Bill C-425 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to require the Minister, on application, to reduce by one year the required years of residence in Canada to grant citizenship to any permanent resident who is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who has signed a minimum three-year contract and who has completed basic training.
It also amends section 9 of the Act to provide that an individual is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship or is deemed to have withdrawn their application for Canadian citizenship, if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces.

Calgary International Airport

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Calgary International Airport, located in my riding, is the third busiest airport in Canada, contributing $6 billion to the economy.

Last weekend I joined 12,000 Calgarians to celebrate the opening of the longest commercial runway in Canada. This is the only runway in Canada that has a 100% eco-friendly LED lighting system. It will save 60,000 kilowatt hours per year, which is the equivalent to a saving of 41.3 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.

Calgary airport is an economic driver for western Canada, and I congratulate the Calgary Airport Authority on this historic milestone.

Before my time is up, I would like to thank all of my colleagues who supported the passage of Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, yesterday, especially our hard-working Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for including provisions from my private member's bill, Bill C-425.

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24. Before I go on, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

As we know, this bill was studied in committee. Unfortunately, even though we proposed good amendments to address the major problems in the bill, the government decided to reject those amendments.

We are concerned about the constitutionality of this bill, and that is a big deal. Immigration is a significant part of our government system, and when the government brings in a bill, the least it can do is ensure that it is constitutional and will not be struck down. Nonetheless, there are some good measures in this bill and we encourage those. Unfortunately, there are also some very worrisome measures as well.

First, during the speech by my colleague from Winnipeg North, I talked about the fact that part of Bill C-425, a private member's bill, was added to this bill. The part that was added has to do with shortening the time requirement for becoming a Canadian citizen for members of the armed forces who are permanent residents.

That is a good measure and we support it. When someone provides a service to society, like a member of the Canadian Armed Forces does, then we can only encourage that. Unfortunately, this good measure probably applies to fewer than three people a year. To become a member of the Canadian Armed Forces you have to be a Canadian citizen unless you have permission from the Chief of the Defence Staff. That only happens when there is truly a shortage in a trade and someone has a specific skill. Then that person can be recruited. It happens very rarely.

When I was preparing my private member's bill, I was told it would affect only 5% of all volunteer firefighters, that that was not enough and that it did not apply to enough people. In this case, the government is bringing in a legislative measure that will apply to three people. I am glad that the government is supporting the Canadian Armed Forces, but it is still troubling to see that the government is implementing good measures that will apply to almost no one.

Now that I have talked about a good measure that applies to few people, I would like to talk about other specific aspects of the bill. What worries me the most is the possibility that the minister can revoke a person's Canadian citizenship in a rather arbitrary manner. There is no court or process, and he decides whether to revoke someone's citizenship. It could be someone who has dual citizenship, because of family ties, for example, and who has actually never set foot in the country where they hold the second citizenship.

It seems to me that this makes no sense and also does not comply with practices. When some other countries apply a similar measure, it is done in accordance with a very comprehensive process. That looks much more like a process where there are detailed explanations of the reasons why it can be done.

There is another measure that I find particularly troubling and that is the fact that people will now have to declare their intent to reside in Canada. If they make this declaration, they will obtain their citizenship, but it could be revoked.

Citizenship could be revoked if the person does not comply with the requirement of remaining in Canada. However, there are special cases. I was thinking of students, for example. Take a young person who obtains his citizenship and who intends to remain in Canada. Then, by a stroke of luck, he is accepted at Harvard or Oxford, which are renowned universities.

It would be very tempting for someone who has an opportunity to go to one of these universities, especially if they were offered a scholarship. His intent to reside is still valid, but he has an opportunity. His intention is not to leave Canada permanently; he simply wants to take advantage of the opportunity he is being given at a certain point in his life. This could give rise to a real sense of insecurity that is truly untenable for people who would have to decide between an extraordinary opportunity and perhaps losing their citizenship.

There is also the example of professional athletes, people who are here in Canada and have dual citizenship. They may have obtained their citizenship when they were young and then become high-performance athletes. If they go abroad to train and are successful at their sport, they could ultimately lose their citizenship because they did not comply with the requirement to reside in Canada, even though they said that they wanted to. In that case, they might be presented with an opportunity that they might not be able to take.

I am also very concerned about another aspect of this bill and that is the fact that it prohibits people who are convicted abroad for crimes punishable in Canada from acquiring citizenship.

We understand that a person who is accused of homosexuality in a foreign country, for example, would not be affected because that is not a crime in Canada. However, many countries have fairly corrupt justice systems. The actual guilt of a person who was accused in a foreign country may be in question. We have to be careful.

This bill does not take into account the fact that the justice systems of many countries are often lacking. The system of evidence is lacking. We may therefore be dealing with people who have been falsely accused or who may have been persecuted at some point. That is likely why they chose to leave the country that this government would be trying to send them back to.

There are some very worrisome measures in this bill. The government is talking about changing the age for language testing. The fact that the Conservatives are increasing the upper age limit to 64 is fairly reasonable, but the fact that they are lowering the age for children and adolescents is particularly worrisome.

Our immigration system currently has an unbelievable backlog. Some people wait months or even years. They come to see me in a complete panic. They say that nothing is happening with their file. They are wondering what is going on and they ask me to call to find out.

It is completely ridiculous how many people are waiting for their immigration file to be processed. The government's priority should be dealing with these excessive wait times, which make the immigration process more complex. I have seen some unbelievable cases.

The immigration file of one of my constituents was frozen because he did not have a criminal background check for his two-month-old baby.

I believe that there is cause for concern when the immigration system requires paperwork that does not make sense. The government should address many of these problems, decrease wait times and try not to make an already flawed system even more problematic.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.

If we go to the Canadian Forces website, we see that it says that one has to be a Canadian to apply. The question is why we would allow the residency requirement to be reduced for someone to become a Canadian. There are very few this would actually apply to.

The member is quite right. Generally speaking, there may be individuals outside of Canada who might be recruited by the hierarchy within the military, brought to Canada, and offered something of this nature. There are very few. I had the opportunity to question the military directly on the issue, and I can confirm that it is a very low number.

This goes back to Bill C-425, if that is what the member was trying to get across. It is only meant as a gesture of symbolism to try to give an impression. It is not as if there is going to be a Canadian Forces recruitment banner at the airport as new immigrants come walking in.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the former minister of immigration has been waiting in great anticipation of what I might have to say, because he knows full well that when I get the opportunity to talk about immigration and citizenship, I like to reflect on not only the current minister but the past minister. I like to take a holistic approach in dealing with the issues as I see them and as many of my Liberal colleagues see them. The government often chooses to use immigration and citizenship in an inappropriate fashion, if I can put it that way, maybe putting politics ahead of what is in the best interest of good, solid, sound immigration and citizenship policy. I would not mind talking a bit about that, being afforded the opportunity to again share my thoughts.

I come to this issue because, over the last 20-plus years, I have had the opportunity of representing in a very real and tangible way a community in Winnipeg North that has allowed me to deal with immigration and citizenship issues, at one time maybe on a weekly basis. That has evolved into dealing with numerous immigration cases on a daily basis. Depending on who we might talk to and depending on the week and the time of the year, it could be anywhere from 200 to 300 or 400 cases.

There is a great deal of satisfaction in working with people and helping them on immigration files and citizenship files. I could provide the House with endless examples that will give an indication of just how off base the government of the day has been in regard to immigration policy. The government has fallen short, not in one or two areas but in a number of areas. I am hoping, by being able to provide direct input to those who are ultimately responsible, both the former minister and the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, that they will recognize that they need to start working on behalf of our immigrant community. When I say immigrant community, I am talking about the wider grouping of individuals who live in Canada, call Canada their home, and do so in a very proud fashion.

I was very pleased to have been appointed immigration critic when I was first elected after the general election, and I enjoyed it immensely. When I think of immigration policy, I can say that there has not been that much change in the government's attitude in terms of policy and the direction in which the department is going. This is something that I would like to highlight.

There are so many things I could be talking about. Let me start by commenting specifically on a bill known as “425”. Bill C-425 was a private member's bill that was introduced last year by a backbench Conservative member of Parliament. What was that member of Parliament hoping to be able to do through that legislation? He came up with an idea that we should give citizenship out to individuals who have been here for three out of four years. His idea was to allow for military personnel to acquire their citizenship after two years. This is something that was proposed by a Conservative member of Parliament, and it actually received fairly good support from all members of this House. Maybe he did not have the green light from the Prime Minister's Office. The bill passed the House and went into committee, and the arguments that were brought forward at the time were that three out of four years was a good overall policy, that it would work, and that there was nothing wrong with it.

What the member and others around the table were talking about was, in fact, reducing it for certain individuals who decide to serve in the Canadian Forces. I remember the debate well, because I was the critic at the time.

Listening to the comments in this chamber, I did not hear one member—not one Conservative, not one New Democrat, and definitely not one Liberal—make the suggestion that we needed to increase the residency requirement. No one was talking about that, not even the then minister of immigration.

When it came time to provide comment on Bill C-425, what did the then minister of immigration choose to talk about? He chose to talk about the dual citizens. He chose to talk about how important it is to be able to deport or take away citizenship from individuals who commit a crime of treason, and he cited a couple of other things. That was the minister's concern. He not once mentioned that we should be increasing the residency requirement from three years to four years.

Something happened over that late fall from October to November that triggered a thought. I do not know what triggered it, but the thought was to make it more difficult, or increase the requirements, for someone to achieve citizenship. I question why the government made that decision, because it definitely was not an issue. We know that. If it had been an issue, if MPs or the government were being challenged on the issue, it would have been brought up at the immigration committee. The minister of immigration back then would have raised the issue. However, they chose not to, because it was not an issue then. It is only the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who decided this was an issue.

I will put one caveat on that. I suspect that someone within the Prime Minister's Office might have had a say on that issue. Maybe a new minister, being eager and wanting to please the leader, decided he would do that even though there was no need. There was no need. This is what I believe has actually taken place. It is a change that is being dictated from the Prime Minister's Office, which wants to make it four years as opposed to three years, even though it was not an issue. I suggest that is bad policy.

I was not surprised when the government made the decision it would double the cost of the application for citizenship, because it hinted about that in the immigration committee. We could tell by some of the questions Conservatives were asking. We anticipated that the government was considering an increase. That was not a surprise. The surprise was the fact that it wanted to increase the residency period.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-425 it was very clearly said that those who would join the Canadian Armed Forces would be given credit for one year toward their residency requirement to be a Canadian citizen.

To answer his question, yes, it would be the same principle that would be applied. Those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and want Canadian citizenship would be given one year's credit toward that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the member's private member's bill, Bill C-425, and ask the member to reflect on what he was proposing there. It was to ultimately allow for a landed immigrant who chose to join the Canadian Forces to wait two years instead of three years to qualify for citizenship. Would that principle apply with the current legislation? Would a member of the Canadian Forces who is a landed immigrant only require two years to be able to apply for citizenship? That is what his bill was all about last year.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver South.

I am honoured to rise in the House tonight to speak to our government's Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. This legislation would be the first major overhaul of the Citizenship Act in nearly a generation.

While Bill C-24 touches on a variety of areas, all of which would make important changes strengthening the integrity of the immigration system and preserving the value of Canadian citizenship, there are several areas I am particularly passionate to be speaking to tonight. Those areas of the bill encompass the entirety of my former private member's bill, Bill C-425. When I first introduced my bill, I gave the reasons for tabling that legislation. My intention was to reward permanent residents for their service in our Canadian Armed Forces and to underscore the immense value of Canadian citizenship by revoking it from those convicted of terrorism or treason.

I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to our hard-working Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and member for Ajax—Pickering for keeping those provisions of my bill alive by drafting them into Bill C-24. I would also like to thank each and every one of my current Conservative colleagues on the citizenship and immigration committee for their diligent work, and also those who have contributed long hours spent keeping these ideas alive in the face of unrelenting opposition filibustering last year.

I believe the importance of this legislation cannot be overstated. It is good news for new Canadians, good news for settled Canadians, and good news for those hoping to become Canadians, and I will tell members why.

Bill C-24 would honour our Canadian Armed Forces by fast-tracking citizenship by one year for permanent residents serving Canada in our military who have stated their intention to become citizens. As members know, service in the Canadian Armed Forces is unique. We call on our soldiers to make the ultimate sacrifice, to risk their lives in faraway places away from their families in some of the worst conditions imaginable, and they do it gladly. They are willing to lay their lives down for their fellow Canadians. That is what makes service in the Canadian Armed Forces unique and deserving of the highest possible respect.

Bill C-24 seeks not only to support these brave men and women but also to strengthen and defend the values they stand for and protect. To do this, we must act to address one of the biggest threats facing Canada today: terrorism. Bill C-24 would allow for the revocation of citizenship for any dual citizen who is convicted of a terrorism offence, treason, or waging war against the Canadian Armed Forces as part of an armed group. This measure would bring Canada into line with virtually every other western democratic nation that has similar revocation laws.

Strangely enough, the opposition Liberals and New Democrats continue to strongly oppose this measure. I know what I am about to say is not new, but it seems to me that those members on the other side of the House need to be reminded once again, perhaps again and again, that the Canadian public overwhelmingly supports revoking citizenship from convicted terrorists.

If the members were to survey their own supporters or Canadians in general, they would find the following, according to a national poll conducted by NRG: over 83% of Canadians from coast to coast to coast support the idea of stripping citizenship from convicted terrorists; of those, 80% of people who identified as NDP supporters support this measure; and, 87% of those who identified as Liberal supporters also support this measure. Also interesting to note is that among those who were polled, when it comes to those born in Canada versus those not born here, 83% of immigrants support stripping citizenship from convicted terrorists versus 82% of settled Canadians.

