'll start with you, Madam Siddiqui. Can you tell me what you are hearing about this bill from Canadians, specifically from members of your organization?

[Salma Siddiqui]

We have heard stories of Canadians being involved in terrorist activities at different hot spots throughout the world. Some have killed and others have trained—as my colleague just before me mentioned—and are training with known terrorist groups and continue to plot attacks against our interests and those of our allies.

Then there are the “Canadians” who, after obtaining their Canadian citizenship, have departed to fight alongside the al-Shabaab jihadis. Others used their Canadian citizenship to fight in Afghanistan, while yet others have their citizenship and have stayed here to undermine Canada.

Indeed, it is an affront to our men and women in uniform who serve to protect Canadian values around the world that they should have to confront violence perpetrated by opportunistic and disloyal Canadians. The flow of young Canadians to terrorist training camps around the world is indeed a matter of concern. We cannot allow this to continue.

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

I am strongly of the view that immigration from failed state countries, where money can buy fresh identities, birth certificates, and genuine university degrees, along with police clearance security certificates, must be suspended while we ensure that terrorists, white-collar criminals, and hate-mongers do not contaminate our soil in Canada.

I have heard concerns that Bill C-24 represents a knee-jerk reaction or that it serves a—quote—political process. I disagree. Bill C-24 represents an assertion of the pride we hold in our values of an open, liberal democracy, where our freedoms are applied to all. Ladies and gentlemen, we must be reasonable.

In closing, I would like to thank you for your time and would ask that you support the passage of Bill C-24. It is an essential step in all of us taking a stand.

[Dr. Bal Gupta, Chair, Air India 182 Victims Families Association]

I thank the committee for giving us an opportunity to testify.

From the perspective of victims impacted directly by the most heinous violent crime in Canadian history, namely the terrorist bombing of Air India flight 182 on June 23, 1985, Air India 182 Victims Families Association strongly supports two provisions of Bill C-24. I will talk about only two provisions.

The first provision reduces the residence requirement for Canadian citizenship by one year for permanent residents who serve in the Canadian Forces. The second provision strips Canadian citizenship from those dual citizens who engage in acts of terrorism or engage in armed conflict with Canada. These provisions, if enacted into law, will on the one hand encourage, acknowledge, and support those who put themselves on the front lines for Canada to protect our freedom and democracy, and on the other hand act as a deterrent against those Canadians who violently demonstrate their opposition to our freedom and democracy by engaging in acts of terrorism or acts of war against Canada.

I speak to you not as an expert in legal or constitutional matters but as a victim of the worst violent terrorist crime in Canada. In the AI-182 tragedy I lost my wife, Ramwati Gupta, to whom, at the time, I had been married for over 20 years. In a tragic moment, I was left a single parent, with two young sons aged 12 and 18.

The AI-182 tragedy was a result of a terrorist conspiracy conceived and executed on Canadian soil by criminals who brought their problems from India into Canada. The terrorist bombing of AI-182 killed 329 innocent persons. Most victims were Canadians, coming from every province except P.E.I. Others came from many states in India and the U.S.A. They came from almost all religious backgrounds, from atheism to Zoroastrianism.

Eighty-six victims were children under 12 years of age. Twenty-nine families, including husband, wife, and all children, were wiped out. Thirty-two persons were left alone; the other spouse and all children were gone. Seven parents lost all their children.Two children, around 10 years of age, lost both parents.

The terrorist criminals took away our Canadian democratic rights to life, liberty, peace, and prosperity. Sadly, even today, the real culprits are still roaming free in Canada and elsewhere.

As families of the victims of the terrorist bombing of AI-182, we have suffered and continue to suffer incalculable grief and pain, which we do not wish to befall any other Canadian due to future violent criminal or terrorist acts. Part of our mission is to speak out on crime, violence, and/or terrorism issues to ensure that our country is safer and more secure for its citizens.

One provision in the bill proposes to reduce the residence requirement for Canadian citizenship by one year for permanent residents who serve in the Canadian Forces. In the last few years our forces have been on duty in Afghanistan, Jerusalem, Egypt, Mali, and the Indian Ocean off the Somali coast. The Canadian Forces are not an occupying force. They are either working as peacekeepers or fighting on the front lines against terrorism and other violent crimes, like piracy on the seas, which fuel terrorism and lawlessness.

These overseas criminals and terrorists do not hesitate to export terrorism to Canada or to lure and embrace misguided Canadians into their causes. Thus, our soldiers on the front lines are defending our freedom, democracy, and democratic values and rights. This provision in Bill C-24 acknowledges, encourages, and supports the loyalty of those permanent citizens who have joined the Canadian Armed Forces and have put themselves on the front lines for Canada.

Another provision in the bill strips Canadian citizenship from those Canadians with dual citizenship who engage in acts of terrorism or in armed conflict with Canada. Such persons demonstrate clearly that they have no loyalty whatsoever to Canada and no value for the Canadian democratic system. Thus, they do not deserve Canadian citizenship, which they are using as a matter of convenience to further their criminal and terrorist activities.

A Canadian citizen engaging in acts of terrorism and/or war against the Canadian Forces is not a far-fetched scenario. Today, terrorism is an international phenomena, and the terrorists, in most cases, may have worldwide connections. The proven cases of Khawaja in Canada and the millennium bomber in the U.S.A. are well-known examples of Canadians connected to terrorist activities outside of Canada.

Also, in the last few years, there have been many reports of highly indoctrinated persons from different parts of Canada leaving our soil to join terrorist training camps or terrorist activities in other countries. I will give you some examples: two Canadians involved in the terrorist attack on a gas plant in Algeria; a Canadian sentenced to two years in prison for terrorist conspiracy in Mauritania; a Canadian with dual citizenship involved in a deadly bus bombing in Bulgaria in the summer of 2012; CSIS being aware of dozens of Canadians, “many in their early twenties, who have travelled or attempted to travel” overseas to engage in terrorism activities in recent years; a Canadian's lost bid to lead Syria's rebels; and one of Syria's rebel groups, the al-Nusra Front, formally pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri.

There are probably many more unreported cases of Canadians involved in terrorist activities around the world. Given the appropriate right or wrong circumstances, such individuals may engage in acts of war against Canadian Forces on duty abroad and may pose a potentially mortal threat and danger to our soldiers. This provision for revoking Canadian citizenship in Bill C-24 provides a deterrent against such a probability.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

We are resuming the 27th meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Is everyone ready? Yes?

We are continuing our study of the subject matter of Bill C-24.

I'd like to thank our two witnesses for accepting the invitation and contributing to this study. We have with us the chair of the Air India 182 Victims Families Association, Mr. Bal Gupta.

It's nice to see you.

From the Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations is Madam Salma Siddiqui, who is the president.

Thank you.

You each have up to eight minutes for your opening remarks.

Mr. Gupta, you have the floor.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You're right. As I look around this room I see five MPs who are from other countries, and at least two who are first generation, born here to immigrant parents, as I was, and I know as Mr. Menegakis was.

I thank you, Mr. Attia, for your comments at the front end about the transparency of this public debate and this process, because that's what this committee is all about, to be able to kick around this bill and find areas where we can strengthen it. It's always been the case that we're willing to do that, and that's why these things come to committee.

I hear you loud and clear about language. I grew up in a Polish community in Toronto, and there were people, quite frankly, who lived in those communities for 30 years or longer who didn't speak a word of English, or barely any. They managed because they spoke the language at the church, at the bank, at the local stores, and so forth.

Anyhow it was very important. That made an impact on me. I recognized that from growing up because it made people's lives very difficult. They were very limited in how they could integrate into Canadian society, and what they could achieve, and in some cases what their kids could achieve because the parents weren't well versed in being able to instruct them or to provide.

By the way my parents came in the late forties. They had the two-year contract. When you got here, first you were given a job. You weren't allowed to go wherever you wanted. You had to work very hard for those sorts of things. That's very important.

Mr. Attia, you wrote a letter to the National Post conveying your support for the minister, who at the time was Jason Kenney, for cracking down on immigration fraud. Of course as we know Bill C-24 aims to crack down on citizenship fraud.