I would like to know why it is that the opposition Liberals and New Democrats continue to choose to ignore the will of Canadians and the international community.

Some people might be surprised by the last figure I gave, but as an immigrant myself, and as the member of Parliament for the hard-working riding of Calgary Northeast, the most diverse riding in the country, I know that new Canadians as well as settled Canadians understand the need for this measure.

Canadians understand that when a dual national willingly decides to radicalize and participate in terrorist crimes, to carry out bombings, to plot the murder of his or her fellow citizens, this is damaging to the value we attach to Canadian citizenship.

We cannot wait for the terrorists to submit an application to renounce their citizenship. We must read into their actions a deemed renunciation of that citizenship. This measure is entirely consistent with our sister jurisdictions among western democracies.

I have spoken to many ethnic organizations, groups, and constituents in my riding and across Canada. The overwhelming majority support revocation of citizenship for convicted terrorists.

For example, Salma Siddiqui, president of Muslim Canadian Congress, had this to say while testifying on my private member's bill on March 26, 2013:

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.

She also conveyed similar thoughts recently when she appeared at the committee to discuss Bill C-24.

Just last night I read an article in the National Post. Fawzi Ayoub, a dual Lebanese Canadian, was recently killed fighting in a terrorist group in Syria. He was a senior member of the terrorist group Hezbollah.

In fact, he has been on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list since 2009. His crimes include attempting to enter Israel in order to carry out a terrorist bombing and attempting to hijack a passenger aircraft in Romania.

Ayoub lived in Toronto for several years and mused about returning to Canada one day. Just imagine, if he had returned to Canada, what might have happened.

This illustrates precisely why we need Bill C-24 to become law. Canadians are angry that terrorists are using Canadian citizenship simply as a convenient way to fly under the radar in order to commit terrorist acts. In doing so, they are eroding the value of Canadian citizenship.

Under the provisions of Bill C-24, those convicted of a serious terrorism offence in Canada or in jurisdictions Canada recognizes as having an equivalent judicial system would no longer be able to use a Canadian passport to facilitate their terrorist activities abroad.

Revocation is not a provision I hope to see used regularly. Ideally, it would never be used. However, Canadians are increasingly concerned about the threat of home-grown terrorism. Terrorism is closer to home than we may think. Radicalization is happening in places we least expect: our cities, towns, and neighbourhoods.

Our security services are sounding the alarm bells about the dangers of home-grown terrorism. CSIS has reported it is tracking at least 80 Canadians who have gone overseas to participate in terrorist activities.

They will return to Canada further radicalized and armed with knowledge of how to carry out terrorist activities. We cannot allow radical terrorist ideologies to thrive in Canada. We must condemn these dangerous practices and give them no safe place to hide and absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever.

If we allow terrorists to keep the Canadian citizenship they have abused, we are sending a message that our citizenship is not about shared values, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, or loyalty. It sends the message that our citizenship is simply an entitlement.

I believe Canadian citizenship is much more than a piece of paper used for identification purposes. It does represent our shared values, and its value is something we need to vigorously defend.

We must let Canadians know where their elected representatives stand. I implore members opposite to set aside their politics and join me to unanimously support Bill C-24.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was June of last year when the government brought in legislation through a private member's bill, Bill C-425. We found out then that the government wanted to hijack that particular bill. I see the member across the way who was the sponsor of Bill C-425.

The government was prepared to hijack the bill by bringing in this whole revoking of citizenship and establishing a two-tier citizenship. That was when the bill ran into serious problems. It ultimately failed and was not able to get out of committee.

We need to recognize and be very clear that it was saying if one had Canadian citizenship, and no other citizenship, and committed a certain type of offence, it would be okay and one would be allowed to retain that citizenship. However, if one had dual citizenship, and the example I used back then was the leader of the official opposition who has dual citizenship, and if he committed the same sort of act, he would be deported and lose his citizenship.

I wonder if the member might want to comment on Bill C-425.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a rant from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. That was not really a speech full of any facts. I wonder whether the minister has borrowed his facts from Kijiji because we have seen that before with the Minister of Employment and Social Development with regard to the temporary foreign worker issue. However, I will leave that for today and speak to the bill.

There are quite a few holes in the bill. One of my constituents said that the holes were big enough to drive a truck through. I will try to lay it out and I would ask members to pay attention, because there may not be that many holes to drive a truck through. Maybe we could make some sensible changes to improve the legislation.

I am pleased to stand in the House today on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North to address Bill C-24, which intends to strengthen the Citizenship Act.

We in the official opposition, along with many experts and Canadians from across the country, are very concerned about a number of aspects in the bill.

We agree that changes to the Citizenship Act are greatly necessary and long overdue. This act has not been revised since 1977 and some elements of Bill C-24 would create clear injustices.

In addition, Canadians continue to face ridiculously wait times for citizenship applications.

Even though some changes are necessary, the bill is another example of the Conservative government's use of power to make secretive, arbitrary decisions by cabinet ministers.

I will first speak to a couple of good things in the bill. There are not a lot, because as I have pointed out, we could drive a big truck through the many holes in the bill.

I will be splitting my time with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, Mr. Speaker.

The bill would do a couple of things that I do agree with and they should have been addressed a long time ago. The issue of so-called lost Canadians is addressed in the bill. The NDP has fought hard for many years to get this matter resolved. We are happy the Conservatives are bringing this forward as a result of pressure from the opposition.

The other positive aspect of Bill C-24 is the part dealing with expedited access to citizenship for permanent residents who serve in the armed forces, which the NDP supported in the last session with Bill C-425. However, for a bill that is over 50 pages long, it completely fails to accomplish what it is supposedly intended to do.

Instead of addressing the current problems, Bill C-24 would arbitrarily attribute more unnecessary powers to the minister, prolong naturalization, treat many Canadians like second-class citizens and create more injustices.

Our citizenship and immigration system is flawed. We need a bill that would actually strengthen Canadian citizenship, not one that is not even constitutional. I say that because we have heard from many experts. We have heard from the Canadian Bar Association and from lawyers. They point out the unconstitutionality of many parts of the bill, and yet the Conservatives are not willing to hear all of that.

I pointed to some of the good points of the bill and now I would like to take a look at some of the points that are really worrisome. Let us take a look at the aspect of intent to reside.

Basically, under Bill C-24, if granted citizenship, a person must declare his or her “intent to reside”. The goal of this provision is to ensure Canada's expectation that new citizens live and work in the country after completing naturalization. However, this change would empower officials to speculate on an applicant's future intentions. It portrays the image of immigrants as deserving of suspicion and mistrust, and also treats naturalized immigrants as second-class citizens.

The vagueness in this provision will severely create travel restrictions. International mobility will be imperative. It allows Canadians to study abroad, see their families and become globally aware. If Bill C-24 passes, naturalized citizens will lose this fundamental right.

Citizens who travel abroad for honest reasons may face losing their citizenship because they misrepresented their intention to reside in Canada when they were granted citizenship.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could revoke citizenship under the false pretence of fraud. There would be no appeal, no hearing and no public knowledge of this, which brings me to another concern, and that is the powers of the minister. The bill would grant the minister more powers.

Bill C-24 would place unnecessary powers in the hands of the minister. If the bill is passed, the minister will have the authority to grant or revoke citizenship without public knowledge or any form of judicial process.

I am really worried about this aspect of the bill, because the minister will get to decide whether to revoke somebody's citizenship. There is no process, no hearing and the public will not even know about it. That is really worrisome.

Peter Edelmann, a Vancouver immigration lawyer who sits on the executive of the Canadian Bar Association, said:

What’s happening here is they’re proposing that citizens could lose their citizenship on a paper-based process with no hearing at all and no independent tribunal--forget about going in front of a judge to make the decision; you may not get to speak to or even see the officer...

This is clearly unconstitutional. The Canadian Bar Association is saying this, yet the government is not listening to some of the top lawyers in the country who point to the unconstitutionality of this power grab by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

It is not surprising to me, because I have been here a number of years now, that the Conservatives are using bills to grant themselves more discretionary powers. We have seen this in many other bills in the House where they are consolidating the power.

A Conservative member is chirping at me, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to ask those members to pay attention and maybe they will learn one or two things, oppose the bill and actually work for Canadians rather than chirping away when another member is speaking.

The Conservatives love power, even if it is at the cost of Canadian democracy and justice. By giving the minister these new powers, Canada is taking a step backward and opening the doors to decisions that are subjective and politically motivated.

Instead of providing solutions to the issues Canadians face every day, the Conservatives are using the legislative process to give themselves even more power than they already have. Unfortunately, they are not worried about the process because they have a so-called small majority, and they are ramming these changes through.

There are many other issues I could discuss such as the unconstitutionality of a number of things in the bill. There are fees and language testing issues. It seems that the only consultations the Conservatives have done in drafting the bill is among themselves or they have gone to Kijiji, as they have done before. We see time and time again Conservatives are not willing to take any sort of advice from neither the opposition, nor from the experts who testified before committees.

Along with my NDP colleagues, I will continue to fight for a fair, efficient, transparent and accountable immigration system. I urge the Conservatives to stop battering democracy and start listening to Canadians.

Canadian Citizenship

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to join our hard-working Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in Toronto and Calgary a few weeks ago to announce our Conservative government's Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, which will strengthen the immense value of Canadian citizenship and ensure that a Canadian passport remains highly regarded around the world.

I also want to personally thank the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for working with me and transferring the contents of my private member's bill, Bill C-425, into his new act. Once this bill becomes law, Canada will fall into line with virtually every other western democratic nation. It will have the ability to strip the citizenship of convicted terrorists. According to a national poll, this measure has the support of over 85% of Canadians from across Canada, including 80% of NDP supporters, 87% of Liberal supporters, and 83% of those who immigrated to Canada.

I call upon the opposition to represent the will of their constituents and support this bill.

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

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

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

The NDP agrees that changes to the Citizenship Act are badly needed. This act has not been revised since 1977, and some elements of our Citizenship Act create injustices. The NDP has fought a long time to correct some of these injustices. I enthusiastically welcomed the news that the government was preparing a bill to amend the Citizenship Act.

There are a number of good elements in this bill that the NDP is happy to see. We would be happy to support some of these changes that have been needed for a long time. However, true to form, the Conservatives have introduced a bill that is over 50 pages long and that amends all kinds of things and affects several aspects of citizenship.

There are so many things in this bill. Some are very positive, while others are worrisome. Civil society organizations, legal experts and other Canadian experts have already expressed some legal and human rights concerns. The public is very upset about some aspects of this bill, and I hope to explain why certain parts of this bill are worrisome and very problematic.

First, I will talk about what I am happy to see in Bill C-24. The NDP certainly supports the fact that this bill resolves the issue of people whose citizenship has been dispossessed, the so-called lost Canadians. I would like to give a practical example to show why it is so important to address this injustice.

John is two years old. He lives in the Eastern Townships in Quebec. His father is Canadian and his father's father is Canadian. Is John Canadian? No, he is not. Little John is here in Canada and lives with his Canadian father, but has only a temporary visa that will expire in May. The family's situation is rather unstable. Why does John not have citizenship? It is because his father, who is a Canadian and was born to a Canadian father, was born outside the country while his father was serving in the Canadian Forces. Instead of being proud to have a grandfather who served in the Canadian Forces, John is being penalized because his grandfather was serving outside the country when his wife gave birth to their child.

This deprives little John of medicare and day care, which is an enormous burden for the family. Little John is not the only one in this unfair situation. In fact, there are approximately 80 lost Canadians. These people are often in a tragic situation that also adversely affects many people who are close to them. The NDP fought for a long time for the government to resolve these unfair situations. From critic to critic, MP to MP, from motions to news releases, the NDP fought this battle, and we are pleased to see that, today, justice will be served for these people who should already be Canadian.

The other positive aspect of this bill is the expedited access to citizenship for permanent residents who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. In fact, this aspect, which the NDP already supported, is found in Bill C-425 from the last session. I would like to raise one issue, however. This bill will not affect hundreds or even dozens of people. It will affect only a few, perhaps five or 10. It is very rare for permanent residents to be accepted into the Canadian Forces. Usually, a person must already be Canadian to be accepted. Only in very exceptional cases are permanent residents allowed to serve in the Canadian Forces.

That being said, these people serve our country in an exemplary way. They meet important needs that only they can meet within our armed forces. In our opinion, it is therefore completely reasonable, acceptable and desirable to reward these individuals by expediting their access to Canadian citizenship, if they so desire.

The NDP also fought hard for the implementation of measures to train immigration consultants and to fight more effectively against fraudulent consultants. The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina spoke out loud and clear, as she called on the government to take action in this regard. In a news release made public in 2010, she called for the creation of a regulatory body to enforce the rules and protect the public. It was not until today that practical measures were proposed to better train immigration consultants. That is positive aspect of the bill, because many people are victims of immigration consultants who betray their trust—although most consultants are honest individuals. These are the good things I wanted to say about Bill C-24.

I would like to point out some parts of the bill that should be the subject of consultations with experts and the public because they are worrisome in some way or because people have differing opinions on them. The first is the longer term of Canadian residency required to obtain citizenship. The longer term is not necessarily a bad thing, and I understand the goal of it. It is a good idea to make sure that people with citizenship have lived in Canada for a certain period of time. This is good, but I also want to point out that this particular measure adds clarification that was not in the act before, making it very clear to people how many days they must reside in Canada before being eligible for Canadian citizenship. This measure makes sense.