Immigrants and their families here work very hard. We know that. As Mr. Menegakis said, we allow in more immigrants historically than anybody else ever has. They do come with values of honesty, integrity, and wanting to get ahead, and of course they appreciate the cost of all of that.

In terms of the residency requirement, do you believe spending a certain amount of time, in this case four years out of six, in Canada is too much? I preface that by saying we often use European models as a model for Canada, but many of those European models have much longer residency requirements than we do.

I'd ask you to comment on that.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing here today.

Before I ask some questions, for the benefit of all of us, I want to set the record straight on this pre-PR time, so that everyone knows that only 15% of applicants use their non-PR time for their application.

Mr. Attia, I will ask some questions of you.

I am an immigrant to Canada. I will be talking about what I experienced and what I can tell you is the key for success for immigrants, new Canadians. Based upon my own experiences, I can tell you, and I hear this from...I represent a multicultural riding with almost 26 ethnic groups. I hear day in and day out that the basic ability to communicate, in either English or French, which are our official languages, is the key for success, and also it is the key for successful integration into this society.

In Bill C-24, we are asking that high school-aged children, from 14 years old, and people of working age, up to 65 years of age, should complete a basic knowledge test in either English or French, of course.

My question is this. Do you believe and agree with me that language ability plays a vital role in the success newcomers have in integrating into our society successfully?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

We've heard from some critics of Bill C-24 about the whole issue of dual citizenship and revocation. Mr. Attia, is it reasonable for Canadians to expect that those who obtain Canadian citizenship not perform an act of terror or treason against our troops and our country?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

As you know, it's been some 37 years since the Citizenship Act has been examined, and on the fee side, it's been 20 years. With changes to Bill C-24 we're trying to make it quicker for people to obtain citizenship, but at the same time, balancing that with the integrity of citizenship.

It's not an easy thing that you come here and automatically get it. My parents came, I suspect like members of your family, and it was a five-year waiting period. It was one of the highlights of their lives when they obtained Canadian citizenship. In the new legislation, a change to the Citizenship Act that we're proposing, is that it become four of the last six years. We want to integrate people more into Canadian society so they can have a better opportunity to have successful outcomes once they are here.

We have to balance those two. Do you have any thoughts on where the majority of the balance should lie?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today and for your testimonies.

First of all, I want to correct the record because I heard the words “cash grab” in the testimony, because the fees are going to be increased to $300. For your information, Mr. Farber, it costs us $550 to process a citizenship application. This will just be bringing it closer to what someone should be paying. When you compare it to our peer countries, in the United States, it's the equivalent of $669.48 Canadian. In the United Kingdom, it's $1,615.94 Canadian. In New Zealand, it's $433.64 Canadian, just to put things in perspective. It's asking citizenship applicants to bear more of the costs of what it actually costs for that application to come to the country.

Mr. Attia, recently there was an article in a Korean outlet about the importance of implementing Bill C-24 as soon as possible. The article explained that the sooner the bill gets passed, the sooner wait times will be reduced to under a year. We know that we here in Canada welcome a record number of immigrants and new citizens. We average better than a quarter of a million new immigrants per year and since 2006 we have welcomed over 1.4 million new Canadians. These are record numbers.

As a Conservative government we have the highest sustained level of immigration in Canadian history. Under the new decision-making model, citizenship cases will go from a three-step process to a one-step process.

Streamlining this application process to less than a year, how do you think this will affect immigrants and newcomers hoping to become Canadian citizens?

[Bernie M. Farber, Founding Member, Jewish Refugee Action Network (JRAN), As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

[The witness spoke in his language]

This is the diversity of our great country.

Good afternoon, members of the committee, and thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to speak on Bill C-24. My name is Bernie Farber, and beside me is my friend and colleague Mitchell Goldberg. We both bring varied experiences to this presentation, I as a human rights activist and now a semi-retired journalist, and Mitch as an immigration law expert, but we wish to speak to you today as members of the Jewish Refugee Action Network, JRAN.

For those who are not familiar with us, JRAN is a national organization and we bring individuals together from diverse backgrounds who are deeply concerned about the changes made in 2012 to Canada's refugee determination system and to refugee health care coverage. We are a Jewish initiative that invites multifaith, multicultural support, and we welcome the involvement of individuals throughout Canada.