However, we should talk about the ridiculously long processing time for citizenship applications. If the government is asking people to reside in Canada for a longer period of time, then it really must ensure that their applications are processed quickly and efficiently, which is what they might expect.

Increasing application fees is also a contentious issue. I will explain why. People certainly understand that the fees need to change. Fees for citizenship applications have not changed in several years. Now the processing fees will be higher than the fees people have to pay to submit their application.

However, why are these fees jumping from $200 to $400? What justifies that amount? So far, nobody has provided us with all of the information justifying that specific amount. Why not $50 more or $50 less? Does this amount really just cover the costs, or is it merely a way to get money from people who want citizenship? I would like a lot more information about that. If the government charges more, people are naturally going to expect better service.

This brings me back to the processing times, which are unacceptable. They have more than doubled under the Conservatives. Asking someone to pay more for a service is one thing, but providing a service that gets worse and worse is another. The government needs to make sure that higher fees go hand in hand with better service.

Furthermore, changing the age at which people must take the test in one of the official languages has upset many communities across the country. In the past, people aged 18 to 54 had to take the test in one of Canada's official languages. From now on, people aged 14 to 64 will have to do so.

I understand the importance of learning one of Canada's official languages. However, many people are worried. For instance, people aged 54 to 64 might have a harder time learning one of the official languages, studying for an exam or managing the related stress this could bring. Many people live within a community and could very easily get by in Canada without necessarily mastering a certain level of language. Such a change could cause a lot of stress, especially regarding the lower age limit at which people will have to take the test. Indeed, children as young as 14 will now have to take the test, and this could determine whether they get to become citizens or not.

What happens to a child who does not pass the test for some reason or another, while the rest of his or her family passes? Will that child be the only non-citizen in the family? Could this cause problems when the family wants to travel, for instance? Why impose a test with such serious consequences on children as young as 14, when we know that young people living here in Canada have to go to school in one of Canada's official languages and learn the language day in and day out? Why put that kind of pressure on a 14-year-old child? This is highly questionable. As I said, we had many discussions with a number of groups and individuals who all questioned this.

Another aspect worth debating that is upsetting people is the elimination of the use of the length of stay in Canada as a non-permanent resident. This measure is really troubling for many foreign students and temporary workers who have been in Canada for a few months, or even a few years, and who were planning on applying for citizenship in the near future. They now see that they might have to wait for many more years. This really changes their plans.

I have gotten a number of emails from my constituents and from people across Quebec and Canada. I think it is worth sharing some of them. For example, Abdoul Haseeb Awan said:

I chose and moved to Canada three years ago after being offered admission in world leading universities. I have won various prizes, grants and awards during the last three years. After graduating as Master in Engineering, I chose entrepreneurship. I was promised a PR status within 12 months, which took 19 months. [Yes, the delays are very long. I will have to wait] 2 more years for citizenship.

That person contributed, studied here, worked here, created jobs here, and does not understand why we would deny him consideration for the time he has lived and contributed in Canada.

Another example is an email from Andras Korinek. I will quote a few sentences from his email. He said:

The second issue I see with this bill is the new method of counting residence days. I personally came into Canada through a work permit and it took me 2 years to finally become a permanent resident. I think the intention of the bill to make sure applicants are supporting Canadian society and sharing Canadian values are honourable, however, the metrics used to measure this are flawed. I am contributing to Canada by working here and paying taxes. I have a Canadian spouse, Canadian friends, I joined a local sports team. I would like to be officially welcomed into Canadian society as a proud citizen.

One last example, though I have a lot of them, is from Sultan Ali Ahmed, a McGill University student, who arrived in August 2007. He says:

...there should be recognition given to students graduating from canadian universities, who were initially on study permits, started working after graduation and then applied for their PRs.

As members can see, many people are worried about seeing their plans change and are urging us to review this measure. This subject is worthy of an honest debate.

I would now like to talk about the elements that I do not even think are worthy of debate. I think they are extremely worrisome for several reasons. First, Bill C-24 increases the minister's discretionary power. Under this bill, the minister will now have the right to grant or revoke citizenship in special cases.

We have seen a lot of this from the Conservatives: using bills to grant themselves more discretionary powers. The NDP disagrees with this measure. This kind of discretionary power opens the door to turning our citizenship system into a political tool. The minister has said that he was not necessarily prepared to say to whom he would grant citizenship.

That a member of a political party could do such things behind closed doors is unacceptable. These are great powers. The citizenship process must be part of a system that people can trust because of its impartiality and transparency. I am very worried that by granting such powers to a minister we are moving in the opposite direction.

The bill raises another concern. According to the provisions of this bill, the minister can revoke citizenship—in the case of a dual citizen—when there is a suspicion of fraud. The key word here is “suspicion”. In fact, the minister has the power to revoke citizenship or to authorize a person to revoke it in his name if he is “satisfied on a balance of probabilities” that the person obtained citizenship fraudulently.

The problem is that the person will no longer be able to appear before an independent tribunal that would determine whether or not the allegations are true. That is important. A person with Canadian citizenship is a Canadian and should have access to a fair and just process under our justice system. It is worrisome in this case, and also in the case of someone who is accused of terrorism abroad and who must spend a few years in jail. Because of this charge, a person's citizenship can be revoked.

In a question to the minister, I mentioned earlier that the main concern in this case is that people can be accused of terrorism without having the right to a fair and just process in a country where the justice system is not immune to political pressure, for example.

We have already seen a number of such cases, even in Canada. People have been charged, spent several years in prison and then may have become heroes because they were imprisoned for political and partisan reasons. Someone behind me whispered the name of Nelson Mandela and, indeed, that could be one example. These are serious concerns.

In closing, this bill does not tackle the main problems with our citizenship system at present—the wait times and the backlog. The wait times are horrible. They have more than doubled under the Conservatives, who waited all these years before pretending to take an interest in the problem.

The government says that this bill will resolve the situation, but I am not so sure. Nothing in this bill can prove to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that there will be significant changes. On one hand, we are adjusting certain administrative measures to help the process run more smoothly or more quickly than before, but on the other, we are increasing the use of the residency questionnaire, which is extremely long to compile and analyze. Other criteria, such as a declaration of intent to live in Canada, are being added.

What is the point in making the system more efficient if we are asking the people who have to review the files to do extra work? How will that really help? People are fed up with being told to wait when they apply for citizenship and are entitled to it. They should get a response quickly and efficiently.

For a number of the reasons that I mentioned, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

this House decline to give second reading to Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, because it:

(a) does not provide an adequate solution for reducing citizenship application processing times, which have been steadily increasing;

(b) puts new significant powers in the hands of the Minister that will allow this government to politicize the granting of Canadian citizenship;

(c) gives the Minister the power to revoke citizenship, which will deny some Canadians access to a fair trial in Canada and will raise serious questions since Canadian law already includes mechanisms to punish those who engage in unlawful acts; and

(d) includes a declaration of intent to reside provision, which in fact gives officials the power to speculate on the intent of a citizenship applicant and then potentially deny citizenship based on this conjecture.

Citizenship Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the second motion relates to Bill C-425, which is a private member's bill that remains outstanding. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the order for consideration at report stage of Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), standing on the order paper in the name of the member for Calgary Northeast be discharged and the bill withdrawn.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is now in day four of filibustering private member's Bill C-425 at the immigration committee. Those members are doing this because they believe that convicted terrorists should keep their Canadian citizenship. The NDP is ignoring the over 80% of Canadians who support it, including many in my own riding of Richmond Hill, who have contacted me with their support.

Could the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism please explain to the House why the government supports Bill C-425 and why the NDP opposes the vast majority of Canadians on this issue?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Calgary Northeast for his bill that would strip citizenship from convicted terrorists and traitors.

Eighty percent of Canadians agree that if someone violently demonstrates their disloyalty to Canada by committing a serious act of terrorism, this should be understood as a renunciation of their loyalty to Canada and their citizenship.

Only 6% of Canadians strongly disagree with that proposition. Regrettably, that includes 100% of the NDP caucus who are leading a bizarre filibuster against Bill C-425 at the immigration committee. We call on them to listen to Canadians, let the bill go to a vote so there are consequences—

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has reached a new low. It is defending the interests of terrorists rather than protecting law-abiding Canadians. The NDP has been instructed to try to block my private member's bill, Bill C-425, in committee and prevent it from moving forward.

Bill C-425 would strip convicted terrorists of their Canadian citizenship. Eighty per cent of Canadians support strong measures like this to combat terrorism.

The leader of the NDP and his party are completely out of touch with Canadians.

Our Conservative government is committed to strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship. We do not think convicted terrorists deserve the privilege of calling themselves Canadians.

I urge the leader of the NDP to stop trying to dilute the values of Canadian citizenship and standing up for the interests of terrorists, and let us move forward with my bill.

Scope of Private Members' Bills--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Before moving on to questions and comments, I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 25 by the hon. member for Toronto Centre regarding the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, recommending that the scope of Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), be expanded.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Toronto Centre for having raised this issue, and the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, and the members for Winnipeg North, Saint-Lambert and Calgary Northeast for their interventions.

In raising this matter, the hon. member for Toronto Centre explained that during its consideration of Bill C-425, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted a motion recommending that the House grant the committee the power to expand the scope of the bill in order to allow for the consideration of what he called “amendments that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has asked be added to the list”.

This led to the presentation on April 23, 2013, of the committee's eighth report. He found this approach to be problematic in two respects. First, he argued that pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, committees examining private members' bills are restricted as to the types of reports they can present to the House. He argued essentially that since the eighth report falls outside these parameters, it is out of order.

His second argument centred on the impact such a manner of proceeding could have. Specifically, he expressed concern that if committees examining private members' bills were to be allowed latitude to proceed in this fashion, the effect of this practice “will be that the government could, by extrapolation, even add an omnibus feature to a private member’s bill and say it is using its majority to add everything, the whole kitchen sink, into the measure.”

The Government House Leader explained that, in view of the differences of opinion expressed in the committee as to whether the amendments proposed were within the scope of the bill, the committee was seeking guidance from the House on the matter. In making this observation, he pointed out that this process would result in a number of hours of debate in the House on the committee report before a decision was taken.

In his presentation the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that Standing Order 97.1 does not preclude a committee from seeking an instruction from the House in relation to a private member's bill. He further explained that the committee remains seized of Bill C-425 and that its eighth report in no way supersedes the 60-sitting-day deadline to report the bill back to the House.

At the outset the Chair wishes to clarify what appear to be certain misconceptions about the nature of private members' bills.

The first of these has to do with the arguments made by the House leader for the official opposition and the member for Saint-Lambert in reference to the constitutional compliance of legislation sponsored by private members.

As pointed out by the member for Saint-Lambert, constitutional compliance is among the criteria used by the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business to determine non-votability of private members' bills. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, describes these criteria at page 1130, including one requirement that “bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.

The Chair is not aware of further constitutional compliance tests that are applied to any kind of legislation, whether sponsored by the government or by private members, once bills are before the House or its committees. In addition, hon. members will recall that in a recent ruling delivered on March 27, I reminded the House that as Speaker I have no role in interpreting matters of a constitutional or legal nature.

Another apparent source of confusion has to do with the difference between private bills and public bills. Virtually all the bills that come before the House are public bills, whether they are sponsored by private members or by the government.

As O'Brien and Bosc explains at page 1178:

Private bills must not be confused with private Members' bills. Although private bills are sponsored by private Members, the term “private Member's bill” refers only to public bills dealing with a matter of public policy introduced by Members who are not Ministers.

Thus both government and private members’ bills are subject to the same basic legislative process, namely introduction and first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage and, finally, third reading. At the same time, the House has seen fit to devise specific procedures for dealing with public bills sponsored by the government and private members alike.

For example, Standing Order 73 allows the government to propose that a government bill be referred to committee before second reading after a five-hour debate. The purpose of this rule is to allow greater flexibility to members in committee by enabling them to propose amendments to alter the scope of the measure.

The procedures in place for dealing with private members’ bills are likewise many layered, and have evolved in response to particular situations faced by the House in the past. This is the case with the provision for a maximum of two hours of debate at second reading, which came about to allow the House to consider more items and thus to allow more private members to have their measures considered. Similarly, Standing Order 97.1 was originally brought in to ensure that private members’ bills referred to committee would be returned to the House and to the order of precedence in a timely fashion.

In the present case, it appears to the Chair that the essence of the procedural question before me is to determine whether the House has the power to grant permission to a committee to expand the scope of a private member's bill after that scope has been agreed to by the House at second reading and, if so, whether this can be achieved by way of a committee report.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, is helpful in this regard. It states at page 752:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill, consolidating two or more bills into a single bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill.

Clearly then, by way of a motion of instruction, the House can grant a committee the power to expand the scope of a bill, be it a government bill or a private member's bill. An example can be found at page 289 of the Journals for April 27, 2010, where an opposition member moved a motion of instruction related to a government bill.

Having established that the House does have the authority to grant permission to a committee to expand the scope of a bill through a motion of instruction, the question becomes whether a committee report is also a procedurally valid way to achieve the same result.

The member for Toronto Centre is correct in saying that the explicit authority to present this type of report is not found in Standing Order No. 97.1, which exists to oblige committees to respect deadlines for reporting back to the House on private members' bills. In that respect, Standing Order No. 97.1 continues to apply.

However, Standing Order No. 108(1)(a) does grant committees this power under their more general mandate to:

examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House [and] to report from time to time

In describing the three broad categories of reports that standing committees normally present, O’Brien and Bosc, at page 985, describe administrative and procedural reports as those:

in which standing committees ask the House for special permission or additional powers, or those that deal with a matter of privilege or procedure arising from committee proceedings.

An example of a committee reporting on a matter related to a bill may be found in the Journals of April 29, 2008, where, in its sixth report, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development felt compelled to provide reasons why it did not complete the study of a particular private member’s bill.

Finally, O'Brien and Bosc, at page 752, further state:

A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

This undoubtedly could be done only through the presentation of a committee report to the House.

What this confirms is that the authority of the House to grant permission to a committee to expand the scope of a bill can be sought and secured, either through a motion of instruction or through concurrence in a committee report.

O’Brien and Bosc summarizes this well at page 992:

If a standing, legislative or special committee requires additional powers, they may be conferred on the committee by an order of the House—by far the most common approach—or by concurrence in a committee report requesting the conferring of those powers.

Later, O’Brien and Bosc explain, at page 1075:

Recommendations in committee reports are normally drafted in the form of motions so that, if the reports are concurred in, the recommendations become clear orders or resolutions of the House.

Just as the adoption of a motion of instruction to a committee would become an order of the House, so too would the adoption of a committee report requesting the permission of the House to expand the scope of a bill.

Of course, it has always been the case that instructions to a committee must be in proper form. According to O’Brien and Bosc, at page 754, such instructions must be “worded in such a way that the committee will clearly understand what the House wants”.

It is nevertheless clear to the Chair that there is genuine disquiet about the impact of this attempted procedural course of action. The Chair is not deaf to those concerns and, in that light, wishes to reassure the House that this manner of proceedings does not obviate the need for committees to observe all the usual rules governing the admissibility of amendments to the clauses of a bill, which are described in detail at pages 766 to 761 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition.

In particular, granting a committee permission to expand the scope of a bill does not, ipso facto, grant it permission to adopt amendments that run counter to its principle. Were a committee to report a bill to the House containing inadmissible amendments, O’Brien and Bosc at page 775 states:

The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative.

For all of the reasons outlined, I must conclude that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is in order. I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Scope of Private Members' Bills

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be somewhat brief, but it is important that we be perfectly clear about what is happening here.

I sit on the citizenship and immigration committee. I am very familiar with the motion that has been proposed by the government and I want to make two quick points.

It is interesting to note that both the mover and the parliamentary secretary who spoke to this issue are implying motives in one sense. We are not using this in any form to filibuster or to prolong debate on Bill C-425, and that is important to note. We raised it as a question of privilege a couple of weeks ago because we believe it is important that private members' bills be respected for what they are as they go through the process, and you, through your office, Mr. Speaker, will be reviewing that. This is not a delay tactic in any way.

The parliamentary secretary made reference to “perfect and complete”. He is suggesting that the amendments that the government wants to propose at committee stage are going to make it “perfect and complete”, and he cites Beauchesne's and other rules of order to substantiate that comment, but what is clear is that the government, and particularly the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, intends to change the scope of the legislation.

The legislation can be best described as proposing two things. First, it would reduce the amount of time that a landed immigrant would be required to be here in Canada in order to receive his or her citizenship. As opposed to waiting three years, the individual would only be required to wait two years to acquire citizenship if that individual is a member of the Canadian Forces. That is the number one reason behind Bill C-425. Second, if a Canadian citizen commits an act of war against the Canadian Forces, that individual would be deemed to have denounced his or her Canadian citizenship.

Those were the two issues related to Bill C-425. Then guests were invited to participate in the committee hearings, and individuals started to change the focus of the bill. Then we found out that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration wanted the principle of the bill to be about terrorism as opposed to the issue of citizenship and the act of war on the Canadian Forces.

As a result, government members on committee recognized that they were attempting to change the scope of the private member's bill, and that was the reason government members put forward a motion for the bill to be brought back to the House before we went into clause-by-clause consideration: it was because they recognized that they had to change its scope.

I cannot tell the House how many times I have sat in a committee or in caucus where there has been a discussion about members not being allowed to change the scope of legislation. That is very clearly what is happening here. My concern is that the government wants to use its majority in the House to override a very important principle of private members' bills as well as the process involved with them.

Let me talk about the process of a private member's bill very briefly. First there are two hours of debate in the House, and then the bill goes to committee. The bill can be discussed for 60 hours at committee stage; it then comes back to the House, where it is debated for two hours and then ultimately voted on.

We do not want to use private members' hour as a back door for government legislation, and that is what we would be opening it to.

I caution all members of the House to review what has taken place and what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration hopes to do. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should be bringing in his own piece of legislation.

My advice to all members, and particularly to you, Mr. Speaker, is to protect the rights of individual members to bring in their own bills without having them hijacked by the government making changes to their scope.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the interventions made by the hon. members for Toronto Centre and Saint-Lambert concerning the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

This report contains the request that the committee be granted the power to expand the scope of Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), such that the provisions of the bill not be limited to the Canadian Armed Forces.

One member suggested that the report itself is out of order, while the other suggested that the recommended instruction is deficient and, therefore, out of order.

I disagree with both of these assessments.

Let me address the first of these objections, the one put forward by the hon. member for Toronto Centre.

At the core of his presentation, he argued that Standing Order 97.1 excludes the possibility of a committee seeking an instruction in relation to a private member's bill, because that Standing Order enumerates three reports—not two as the honourable and learned member said—that a committee may present within 60 days of an order of reference.

The hon. member made reference to one approach to legal interpretation in support of his view. On the other hand, I would offer a different school of thought on interpretation, the mischief rule; in other words, what problem or mischief was being remedied when a law was enacted.

To this end, I would refer members to the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented during the first session of the 36th Parliament, back in 1997.

In the section on the disposition of bills by committees, the report observes:

A number of private Members' bills that have received second reading and been referred to committee have unfortunately disappeared and never been heard from again.... We are not in a position to comment on specific cases, but we do wish to prevent this situation from arising in the future.

There you go, Mr. Speaker. The intent was not to interfere with or restrict the manner in which a committee can consider legislation, but just that a committee cannot sit on a private member's bill indefinitely.

This was echoed in the Private Members' Business Practical Guide, 9th edition, which was published in October 2008 under the authority of the Clerk of the House of Commons. At page 16, under the heading of “Committee Consideration of Bills”, one reads that:

A votable Private Members' bill follows the normal procedure for a bill: if second reading is agreed to by the House, the bill is referred to a committee for the hearing of witnesses, clause-by-clause study and possible amendment.

The guide then discusses the rules that are particular to private members' bills: deadlines to report and proceedings on recommendations not to proceed further.

Nothing is suggested in this publication of the House to suggest that these types of bills are exempt from procedure on instructions.

I would further argue that Standing Order 97.1 has also not been circumvented by the eighth report. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration remains seized by Bill C-425, and it remains subject to the 60-day sitting deadline established by that standing committee to dispose of the bill. Indeed citation 684.1 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 6th edition, advises that:

The Instruction should not be given while a bill is still in the possession of the House but rather after it has come into the possession of the committee.

Therefore, it follows that the committee remains seized with Bill C-425 and, consequently, has not made, yet, any of the reports required by Standing Order 97.1.

Having demonstrated that Standing Order 97.1 does not exclude the ability of the House to give an instruction to a committee on a private member's bill, as argued by the hon. member for Toronto Centre, I will now turn to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Saint-Lambert about the requested instruction itself.

Instructions are not common in our contemporary practice, which page 752 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice explains:

Motions of instruction derive from British practice during the second half of the nineteenth century. They were carried over into the practice of the Canadian House of Commons, although they have rarely been used.

Therefore, I will be referring to some of our older texts and United Kingdom authorities in addition to our contemporary procedural books.

Page 752 of O'Brien and Bosc states:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as...expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

Then at page 992, the manner for committees to obtain additional powers is described. It states:

If a standing, legislative or special committee requires additional powers, they may be conferred on the committee by an order of the House...or by concurrence in a committee report requesting the conferring of those powers.

Indeed, the chair of the citizenship committee cited this at the committee's meeting on April 23, and then added, “That's what...[the hon. member for St. Catharines] is doing with his motion”.

Citation 681(2) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, observes that:

The purpose of the Instruction must be supplementary and ancillary to the purpose of the bill, and must fall within the general scope and framework of the bill. It is irregular to introduce into a bill, by an Instruction to the committee, a subject which should properly form the substance of a distinct measure, having regard to usage and the general practice of enacting distinct statutes for distinct branches of law.

Citation 222 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, traces that proposition to an 1893 ruling of Mr. Speaker Peel of the United Kingdom House of Commons.

In the present instance, we are considering a proposal for the extension of the objects of Bill C-425. These types of instructions are explained in citation no. 686(1) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition. It states:

An Instruction is necessary to authorize the introduction into a bill of amendments, which extend its provisions to objects not strictly covered by the subject-matter of the bill as agreed to on the second reading, provided that these objects are cognate to its general purposes.

This statement, as distilled from citation 226(2) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, quotes at length pages 398 and 399 of the 13th edition of Erskine May. There is one portion of that passage that I would like to add to the record. It states:

The object of an instruction is, therefore, to endow a committee with power whereby the committee can perfect and complete the legislation defined by the contents of the Bill, or extend the provisions of a Bill to cognate objects....

Page 559 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 24th edition, offers the same abbreviated advice we saw in Beauchesne's sixth edition. The British text then goes on to recite several examples of instructions to this effect. The first bill on that list offers a compelling parallel. It states:

The Public Bodies (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Bill 1959-60 was limited to the single purpose of admitting the press to meetings. An instruction was necessary to extend the bill to the general public.

The Chair may be interested in knowing that the bill was also a private member's bill. In fact, many of the bills on that list, as I understand, were private member's bills.

As a historical aside, members may be interested in knowing that the sponsor of that 1959 bill was a then young, up-and-coming member of Parliament by the name of Margaret Thatcher. To be clear, though, the text of the instruction in relation to Mrs. Thatcher's bill bears similarities to the case now before us. The British motion is found at column 1,064 of volume 619 of the United Kingdom House of Commons Debates for March 14, 1960. It states:

...That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provision in the Bill for requiring members of the public other than representatives of the Press to be admitted to meetings of bodies exercising public functions, and for matters arising out of their admission.

In the case of Bill C-425, we have legislation that proposes to make two changes to the Citizenship Act with reference to the Canadian Armed Forces. The eighth report simply proposes that the citizenship committee be empowered to consider amendments that extend the application of those two objects to circumstances not involving the Canadian Armed Forces specifically.

As I understand the context, it became apparent at committee that the “act of war” is not defined clearly in either our domestic law or international laws, so that those references in Bill C-425 needed to be clarified. Amendments were to be proposed to address and clarify this.

Moreover, the committee heard suggestions about convicted terrorists in the context of the provisions for deemed applications for renunciation of citizenship. Amendments were also to be proposed in this vein.

I am further informed that there was an interpretation by the committee clerk that these amendments could be outside the scope of the bill. I am also told that the 8th report, which is now before the House, was drafted with the assistance of one or more committee clerks.

This report specifically addresses what committee members have been grappling with through their study of the bill, while at the same time being careful not to hamstring their own deliberations or to risk bringing forward a report with inadmissible amendments, as contemplated at pages 775 and 776 of O'Brien and Bosc.

Additionally, there was a view that this action was consistent with the intentions of the sponsor of Bill C-425, the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

Ultimately, it is up to the House to decide what to do with Bill C-425. The discretion of the House and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration remains unfettered. Should a motion to concur in the 8th report be moved, the House would have a concurrence debate and vote in which all members would have an opportunity to have a say on the proposed instruction. Should the report be concurred in, the instruction to the committee would be permissive; that is to say that the committee is not mandated to amend the bill in such a manner.

Should the committee report the bill with amendments consistent with the instruction, it remains up to the House to accept the amendments, reverse them or propose further amendments when Bill C-425 is considered at report stage. Alternatively, the House retains the option of defeating the bill.

In summary, the intention of the instructions sought by the citizenship committee is not overly broad and results in an intelligible outcome. It is consistent with instructions authorizing the extension of the objects of a bill. It is for a purpose cognate to Bill C-425. It does not import a different subject matter into the bill or seek to amend other parent acts.

Finally, it does not propose an alternative scheme contradictory to the principle of the bill adopted at second reading.

Therefore, I respectfully submit that the 8th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is admissible.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel I need to address the question of privilege raised by my hon. colleague opposite regarding my private member's Bill C-425, which amends the Citizenship Act. From the time I tabled my bill, I have been clear in saying that I am open to friendly amendments that are in line with the aims and intent of my legislation, which is to create more pathways to integration, reward those who put their lives on the line for Canada and underscore the immense value of Canadian citizenship.

The second part of my bill revokes citizenship from a person who demonstrates deep disloyalty to Canada and Canadian values. My colleagues opposite want the House to believe that amending my bill to articulate acts of terrorism is not in line with the original intent of my bill. I can tell the House, as the author of the bill, that strengthening it to include acts of terrorism in addition to treason is well within my stated aims and intentions.

I also want to remind my colleagues opposite that as feared, the threat of terrorism has become very real to Canadians in recent days and months. I believe we, as members of Parliament and members of the committees of this House, have an obligation to take these threats seriously and need to be able to deal efficiently and effectively with the issues that touch the lives of Canadian citizens in a timely manner.

The members opposite perhaps forgot that a national poll conducted on this matter showed that over 80% Canadians agreed that the citizenship should be revoked of those who commit acts of terrorism. I hope my colleagues opposite are not using delay tactics to thwart the will of Canadians, but from this side of the House I am afraid that it looks as though they are. Perhaps they should be clear about their intentions. Do they oppose stripping citizenship from convicted terrorists? If they do, they need to come clean and say so.