The Jewish community, of course, has a deep connection to the refugee and immigration experience. From the Exodus and the experience of slavery in Egypt, to the shameful refusal by Canada to receive 900 Jewish refugees who managed to escape Germany in 1939 aboard the St. Louis, of which two-thirds were killed in Nazi concentration camps. But we also know from our experience and the experience of other communities that many refugees, when treated with fairness and compassion, go on to become contributing citizens. Both my parents were refugees, both of them fleeing anti-Semitism in countries of eastern Europe, and both of them coming here basically stateless, basically without a penny to their name, and making lives for themselves and for their children and for their grandchildren.

Citizenship must be something refugees aspire to as a reason for hope, many having overcome unimaginable trauma, as did my own parents. It is, therefore, only just for our federal government to ensure a reasonable path to citizenship for refugees.

That brings me to why we are here today. JRAN is deeply concerned that Bill C-24 will make citizenship not a rewarding end to their long and difficult journey, but an unreachable destination filled with roadblocks and diversions. Let me just give you a few examples.

Financial barriers—there are new and increased costs to becoming a citizen. The government is tripling the application fee, which will be added to the new cost imposed on applicants a year ago when the government privatized language testing. The price of applying for citizenship will now cost four times more than it did in 2006. The path to citizenship should not be a toll road. Tapping some of the most vulnerable among us for user fees is nothing more than a cash grab that is both unseemly and counterproductive.

Language barriers—Bill C-24 extends the difficult language testing process to include applicants aged 14 to 64, rather than 18 to 55 as it is presently. Consider this; children and grandparents will now be affected. This appears to be yet another barrier to citizenship made all the more difficult when you consider previous federal government cuts to language training programs for newcomers.

The bureaucratic barrier—under the proposed law, applicants for Canadian citizenship will now have to be permanent residents for four years, instead of three, before they can become citizens. In addition, accepted refugees to Canada will no longer receive credit for time spent in Canada as recognized refugees before they obtain permanent residence. These, my friends, we believe are arbitrary, unnecessary, and unjust wait times.

I will now invite my colleague Mitchell Goldberg to provide some more specific areas of concern.

[Avvy Yao-Yao Go, Clinic Director, Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic]

Thank you.

I'm the clinic director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, which is a non-profit community-based organization providing free legal services to Chinese and other Southeast Asian community members in Toronto. I would like to thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to comment on this bill.

Citizenship defines who we are as a people and as a nation. For Chinese Canadians and many others who had historically been excluded from Canadian citizenship, citizenship is as much about equal respect as it is about a sense of belonging. To ensure we do not repeat the historical mistakes of injustice and exclusion, any change to Canada's Citizenship Act must be examined through the lens of equality and respect.

Under Bill C-24 the pathway to Canadian citizenship will become more restrictive and the avenue for the Canadian government to revoke citizenship will be widened. Furthermore, Bill C-24 will disproportionately exclude certain groups of immigrants from citizenship, most notably women, as well as immigrants from certain racialized communities. In the remainder of my time I will summarize why that is the case.

First, the bill proposes to increase the residency requirement from the current three over four, to four over six years, which will automatically increase the time it will take for someone to become a citizen. But more troubling, however, is the non-recognition of the time spent prior to obtaining permanent resident status. This change will negatively affect refugees. It will also affect live-in caregivers who are overwhelmingly women of colour and who have to endure years of exploitative working conditions just to acquire the permanent resident status. It may also affect women who enter Canada as sponsored spouses and are subject to the two-year conditional permanent resident requirement.

Second, not only is the new intent to reside provision unfair, as it only applies to people who are naturalized citizens, not people who are born in Canada, but it could lead to revocation of citizenship from Canadians who are deemed to have obtained their citizenship status by misrepresenting their intent to reside, even when they may have legitimate reasons to leave Canada, such as for employment reasons or family obligations. As well, this provision is potentially in breach of section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the mobility rights to all Canadian citizens, both native born and naturalized alike, as well as section 15 of the charter, the equality rights provision.