Adding serious convicted terrorists to my bill wholly conforms to the spirit and intent of my legislation. I have been talking about stripping the citizenship of those who act against our Canadian values and commit violent acts of disloyalty. Being a terrorist is absolutely against our Canadian values and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

I would hope the opposition members would appreciate an extra three hours to debate my bill and make their case. Perhaps they could use the extra time to clarify their position. Do they support removing citizenship from convicted terrorists or not? Canadians need to see their Parliament able to act and act quickly in the interests of safety and security of its people.

I urge opposition members to stop playing politics with this issue as it can have dire consequences. Or they should tell Canadians why we need to keep convicted terrorists in Canada. The House should be allowed to have a debate regarding the scope of my bill, especially in the light of recent, timely events that have put homegrown terrorism front and centre in the minds of Canadians and have put Canada's reputation at stake at the international level.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the question of privilege—which is not truly a question of privilege—raised by my colleague from Toronto Centre. The question has to do with the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which recommends to the House that it:

...be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces) to expand the scope of the Bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces.

I want to share why I think this question should be ruled out of order. However, before I share my arguments, I would like to correct what has been said so far. When the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the member for York—Simcoe, spoke on April 25, 2013, he misled he House. In speaking about the amendment, he implied that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is:

...asking the House to debate it for a number of hours and decide whether we think it is within the scope [of the bill]...

As you know, Mr. Speaker, that is not at all the case. This report does not ask us to determine whether the proposed amendments are within the scope of the bill. On the contrary, as I will explain later on, the committee clearly showed that it knows the proposed amendments are outside the scope of the bill. The report asks the House to give the committee the power to expand the scope of the bill and not to make judgments about amendments that could be made in committee.

I must also add that the member for Toronto Centre clearly did not do his homework before he spoke prematurely on the concurrence of this report before a motion to concur even made it to the order paper. A committee may seek an instruction from the House to expand the scope of a bill. In the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O'Brien and Bosc are clear:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example...expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

That is exactly what the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is trying to do with its eighth report.

However, and this is the reason for my speech, there is a limit to the instruction that the House can give to a committee. I would like to quote from O'Brien and Bosc once again:

A motion of instruction will be ruled out of order if it does not relate to the content of the bill, if it goes beyond the scope of the bill (for example, by embodying a principle that is foreign to it...

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that you must intervene and rule that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's request for instruction is out of order. This request is far too broad and does not allow the House to determine if the committee is likely to include a principle that is foreign to the bill.

There is some precedent where motions of instruction were deemed to be in order and were debated in the House. However, in each of those instances, the instructions were far clearer than those sought by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration today. One example is from April 27, 2010, when the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan moved the following motion of instruction:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, that it have the power during its consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs), to expand the scope of the Bill so that a grandchild born before 1985 with a female grandparent would receive the same entitlement to status as a grandchild of a male grandparent born in the same period.

This motion was very clear and was ruled to be in order with good reason. It gave the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development permission to expand the scope of the bill in question, while providing strict limits as to how the committee could do that. By voting on this motion, the House was assured that the committee would not include a principle that is foreign to it in the bill.

In contrast, the motion of instruction that we have before us is simply asking the House for the power to expand the scope of the bill so that it is not limited to just the Canadian Armed Forces. What does that mean exactly? What amendments does the committee want make to the bill so that it applies to more than just the Canadian Armed Forces?

As it currently stands, the bill allows permanent residents who are members of the Canadian Armed Forces to get their citizenship more quickly. By asking that the bill apply to more than just members of the Canadian Armed Forces, is the committee suggesting that it would like to amend the bill so that permanent residents who are working in professions that are not related to the Canadian Armed Forces can also get their citizenship more quickly?

It is not at all clear. How can the House decide on such a motion of instruction when it does not know how the committee will proceed or whether the committee will try to include a principle that is not foreign to it in the bill?

I would also like to add that, if the committee's motion of instruction were to be found in order, it would set a dangerous precedent. By allowing a standing committee to expand the scope of a bill without specific instructions, we would be going down a very dangerous path under the current circumstances. Given this majority government's tendency to use private members' business to forward their own agenda, private members' business would be used as a way for the government to get around the rules.

Catherine Dauvergne, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, appeared before the committee as an individual during the examination of Bill C-425. She could not have provided a better explanation of the danger associated with such solicitation of instructions. She said:

...such a profound change to our Citizenship Act such as the one the minister is proposing must not be done by a process like this, by a private member's bill. That process reduces the time allowed for debate and for this committee to do its work and it protects the changes that the minister is proposing. This is controlling democracy.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Examination Regulations states:

In the case of every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown, the Minister shall, forthwith on receipt of two copies of the Bill from the Clerk of the House of Commons, (a) examine the Bill in order to determine whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...

By asking standing committees to broaden the scope of bills to include suggestions from ministers, the government is not fulfilling its responsibility to examine the bills, as stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Examination Regulations.

Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1), the constitutionality of private members' business is studied only by the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, before a bill is debated at second reading.

By trying to expand the scope of the bill after second reading, the government is avoiding the constitutional test and will therefore be able to amend private members' bills as it sees fit, instead of presenting those concepts in government bills that must pass the constitutional test of the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by urging you to pay particular attention to the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which the NDP feels should be ruled out of order.

Such a request for instruction is much too broad for the House to be able to ensure that the changes subsequently made by the committee will not include concepts that are foreign to the bill and will not violate the charter.

Giving such latitude to a standing committee will set a very dangerous precedent that this majority government will certainly use in a partisan and anti-democratic fashion.

Thank you for your attention. To help you with your study of this important issue, I will provide you with the evidence from the study of Bill C-425 conducted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I am convinced that, once you look at the evidence, you will also agree that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is out of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a fair bit of discussion in code here about what is being discussed.

In its original form, the private member's bill, Bill C-425, intended that if individuals with dual citizenship, those with citizenship in another country and in Canada, were to commit an act against a member of the Canadian military, they would be subject to the sanction of losing that citizenship. This was very much inspired by events in Afghanistan in particular, where the Canadian military were constantly exposed to these kinds of acts by people from all kinds of places.

As we have seen in recent events, such as the situation at the Algerian gas plant where Canadians were involved in a terrorist act and the recent events that have gripped us across North America, including the recent arrests in Canada, there is a concern that the kind of terrorist act that was captured by the original drafting of the bill perhaps could be worded a little differently to capture the full intent of what was intended. I understand that is the purpose of the amendment, so let us understand what we are talking about here.

The member for Toronto Centre and the opposition House leader are trying to find a way to prevent that particular definition that members of the committee thought they would like to have. There may be a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether it is beyond the scope of the bill or not; some believe it is within the scope of the bill, some believe it is not. Therefore, they are asking the House to debate it for a number of hours and decide whether we think it is within the scope, whether it should be within the scope and whether it is important for Canada to have the ability to provide that sanction against those who decide to take up arms as terrorists as well as those who take up arms against the military. It is part of the same thrust.

It is important for everyone to understand that this is what the member for Toronto Centre and the opposition House leader appear to indicate they wish to defeat on this kind of a technicality. They are raising it so that if they are successful in the arguments they are making to you, the consequence will be that the genuine will of members who are observing events and dealing with legislation in front of them to try to address this terrorist threat will be frustrated.

The easy answer to that is to say that it does not matter, so let us just go back and do another bill and take time and delay, because we do not really need to respond to these things quickly and in a decisive way. That is reminiscent of the theme from the Liberal Party for the past week and a half, so it does not surprise me that it is coming from them. We also saw how the New Democrats voted this week on the bill to address terrorism, so we clearly know how lacking their view is on how urgent and important it is to be able to address these threats.

That said, I would like an opportunity to explore this issue fully, because I did not anticipate this. Frankly, I must say that I am quite surprised that those parties would take this position on an issue of such contemporary urgency to Canadians, the issue of protecting us from terrorism, and I was unprepared for these kinds of procedural arguments. I would like the opportunity to come back and fully discuss the procedural aspects.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege that I want to raise. I know it will shock you to hear this, but I actually think it has some merit.

It stems from the private member's bill, Bill C-425, which was moved by the member for Calgary Northeast and which was being considered in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Last week the parliamentary secretary moved that the committee should recommend to the House that it be granted the power during the consideration of Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), to “expand the scope of the bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces”. That is going to be reported to the House of Commons.

This is an issue that affects the rights and privileges of all members, and indeed the very structure of the relationship between private bills, public bills and private members' bills.

My argument is quite simple. It is that if we were to allow the government majority to do this in order to allow for the consideration of other amendments that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has asked be added to the list, we would basically be allowing the government majority to completely expand the nature of private members' bills, which deal with a specific subject, and in fact to change their very nature from being private members' bills to being public bills.

However, if we allow the majority members to do that, they would be basically bypassing all of the requirements with respect to public bills. Those requirements include first reading, second reading, votes on both, and then referral to a committee to consider the whole structure.

Mr. Speaker, if we allow this to happen or, more specifically, if you allow this to happen, sir, the consequence will be very clear. It basically would mean that governments could increasingly use private members' bills as a way of getting other issues in front of the House, bypassing ordinary debate in second reading and the due consideration of this House so that after only two hours of debate on one subject, which in fact was what took place, the government would then suddenly be permitted to introduce other issues into the debate.

There are basically two points that I want to make in my argument. I feel so strongly about it—and this is a historic first—that I actually have some notes that I may consult from time to time as I deal with this matter.

First, Standing Order 97.1, which sets out the rules with respect to private members' bills, restricts a committee to making only two kinds of reports. The first is a report that brings back the bill, with or without amendments. Those are amendments that are within the scope of the bill, approved by the whole House at second reading. The second is a report requesting a 30-day extension to the committee's report deadline. No other report is allowed, and if that were not the case, it would be mentioned specifically in S. O. 97.1 or somewhere else in the chapter of our Standing Orders that governs private members' bills.

Mr. Speaker, you will be familiar with the simple legal thought that the expression of one thought is the exclusion of all others. I will not bore you with the Latin tag for that phrase, but it means that the fact that this procedure that is now being proposed by the government is not contained anywhere in Standing Order 97.1 or anywhere else in the Standing Orders dealing with private members' bills means that the scope of a private member's bill cannot be broadened to consider other matters, because the impact of that would be to completely change the reporting mechanisms that are basic to the relationship between private bills, private members' bills and public bills.

Mr. Speaker, my second point is that I think you also have to consider the impact that this can have—and, I would argue, will have in this instance—with respect to the procedures and considerations that we have.

Mr. Speaker, if you allow this to take place and allow a motion to be put to the House that basically broadens entirely the scope of a private member's bill to include the rest of the government's public agenda, imagine for a moment what the consequences would be.

It is very simple. The effect will be that the government could, by extrapolation, even add an omnibus feature to a private member's bill and say it is using its majority to add everything, the whole kitchen sink, into the measure.

Mr. Speaker, you have to say very clearly to this majority government that it cannot misuse and abuse private members' bills in this way. Private members' bills are intended for private members to put forward issues, items, agendas and concerns that they have. They are not intended to be a way by which the government skirts around the purposes of private members' bills and drives home its own agenda.

If the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has a variety of things that he would like to do—and we know that he does, because he has made speeches about them and has told the press that he intends to proceed with them—let him come into the House with a public bill. Let him come forward with a bill that pertains to the questions that he wants to raise. He cannot use a private member's bill to force his own agenda onto the Parliament of Canada.

This is a problem, and it is very clear that if the minister has something to present to the House of Commons, he must introduce a public bill, which will be thoroughly debated in the House at second reading, be sent to committee and come back to the House at third reading so that we can discuss it.

That is why we are not only concerned about the government's proposal, but we also think it is basically illegal. This proposal is not included in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Therefore, the House should not allow such a thing.

The House resumed from February 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Citizenship Act

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak to Bill C-425, which introduces three new grounds for citizenship, or its removal, under the Citizenship Act based on relations with the Canadian armed forces.

The bill introduces, first, a new ministerial power to shorten permanent residency requirements for members of the Canadian armed forces seeking citizenship. This would give a new power to the minister for the purpose of alleviating special and unusual hardship or to reward service of exceptional value to Canada. On application, it would also reduce the residency requirement from three years to two years for members of the Canadian armed forces seeking citizenship, so long as that member has both signed at least a three-year contract and has completed basic training.

Second, it contains a deemed application section for renunciation of Canadian citizenship if that citizen engages in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces and that same citizen is also a citizen or legal resident in a country other than Canada.

Third, there is a deemed withdrawal provision of an application for Canadian citizenship where a permanent resident who has made that application for citizenship has engaged in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces.

I must start by pointing out a classic bit of hypocrisy, which we often see from the Conservative side of the House, where the parliamentary secretary stood up and lectured the member for Mount Royal for bringing up the musings of the Minister of Immigration this past week of adding a section that would also allow the government to strip citizenship of those accused of terrorism. The parliamentary secretary berated the hon. member on this side of the House for bringing that up and considering that. He then proceeded to do the same thing in his own speech.

One wonders whether basic elements of consistency and principle have any traction on that side of the House. By the way, I want to compliment the member for Mount Royal on a thoughtful speech that points out what Canadians really want to see in their immigration policy and in policy in general, which is well-thought-out, rational, policy-based, evidence-based and constitutional legislation.

The background to the bill and the context in which it occurs is important for Canadians to remember. Since March 2008, over 25 major changes have been made to immigration procedures, rules, legislation and regulation. These have increased dramatically since the Conservatives formed a majority government. Among other changes, the Conservatives have used their majority to freeze parental sponsorships, to weaken family reunification, to punish vulnerable refugees and to increase the number of temporary foreign workers to meet the demands of their friends on the employer side of the equation. Most of these changes are politically motivated, invariably heartless, always without evidentiary basis and frequently unconstitutional.

Bill C-425 attempts to fast-track the time within which certain permanent residents may apply for citizenship. New Democrats think the government ought instead to be working to address the exceptionally long processing times for citizenship applications, which Citizenship and Immigration Canada currently reports is an almost two-year wait for processing. In other words, no one in this country gets their citizenship recognized anywhere near the time they are legally entitled to, and as such Bill C-425 is making a hollow and, I would respectfully submit, politically motivated promise.

Two years is the average. I have constituents waiting for citizenship, and I think every member in the House does, who wait between two and five years. These are permanent residents who came to this country, did everything they were asked of by this country, have worked hard, paid their taxes and want to become citizens so they can vote in this country, fully express their democratic rights and get a Canadian passport.

Instead of taking care of these unbelievably appalling and outrageously long lines, the government does nothing and instead fiddles with these relatively arcane issues that do not affect very many people at all. This private member's bill would get at an extremely limited number of cases as the circumstances under which a permanent resident would be able to enrol in the Canadian Forces are currently extremely narrow.

The Canadian Forces website and the Canadian Forces Ottawa recruitment office have made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that a permanent resident may not enrol in the Canadian Forces. A permanent resident may only enrol when the Chief of the Defence Staff of Canada or such officer as he may designate authorizes the enrolment of a citizen of another country, which would only happen if he is satisfied that a special need exists and that the national interest would not be prejudiced thereby.

How many permanent residents do we really think are in the Canadian Armed Forces who have served three years, who have completed basic training, who are permanent residents, who are applying for Canadian citizenship and are residents and citizens of another country? However, I can tell the House how many permanent residents are waiting right now for their citizenship: hundreds and hundreds of thousands. One might ask, why would any member of the House target a bill that might affect six people, a dozen or a couple of dozen, instead of dealing with 300,000 Canadians? That shows misplaced priorities.

In terms of the other part of the bill, deemed stripping of citizenship, I want to repeat the remarks of my friend, the hon. member for Mount Royal, who points out the very delicate matter of stripping citizenship from people.

It may be good policy, because I have noticed in the House that whenever the government gets in trouble, whenever one of its members gets criminally charged or is under ethical investigation or the government is having a bad week, the government turns to one of two things, a crime bill or an immigration bill. Invariably, it seeks to marginalize and attack a certain group.

Right now we have a member from Edmonton who is charged for failing to take a breathalyzer test; we have Senator Brazeau who is charged with domestic and sexual assault; we have four senators now who do not seem to know where they live despite the constitutional requirement to reside in the province to collect their money. In fact, they are collecting money and per diems from Canadian taxpayers to live in Ottawa based on the fact they are away from their homes, but they have homes in the Ottawa area.

Marginalizing and attacking certain groups is a constant theme of the government, but Canadians are not fooled. They are not fooled because if the government were truly interested in dealing with citizenship and immigration, it would be attacking the real problems facing people in this country, including appallingly long wait times to sponsor one's parents and unite one's family, for employers to get their workers here, and for skilled workers to immigrate to this country.

Right now, despite all the rhetoric and fast talk of the Minister of Immigration, the truth, as members will find out in talking to any immigrant community across this country from coast to coast, is that wait times are as long today as they were five years ago. There is no progress. People do not mind waiting six or 12 months, but wait times are now measured almost in decades. People wait 10 years to sponsor their parents.

I have a real case from one of my constituents in the armed forces, who is serving with distinction. He is from Vietnam. He applied in October 2006 to sponsor his widowed mother in Vietnam. The sponsorship was verified and first-stage approval was given in 2009 and it has been in transit for second stage approval, which was received in Singapore in 2009. The most recent status update that we did for this gentleman in December 2012 indicates that the application was received in 2009, that it is in queue and that there is a 49-month wait.

Thus, there is a four-year wait from now, plus the three years' wait from 2009, on top of the wait from the time he applied in 2006. This member of our armed force, who is proudly serving our country, defending our interests, putting his life on the line and who wants to sponsor his mother, has been waiting since 2006, some seven years, and has another four to wait. This person will wait 11 years to sponsor a parent. He is not alone.

Is the government doing anything to speed up the process? No, it is cutting the number of officers around the globe. It is cutting funding for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and wait times will get longer.

While all the fast talking is being done by the minister, Canadians know the truth, that the government is using immigration as a political football, not trying to improve the process.

I also want to point out that the parliamentary secretary said that the Conservatives had strengthened our Canadian citizenship. I ask, when was it weak? Who thought it was weak, because we on the New Democrat side of the House have always valued Canadian citizenship? We think all Canadians have as well. The Conservatives act as if Canadians took their citizenship lightly before 2006. In Vancouver Kingsway, consisting of some 70% new Canadians or at least second or third generation Canadians, these people take their Canadian citizenship extremely seriously. I do not know what kind of mind could conjure up the idea that someone is taking Canadian citizenship lightly, but it is surely no one on this side of the House.

I will conclude by saying that the New Democrats will support the bill's passage to committee, because we want to study the bill and pursue amendments. The idea of doing anything that might speed up citizenship for any member of our forces is an idea worthy of exploration, but let us be clear: Only a New Democrat government will ever bring in the kind of immigration reforms necessary to actually satisfy the needs of the immigrant community in this country. We will do that in 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-425, introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

First, it is important to mention that the main principle behind this legislation seems laudable, even though some parts have serious flaws that would also have serious consequences.

The hon. member wants to reward permanent residents who join the Canadian armed forces by speeding up citizenship approval, and the official opposition supports that idea.

The suggestion to reduce from three to two years the required period of residence in Canada to grant citizenship to a member of the armed forces meets several objectives.

It would allow us to better recognize and value the contribution of the newcomers who join our armed forces.

Our military make sacrifices. Sometimes, they even make the ultimate sacrifice. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to give them all the recognition they deserve. Therefore, acknowledging this exceptional contribution by speeding up citizenship approval would be welcome.

Moreover, this initiative would support the Canadian Forces' will to promote greater diversity in their ranks.

Currently, visible minorities account for only 6% of the Canadian armed forces. That is clearly not enough, considering that, by the end of the decade, visible minorities will account for 20% of the labour force. If the proposed measure can promote greater representation for ethnocultural communities in our armed forces, we will be happy to support it.

After all, the Canadian Forces serve the community and act as representatives abroad. Therefore, it is essential that they reflect the diversity of Canadian society.

That said, several aspects of Bill C-425 are quite problematic.

First, I am particularly concerned about the issue of renunciation of citizenship.

The bill provides that a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of his Canadian citizenship if he engages in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces. Also, a permanent resident who commits such an act would also be deemed to have withdrawn his application for Canadian citizenship.

The fact is that there is no definition of the expressions “act of war” and “legal resident” in Canadian law.

Also, there is no mention in the text submitted by the member for Calgary Northeast of the processes that, for example, would follow an accusation of act of war. Consequently, the bill does not have the necessary legal basis for its implementation and it would be totally dependent on judicial interpretation.

The scope of the legislation proposed by the hon. member is very broad, unless benchmarks are included regarding its legal basis and the resulting processes.

So, it is essential that the committee look at ways to define the terms used in the bill and spell out the process related to this possible renunciation of citizenship.

The operationalization of Bill C-425 is also problematic.

First, the basic requirement to join the Canadian Forces is to be a Canadian citizen. The only possibility for a permanent resident to join is to get an authorization from the Chief of the Defence Staff to fill a special need, or because of a significant lack of human resources, which is presently not the case.

Only a very small minority will be able to take advantage of the bill’s positive aspects.

As a matter of fact, during the discussions that have taken place at second reading, the sponsor of the bill has been unable to provide us with information about the number of people who might be affected by this measure.

There is therefore some research that should be conducted on this point. In addition, we think it is fair to wonder whether the government’s real objective here is not the renunciation of Canadian citizenship much more than it is the recognition of military service.

The delays in obtaining citizenship also deserve particular attention.

Right now, nearly 300,000 permanent residents are waiting to be granted Canadian citizenship. Consequently, despite the good will of the bill’s sponsor, the reality is that departmental cutbacks have significantly reduced the pace at which files are handled at all levels.

The handful of permanent residents who, according to the current version, will be able to take advantage of the proposed measure will not be much further ahead because of the huge backlog of applications.

In addition, I am wondering about the way in which the government has prioritized its action. The minister announced cuts of $80.3 million in the last budget, he is shutting down visa application centres and scaling down client services at CIC.

Delays in all immigration programs are escalating all the time. People are having trouble reaching staff members, and thousands of applicants are paying for the minister’s mistakes.

There is therefore a dichotomy between the bill introduced by the member and the decisions being made by the current government. As the system is being gutted, my colleague is proposing to accelerate processing of citizenship applications for permanent residents who might be able to serve in the Canadian Forces.

That being said, I agree with the bill’s principle and direction, and I think it necessary to support the bill at second reading, so that it can be reviewed in depth in committee. However, several elements that will make the bill acceptable in both its content and its implementation will have to be included.

The notions of “act of war” and “legal resident” should be defined in the bill in order to limit the potential for judicial interpretation. The process surrounding the renunciation of citizenship must also be considered. We will have to debate this part of the bill and flesh it out. It would be completely shameful for the government to create two classes of citizens without any debate or real consultation.

We must also consider the scope of the bill and potentially broaden it. It would be short-sighted to make legislative amendments that affect so few individuals.

In closing, I believe that we must consider Bill C-425. However, it seems clear to me that we must work together to limit its potential for abuse and optimize its application. This will allow us to come back to the House with a document that meets its original objectives.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the member for Mount Royal. It sounded to me to be a somewhat speculative perspective on what may or may not be an amendment to the bill. I would suggest to the member that he would be wise to use his time to speak specifically to the bill in front of us versus speaking about amendments when he is not sure what they are going to look like or what they are going to propose. It is the process we use here in the House of Commons.

Further, the citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism committee is going to be reviewing this private member's bill when it passes through second reading. He can rest assured that it will get the due process and time necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill C-425, which is the private member's bill introduced by the member for Calgary Northeast. It is not surprising to me that such a bill was introduced by a member of Parliament who is an immigrant to Canada. I have found that naturalized Canadians often have a more acute understanding of the meaning and importance of Canadian citizenship, having made a deliberate choice, and often great sacrifices, to attain it. It says a lot that the bill was introduced by this member of Parliament, an immigrant to Canada himself, and that his bill has received overwhelming support from new Canadians especially.

I want to commend the member for Calgary Northeast for bringing forward a bill that is based on principle and on strengthening the value of our Canadian citizenship. In fact, no government has done more to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship than our Conservative government. For example, we introduced the new citizenship study guide, entitled “Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship”. The guide provides essential information for anyone preparing to become a Canadian citizen. This helps ensure that all newcomers have more knowledge of the country they are joining.

In our country, if someone sells 5,000 or 10,000 new books, it is considered a bestseller. What is interesting is that “Discover Canada” has literally been taken off the shelves across the country. Literally thousands of copies have been requested by individuals and schools. It is a testament to the fact that we actually have a document that shows that the honour of citizenship bestowed on an individual requires research, study and commitment from those who anticipate and expect Canadian citizenship.

To add to that, it provides a much better overview of Canada's traditions, our values and our history, including our immigration history, than its predecessor. The old guide contained no reference, for example, to the Remembrance Day poppy and little mention of the stories and symbols that made us who we are, including the first and second world wars. We are pleased that it has been a tremendous success and is popular, not only with applicants who are seeking Canadian citizenship but with established Canadians as well.

Furthermore, our government has taken action to crack down on citizenship fraud. We are ensuring that anyone who lies about who they are, their residency in Canada or hidden past criminal activities has their citizenship stripped. We have created a citizenship fraud tip line so that Canadians can anonymously report fraud. There are currently 11,000 fraud investigations underway, which include 3,100 Canadian citizens. We are sending a clear message that Canadian citizenship is not for sale. We are applying the full strength of the law to those who have obtained their citizenship fraudulently.

The first part of the bill should be something all members of the House can easily support, which is fast-tracking Canadian citizenship for permanent residents who serve in our Canadian armed forces. More specifically, Bill C-425 proposes to fast-track citizenship for members of the Canadian Forces who are permanent residents by reducing the resident requirement for citizenship by one year. This would be for Canadian Forces members who have signed a minimum three-year contract and have completed basic training within our armed forces.

It is true that permanent residents cannot easily join the Canadian Forces, but if the forces have a position that requires skills and expertise for which a Canadian citizen may not be available, they can recruit permanent residents for that position. While it is also true that this would not impact a great number of permanent residents, it does not make it any less important. It is important recognition of the loyalty, service and willing sacrifice shown to our country by the individuals, regardless of how small or large that number may be.

The second part of this bill has received quite a bit of attention recently. As currently written, it would result in anyone who commits “acts of war” against the Canadian Forces having deemed renunciation of their Canadian citizenship.

Recently the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism suggested that the bill could be expanded to include terrorist acts against Canada and its allies. The reaction from Canadians was perhaps not the same as from those who sit across from us in the House of Commons. However, certainly Canadians across this country responded to the recommendation. A poll commissioned by the member for Calgary Northeast himself on this bill found that almost 85% of Canadians agree or strongly agree with stripping Canadian citizenship from terrorists, and a petition posted on the minister's member of Parliament website was signed by an astounding 10,000 people in less than five days.

I know that since the introduction of this bill almost a year ago, the MP for Calgary Northeast and the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism have been speaking about ways to enhance and expand this section, despite what the opposition claims, as it tries to desperately find a criticism for such a popular proposal. It sometimes does leave me astounded. When a good piece of legislation is brought forward in the House of Commons that is stripped free of partisanship, the simple thing the opposition needs to do is to support it.