Third, the bill dramatically expands the group of individuals who have to meet the language and knowledge requirement in order to become citizens, without the use of an interpreter, from those between the ages of 18 and 54 to those between the ages of 14 and 64. This will have a serious impact on refugees, as well as new Canadians who come under the family class program, including sponsored women who came as a sponsored spouse, as well as parents and grandparents.

As I noted in my paper, the average age of parents and grandparents at the time of arrival is only 60, so a large majority will be affected by this rule. It will also have a disproportionate negative impact on immigrants from countries where English is not the first language, and the majority of those are racialized immigrants.

Fourth is the new ministerial power to strip citizenship from dual citizens based on foreign convictions of treason, terrorism, and the like. There are two main problems. First, it creates a two-tier citizenship status, separating those who have dual citizenship from those who do not. Second, this provision applies even if the convictions are handed down by countries that have questionable human rights records and don't obey the rule of law. Under this new rule, even Nelson Mandela could have been stripped of his honorary Canadian citizenship status because he was convicted of treason under the South African government during the apartheid era. As one of your previous witnesses pointed out, about 150,000 Canadians are dual citizens by birth; they too will be affected by this change.

The bill also finally proposes to replace the automatic right of appeal to the Federal Court with an application for judicial review with leave from the court. This will not only limit the access for applicants to challenge negative decisions, but more importantly, it will reduce judicial oversight of the ministerial exercise of power.

Along with a number of other changes, including the fee increase and the tougher language requirement, the passage of this bill will mean fewer immigrants can become citizens of Canada.

Apart from considering the fact that there will be more disenfranchised immigrants, we also need to examine what these changes could mean for Canada. The vast majority of Canadians embrace such fundamental values of an inclusive society, such as the principles of equality, rule of law, and democracy, which we all strive to achieve in part by ensuring that every person in Canada has equal access to the most important right of all, namely the right to become a citizen. Denying immigrants that right signals to them that they are not welcome in Canada.

It is in Canada's interest to allow more immigrants to become citizens. Newcomers who cannot become citizens will not see Canada as their home and will have second thoughts about whether they should put down their roots in this country, and both they and Canada will lose.

Rather than moving forward to becoming a more inclusive and equal society by making citizenship more accessible to all immigrants, Bill C-24 will take us back to the era of exclusion and discrimination by denying many immigrants the right to call Canada their home. Therefore we respectfully ask the committee to adopt the recommendations we have highlighted in our written submission, to reinforce the true value of Canadian citizenship while at the same time promoting the interests of Canada.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the 26th meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Today, we are continuing our study of the subject matter of Bill C-24.

Thanks to our witnesses for being with us for this first hour of committee.

With us around the table we have, from Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, Madam Avvy Yao-Yao Go, clinic director. Welcome. From Immigrants for Canada we have Mr. Paul Attia, spokesperson. Welcome. As individuals who will share their time, we have Mr. Bernie M. Farber, founding member, Jewish Refugee Action Network , also known as JRAN, and Mr. Mitchell J. Goldberg, lawyer. Welcome.

We will start right now with the opening remarks.

Madam Yao-Yao Go, you have up to eight minutes. I give you the floor.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you very much.

Again, I'd like to apologize for the inconvenience caused by the time change in today's meeting.

To all of you ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your important contributions to our study on the subject matter of Bill C-24.

Meeting adjourned.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Well I think we agree on that, and I think the vast majority of Canadians would.

Our government takes immigration policy clearly very seriously. We've made a number of reforms to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in order to protect the safety and security of Canadians, obviously. We have welcomed a record number of immigrants and new citizens since 2006, over 1.4 million new citizens. Since the beginning of 2014, there have been 75,000.

How would you say Bill C-24 would support a newcomer's integration into the Canadian economy, and into communities, and to ensure that our new citizens have a stronger and deeper attachment to Canada?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Khan, welcome back, sir. It's nice to have you with us again.

You stated at the outset of your presentation to us today that, in principle, you and your organization support BillC-24. I wonder if I could ask, in your opinion, how Bill C-24 helps promote strong ties to Canada, core Canadian values, and attachment to Canada and Canadian citizenship.