There have been several examples in the past, unfortunately including very recently, when this has happened. The recent discovery that one of the organizers of a horrendous bombing in Bulgaria, which killed several innocent people, was a dual national Canadian citizen, disturbed Canadians across the country, including me, and I am sure all members of the House of Commons.

The 1947 Citizenship Act actually included the power to revoke citizenship from those who were guilty of treason. The removal of this provision, in 1997, made Canada's citizenship law an aberration, as virtually all other liberal democracies have the legal authority to strip citizenship for such crimes as treason and terrorism. In Australia, for example, and the United Kingdom, a person can be stripped of citizenship if it is in the public interest, a much lower and more vague standard than the sponsor of this bill or the minister have suggested. France, New Zealand, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Brazil are a few examples of countries that can strip citizenship for treason or terrorism, among other things.

The fact is that Canadian citizenship is already not inalienable, as it can be renounced voluntarily, or revoked, as I mentioned, from those who have obtained it fraudulently. Like the 1947 Citizenship Act, the premise of the bill put forward by the MP for Calgary Northeast is that citizenship is predicated on reciprocal loyalty. If a Canadian passport holder maintains another nationality while waging war against Canada, this should be construed for what is so obviously clear; it is a deliberate renunciation of one's citizenship. In other words, renunciation of Canadian citizenship should be possible, not just through the legal formalism of signing an application, but also a logical consequence of one's violent actions against one's country.

The question that has been raised is whether this principle of deemed renunciation of citizenship should also apply to Canadian passport holders who are convicted of serious terrorist acts. Given that Canada is an enemy of terrorism and proscribed terrorist organizations in particular, it is very reasonable to suggest that participation in terrorist crimes be considered a voluntary renunciation of one's loyalty to this country and consequently of one's citizenship.

To conclude, the member for Calgary Northeast's thoughtful private members' bill, and the amendments that have been suggested by the government, would finally bring Canada in line with other liberal democracies and would strengthen, again, the value of Canadian citizenship. It would also send the message that Canadian citizenship has real meaning and cannot be used as a flag of convenience by violent terrorists.

I hope the NDP and Liberals will listen to the vast majority of Canadians. If they do not want to listen to this side of the House, they should listen to the vast majority of Canadians and support this important piece of legislation going to committee for a thorough review and study. Our government is strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship. I hope the NDP and Liberals will work with us instead of against us in this regard.

If the NDP and the Liberals do not want to listen to this side of the House, they should listen to the vast majority of Canadians and support this important legislation going to committee for a thorough review and study. Our government is strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship. I hope the NDP and Liberals will work with us instead of against us in this regard.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

This private member's bill, at present, makes two changes to the citizenship process. First, it reduces the time a permanent resident must wait for citizenship if he or she completes basic training and has signed a minimum three-year contract with the Canadian armed forces. I would just note here that if this were the entire bill, I think it might well be passed by unanimous consent and we would not be having this debate today. I wholeheartedly support this provision.

The second element of the legislation provides that a person is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship or is deemed to have withdrawn their application for Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces.

What complicates and indeed invites today's debate are the public statements by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that he seeks to modify the bill to revoke the citizenship of those who have engaged in acts of terror. Regrettably, we do not have his legislative amendments before us in the House. We do not know the exact wording he proposes. This may make all the difference, not only from a policy standpoint but from a legal and constitutional perspective as well.

The minister has argued that the power to revoke citizenship in such cases is a necessary one. He is quoted in La Presse this morning.

The amendments that I suggested will finally make it possible for Canada to harmonize its approach with those of other liberal democracies and will strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. This will send a clear message that Canadian citizenship has real meaning and is not just a pass that violent terrorists can use with impunity.

The rhetoric in this statement certainly resonates and appears compelling on its face. Indeed, a commentator on this point, Mr. Ibbitson from the Globe and Mail, said something to the effect that if nothing else, this is good politics, and the immigration and citizenship minister is certainly a good politician.

However, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been in this role since October 2008. He has, since then, introduced seven immigration acts, none of which have called for such a provision. Questions arise. Why now? Why this bill? Why in this way?

What Canadians may not know, though the issue is drawing more attention of late, is that a key difference between a private member's bill, such as that which is before us, and a government bill, such as would be the case if the minister were to introduce stand-alone legislation in this regard, is that government bills require the constitutional approval of the Minister of Justice pursuant to the Department of Justice Act.

In other words, by introducing such items through this private member's route, one circumvents the long-standing process by which legislative proposals are vetted for compliance with Canada's Constitution, including an assessment by the Department of Justice for litigation risk. This, of course, invites the question of whether there is an issue here of constitutional concern. As well, is there a related litigation risk?

Simply put, while we have a process allowing for the revocation of citizenship, as per section 10 of the Citizenship Act, in cases where a person obtains citizenship, for example, through false representation, fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances, we do not have other ways of revoking citizenship at present. This new proposal, by way of a private member's bill, raises serious constitutional concerns given, inter alia, the Charter's guarantees in sections 6, 7 and 15, particularly where it engages matters of national or ethnic origin, or potentially the recognized analogous ground of citizenship.

Moreover, there are concerns with respect to the Canadian Bill of Rights, which reads in part, “no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to...authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person”. The Bill of Rights also prohibits an act that would “deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations”. I should note, however, that there is a notwithstanding process in that regard.

At its core Bill C-425, and this is the key point, goes to the heart of the question of citizenship in Canada, a concept that is actually quite fluid and flexible, perhaps more than most Canadians think, with attending constitutional concerns.

Indeed, it remains unclear under what circumstances the revocation of formal citizenship, as opposed to the denial of an application for citizenship by a permanent resident, would implicate charter considerations. It is for this reason that rigorous debate by the members in this place is so important with regard to the bill, as it would implicate our constitutional responsibilities as members of Parliament with respect to public oversight of the legislation, as well as trustees of the public with respect to any risk litigation.

Let me be clear. There is no question that an act of war against Canadian armed forces represents a repudiation of the values that we associate with the concept of citizenship, namely democracy, security, freedom, and equality. However, it is critical that we closely scrutinize any proposed legislation that would implicate rule of law considerations.

As I have noted, the concept of citizenship in Canada is flexible and the question of under what circumstances the government is entitled to revoke citizenship has perhaps not been fully yet determined by our courts. However, unlike questions of naturalization, the revocation of formal citizenship raises important questions pursuant to sections 6, 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Indeed, despite the repugnance of the crimes at issue, namely, the commission of an act of war or terrorism against one's own country, constitutional rights and the rule of law are not negotiable. Therefore, the fundamental questions we must ask, and it is our responsibility to address these questions, is to what extent these constitutional rights would be implicated by this legislation.

If the members in this place are to enable the revocation by the Government of Canada of Canadian citizenship in instances of criminality such as this, we must, simply put, ensure that such revocation is consistent with the rule of law, as defined by the charter and the related jurisprudence.

As I have mentioned, there are three distinct charter provisions engaging a panoply of rights that may be implicated by changes to the Citizenship Act such as proposed by this bill. These are sections 6, 7 and 15 and which together provide for a necessary starting point in discussing the constitutional contours of the legal concept of Canadian citizenship and the implications of such revocation.

Section 6(1) of the charter provides for the right of any citizen to “enter, remain in and leave Canada”. This is one of the charter rights that applies only to citizens, rather than to permanent residents, whose constitutional mobility rights are separately provided for by section 6(2). Certainly, the revocation of citizenship in a particular instance would result in the inapplicability or denial of section 6(1)'s mobility rights.

Accordingly, on this point, it is precisely for this reason that it is of critical importance to ensure that the revocation of citizenship is consistent with procedural due process requirements. Moreover, because the revocation of citizenship would result in the revocation of section 6(1)'s mobility rights, it would also raise concerns with respect to section 7 of the charter and the right to liberty. Indeed, the Supreme Court has determined that section 7 rights apply universally to anyone present in Canada, regardless of citizenship status. As well, it would implicate the rights of security of the person also in section 7. Therefore, we would have a panoply of rights here implicated. It is a central constitutional question that we cannot avoid addressing.

Finally, we must consider section 15 of the charter, which constitutionally prohibits the federal government from passing discriminatory citizenship laws. The courts have recognized that citizenship status is an analogous ground to the enumerated section 15 protected categories, thereby providing for constitutional protection against discrimination based upon citizenship.

Moreover, section 15 has been deemed to apply regardless of citizenship status. Therefore, by allowing for the revocation of citizenship, even in cases of commission of acts of terror, but only in cases where an individual is also a citizen of another country, Bill C-425 would raise section 15 equality concerns. Simply put, the bill would potentially discriminate against those Canadians who are also dual citizens of both Canada and another country.

Some may wonder why I raise the right to a fair hearing to which I referred to earlier. Since we do not know the language of the legislative amendments proposed by the minister, it could be that the proposed revocation of citizenship is automatic, thus, depriving one of a fair hearing. In the alternative, it could be that the proposal deems an application for renunciation to have been made by the person with respect to the person who has perpetrated the act of terror. The question then becomes one of whether the person could withdraw his or her deemed renunciation or make a further submission as to why the deemed renunciation should not be granted.

I raise these questions not as arcane procedural questions or trivial debating points but as serious considerations that need to be determined and debated in committee. Indeed, there is no question that the first time this revocation process is used, for whatever reason, it will be challenged in the courts, and the government will be obliged to defend it at taxpayers' expense.

Accordingly, we must have—

The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, two days ago I had the privilege of presenting to the House my first private member's bill, Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian armed forces).

I want to thank all colleagues for their comments and the informed and respectful debate that occurred in the House. It is my understanding, from the first hour of debate, that we all agree with the sprit of the bill, that we all desire to see our men and women in uniform honoured and that we all hold the value of Canadian citizenship to the highest esteem.

I look forward to a second hour of debate that is as constructive as the first hour. I want to thank all members of the House in advance for their anticipated support to send the bill to committee where it can be thoroughly reviewed.

I wish to reiterate that I am open to all friendly amendments that will strengthen the spirit of the bill.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today about Bill C-425, which introduces new grounds for granting or revoking Canadian citizenship.

Under the Citizenship Act, Bill C-425 would, under certain conditions, allow the immigration minister to reduce from three years to two the required years of residence to grant citizenship to members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are permanent residents.

In addition, under this bill, an individual would be deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship if they engaged in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces.

The NDP is in favour of expediting the process of granting Canadian citizenship to reward the dedication of permanent residents who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. We also want the Canadian Armed Forces to reflect Canada's diversity. However, in terms of the specifics set out in Bill C-425, there are currently very few situations in which a permanent resident would be able to enlist in the Canadian Armed Forces.

If Canada wishes to recognize the extraordinary contributions of future citizens, why not offer this same advantage to new Canadians who make remarkable contributions to Canadian society in other sectors, and not just through military service?

While Bill C-425 is meant to reduce the timeframe required to obtain citizenship for certain permanent residents, the NDP believes that the government also needs to work on reducing the exceptionally long wait times for the processing of all citizenship applications. I think it is important to point out that the sweeping changes the Conservatives have made to the Canadian immigration system in recent years have not made it any more efficient or fair.

According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the processing time for citizenship applications is nearly two years. Furthermore, the self-described “forgotten ones of Buffalo”, whom I saw at lunch time, actually, were on Parliament Hill today to continue to pressure the government. These immigrants, many of whom live in Quebec City, are still waiting for the federal government to settle their status. So what happened?

The Canadian visa office in Buffalo, where their applications were being processed, suddenly closed up shop in the wake of the Conservative government's budget cuts. Many of them submitted their applications two or three years ago and are still waiting to hear from Citizenship and Immigration, which is giving very little information about how long it may take to process their files. The upshot is that over 10,000 immigrants are still waiting for their application for permanent residence to be processed, and meanwhile, they are left completely in limbo.

Unfortunately, it is just the tip of the iceberg: as of last June, 285,000 people were waiting for their applications to be processed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada officials. At the same time, the department was cut by 5.3% as a result of the last federal budget. Even though waiting periods continue to grow, 285 positions were eliminated across the country.

There is a significant backlog in more than just citizenship applications. According to an article that appeared in Le Droit in November 2012, more than one million people who want to come to Canada are still waiting for a decision on their immigration file. It seems that this backlog will not be cleared before 2017, according to a report released last winter by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

This same report recommended that Citizenship and Immigration Canada modernize several of its immigration practices as soon as possible. According to information obtained by Radio-Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada dismissed 75 employees at its Montreal call centre, where the department's telephone services for clients across the country are centralized.

Unfortunately, according to the same information obtained by Radio-Canada, officers could only answer 9% of the 30,000 calls received daily. David Chalk, chair of the Quebec association of immigration lawyers, says he is worried about this situation.

Mr. Chalk got his lawyer colleagues in Canada to phone the call centre in Montreal. They had to wait an average of four hours to speak to an agent. Is this normal? Citizenship and Immigration Canada defended itself by saying that it was possible to file a complaint about the abnormally long wait time. However, to get in touch with the complaints department, you have to go through the call centre.

In my Quebec City riding office, I often receive calls from claimants in distress who do not understand why the process is taking so long. These immigrants contribute to Canadian society. Most of them are permanent residents and are already participating in society. They sometimes have children who are Canadian citizens. Unfortunately, on this government's watch—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to add my comments to Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian armed forces). I would like to extend my congratulations to my hon. colleague, the member of Parliament for Calgary Northeast, who introduced this private member's bill. By doing so, the hon. member has demonstrated an admirable commitment to recognizing the exemplary service of Canada's men and women in uniform, the very worthy individuals who stand on the front lines and put their lives at risk to defend our safety and liberty.

This private member's bill proposes to fast-track citizenship for members of the Canadian armed forces who are permanent residents by reducing the residence requirements for citizenship by one year for those members. It also proposes to take citizenship away from or deny citizenship to those who engage in acts of war against the Canadian armed forces.

Canadian citizenship is extremely valuable and I commend the member for recognizing this through his private member's bill. Canadians, whether established or new, must take our responsibilities as citizens very seriously. From generation to generation, thousands upon thousands of Canadian soldiers have given their lives for this country. Countless more risk their lives and some are doing so right now.

While enrolment in the Canadian armed forces is usually limited to Canadian citizens, permanent residents who have not yet acquired citizenship are sometimes employed in exceptional circumstances. These are people who dedicate their lives to protecting Canada yet they do not possess the fundamental membership in Canadian society. Their lack of citizenship often correlates with challenges in acquiring security clearances and arranging passports. This creates problems in deploying these individuals abroad.

Introducing a fast track to citizenship for permanent residents who serve in our country's armed forces, as the bill proposes, would help mitigate these types of problems. The proposals in the bill to honour the Canadian Forces are in line with other measurements the government has taken in the past few years. This includes recognizing the distinctive merit and exceptional service displayed by recipients of the Order of Military Merit.

The Order of Military Merit established in 1972 recognizes distinctive merit and exceptional service displayed by the men and women of the Canadian armed forces. Many of these men and women have demonstrated dedication and devotion beyond the call of duty and the order honours them for their commitment to our country.

Last fall, the Government of Canada announced that members of the Order of Military Merit at the colonel level and above are now eligible to preside at citizenship ceremonies. The Order of Military Merit honours military service to Canada. It is therefore fitting that recipients of this award can preside at citizenship ceremonies, an occasion at which we reflect on the value of Canadian citizenship and the responsibility we carry as Canadians.

The Government of Canada launched the citizenship action plan three years ago in order to strengthen and preserve the value of Canadian citizenship. First we developed a new citizenship guide “Discover Canada”, which explores our history, shared values, symbols and institutions in a more in-depth way than its predecessor. In addition, we improved the knowledge requirement for Canadian citizenship with a new test. We did so to ensure that new citizens can appreciate the foundation upon which our shared values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law were built.

We have also taken action to address the problem of residence fraud in our citizenship program. As the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism announced in September, Citizenship and Immigration Canada is now investigating more than 11,000 individuals from more than 100 countries for attempting to cheat Canadians and Canada. In order to help detect fraud we have also introduced a citizenship fraud tip line. We are also taking action to crack down on crooked consultants who often help people maintain a Canadian address to appear as though they are living in Canada, even though in some cases they never have.

Canadians should be proud that so many people around the world want to become Canadian citizens. It is a testament to what a great country we live in. We can often take our citizenship for granted though. It is easy to forget how many people do not enjoy the liberty, security and freedom that we as Canadians do.

Our government believes that citizenship is precious, that it is a privilege and we have sent a clear message to those who would lie and cheat to obtain it that Canadian citizenship is not for sale. Bill C-425 aims to protect the value of citizenship by giving citizenship sooner to members of the Canadian Forces and by taking it away from those who undermine our country by taking up arms against Canada. In principle, it makes sense that those who commit violent acts against Canada and our armed forces, who do not believe in Canadian values or the value of Canadian citizenship should no longer hold citizenship in our great country. However, this proposal requires further study.

The bill contains certainly laudable proposals. That is why I personally support the bill moving forward to committee for further review and study, and I hope all members in the House will also do the same.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces). The bill would create a new ministerial power to reduce the length of residency in Canada required for a member of the Canadian armed forces to obtain citizenship.

This bill would make it possible to renounce Canadian citizenship from a Canadian citizen who is also a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada if he engages in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces.

The same goes for a permanent resident who has applied for Canadian citizenship. The application would be deemed to have been withdrawn if he engaged in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces.

I will focus on the accelerated citizenship process that the minister could request for a member of the Canadian armed forces.

This bill grants the minister a new power. This power would allow him, on request and to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exceptional value, to lower the length of residency in Canada required for a member of the Canadian armed forces who wants to obtain citizenship from three years to two, provided that the member in question has signed a minimum three-year contract and has completed basic training.

I want to make it clear that since we are talking about a member who has signed a contract for at least three years, we are of course talking about a regular forces member. Members of the reserve forces do not sign three-year contracts. We are definitely talking about a regular forces member.

This bill is divided into two parts. The first part is about members of the Canadian Forces obtaining Canadian citizenship and the second part is about revoking Canadian citizenship when a CF member engages in an act of war against someone.

I would like to come back to the first part of the bill. I would point out that it is really quite rare for someone who is not already a Canadian citizen to serve in the Canadian Forces.

When I read the bill, I immediately wondered about the relevance of introducing such a bill. You cannot be a member of the Canadian Forces unless you are a Canadian citizen. I began to wonder if what I remembered was incorrect. So I went to the website, and it said repeatedly that you have to be a Canadian citizen in order to become a member of the Canadian Forces. So then I asked the Library of Parliament to do a little research, and I was shown the regulations in question, the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, which included the following exception:

...the Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may authorize the enrolment of a citizen of another country if he is satisfied that a special need exists and that the national interest would not be prejudiced thereby;

Such exceptions are therefore quite rare and I must say, I doubt that most recruitment officers are even aware that this exception exists. When you go into a recruitment centre, they tell you that you have to be a Canadian citizen. If someone says they are a permanent resident, they are usually told to come back once they have obtained their citizenship. Since this is an exception, I have to wonder about the usefulness of such a measure, but I understand why it is there.

If we want to have this provision in place for highly exceptional cases, then I think we must examine this issue and determine whether the enlistment process for the Canadian armed forces needs to be reviewed. This would allow landed immigrants or even people from safe allied countries to enlist. For example, could an Australian say that he wants to serve in the Canadian Forces, since Canada is a relatively safe Commonwealth country?

An Australian has an allegiance to the same Crown and this would be reasonable, for example. Could this person with very specific training enlist in the Canadian Forces any way other than with authorization from the Chief of Defence Staff? We must think about that, but in this bill there is unfortunately no reference to the changes that could be made to the National Defence Act regarding enlisting in the Canadian Forces. I think that is the main flaw.

I will support sending the bill to committee, but I think this type of bill cannot be introduced without also introducing measures or making suggestions about the parameters of enlisting in the Canadian Forces or what reforms are necessary.

At the time, when I read the bill for the first time, I spoke briefly to the Minister of National Defence to find out whether he planned to change the laws on the requirements for joining the Canadian Forces so that permanent residents could serve. However, no changes were planned. I do not believe that he was against such changes either. I will therefore support the bill, but I think that we really have to have this discussion about whether National Defence's rules can be changed to allow people who are not Canadian citizens to join the Canadian Forces, whether those rules are still appropriate and whether they should be modernized and updated. It seems strange to me to have a bill that pertains to exceptional cases.

I served in the Canadian armed forces for three years. Many of my colleagues in the House served for a number of years. I, for one, have never met a soldier who was not a Canadian citizen. All the soldiers with whom I worked were already Canadian citizens.

Introducing a bill such as this that pertains to an exceptional case seems a bit strange to me and I am not sure that it is necessarily useful. I think that this bill should have included measures that establish who has the right to join and then it would have been useful to also refer it to the Standing Committee on National Defence. Unfortunately, such is not the case.

As I said, I will support the bill, but I think that there is really something missing. I understand the intention of the member who is introducing this bill, but I think he simply did not realize just how exceptional it is for people who are not Canadian citizens to serve in the Canadian Forces. Perhaps he did not realize that this measure is not necessarily very relevant in the context of serving in the Canadian armed forces. I understand the point of the bill and I thank my colleague for introducing it, but I really believe that he should find a way to make this discussion happen.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-425, put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. Bill C-425 proposes to fast-track citizenship for members of the Canadian Forces who are permanent residents, by reducing their residence requirement for citizenship by one year. This would be for the Canadian Forces members who have signed a minimum three-year contract and have completed basic training. It also proposes to take citizenship away from, or deny citizenship to, those who engage in an act of war against the Canadian Forces. Such individuals would permanently be barred from reapplying for citizenship.

I applaud the hon. member for Calgary Northeast for introducing this important and worthwhile bill. Indeed, Bill C-425 is consistent with the government's commitment in the 2010 and 2011 speeches from the throne to support Canada's armed forces and to protect the safety of our citizens and defend against threats to our national security. Bill C-425 is also consistent with key objectives of Canada's immigration system, such as ensuring that newcomers and citizens participate to their full potential in fostering an integrated society. For all those reasons, we support Bill C-425 moving forward to committee stage for a thorough review and study to determine if it could be effectively implemented and that Canada's international obligations would be respected.

The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of the Canadian Forces and our commitment to serve Canada in defending its values, interests and sovereignty. We are committed to ensuring that those who serve Canada are recognized for their service.

Generally speaking, Canadian citizenship is a requirement for enrolment in the Canadian Forces, but permanent residents may also be employed in exceptional circumstances. The problem is that their lack of citizenship and challenges related to security clearance and passport arrangements can make it difficult to deploy them for service abroad. Introducing a fast-track to citizenship for permanent residents serving in the Canadian Forces, as proposed in Bill C-425, is a win-win situation as it would honour their services to Canada and make their deployment abroad much easier.

In fact, last fall our Conservative government announced that members of the Order of Military Merit at the colonel level and above are now eligible to preside in citizenship ceremonies. The Order of Military Merit, established in 1972, recognizes distinctive merit and exceptional service deployed by the men and women of the Canadian armed forces. Many of these individuals demonstrated dedication and devotion beyond the call of duty, and the order honours them for their commitment. It is therefore fitting that recipients of this award can preside at citizenship ceremonies, an occasion at which we reflect on the value of Canadian citizenship and the responsibilities we carry as Canadians, a value that the members of our armed forces so courageously defend.

In regard to the proposal to take citizenship away from, or deny it to, those who engage in acts of war against the Canadian Forces, I was interested to learn that some of the provisions to take away or bar citizenship already exist in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Canadian citizenship is extremely valuable. Members of the Canadian Forces risk their lives on a daily basis to defend it. So, it is definitely worthwhile to further study the proposal that those who would attack our Canadian Forces should not themselves have Canadian citizenship. Canadian citizenship is about far more than the right to carry a passport or to vote. Citizenship defines who we are as Canadians, including our mutual responsibility to one another. This is why we launched a citizenship action plan three years ago, to strengthen the value and meaning of citizenship.

As part of the action plan, we produced a new citizenship study guide entitled “Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship”. The guide provides essential information for anyone preparing to become a Canadian citizen. This helps ensure that all newcomers have more knowledge of the country they are joining. “Discover Canada” provides a much better overview of Canada's tradition, value and history, including our immigration history, than its predecessor. The old guide contains no reference to the Remembrance Day poppy, for example, and little mention of the stories and symbols that make us who we are today.

We are pleased that it has been a tremendous success, popular with citizenship applicants and established Canadians alike. Furthermore, our government has taken action to crack down on citizenship fraud. We are ensuring that anyone who lies about who they are, their residency in Canada or hidden past criminal activities would have their citizenship stripped.

We have also taken action against unscrupulous immigration representatives who fraudulently establish evidence of residents in Canada while living abroad most if not all of the time. This is perpetrated so that individuals can fraudulently maintain their permanent residence status and later apply for citizenship. There are currently 11,000 fraud investigations under way, including 3,100 for citizenship fraud. We are sending a clear message that Canadian citizenship is not for sale. We are applying the full strength of the law to those who have obtained their citizenship fraudulently.

I am sure all hon. members would agree that the bill has a worthwhile objective. Its spirit is laudable. It deserves a thorough study at committee to ensure that the bill achieves what it intends to achieve, that it can be effectively implemented and that Canada's international obligations continue to be respected.

I look forward to working with the sponsor and the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in the hope that the good intentions of Bill C-425 are achieved.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill C-425. I also acknowledge the efforts of the member.

I listened to the member's opening remarks in the introduction of the bill, and a number of thoughts came to mind. One of them is that we do have a citizenship and immigration committee and it would be wonderful for us to have some sort of discussion about the benefits of citizenship and how it can be used to promote and encourage what we think is important not only to select groups but to all Canadians.

It was not that long ago that I had an interesting discussion with someone who was talking about volunteers. Many immigrants who come to Canada spend endless hours volunteering for many worthwhile organizations, charitable groups and so forth. We were discussing whether there would be an opportunity for us to be able to do something with regard to that.

More specific to the topic we have at hand, I approach this particular bill with an open mind. I have had the opportunity to check the website that the Canadian Forces provides on the Internet. If one hits the Apply link, for example, one will find there are certain restrictions. One has to be a Canadian citizen in order to apply to become a member of the Canadian Forces. I suspect that is something that needs to be looked at.

The minister responsible for the Canadian Forces will find that the Liberal Party is open to good ideas. Maybe we need to relax the way in which we recruit members of the Canadian Forces from our country. Should only Canadians be allowed to apply? Why not encourage landed immigrants to become members of the Canadian Forces? If we agree that should be done, then let us look to the minister responsible for the Canadian Forces and allow that to take place. All day today I have been talking about 1.5 million landed immigrants in our society. That is a very conservative number to which I have been referring. It is actually a lot greater than that. According to the Canadian Forces website, these people would not be eligible to apply to become members.

We do need to have a debate. That is what I like about Bill C-425. The member has brought forward a piece of legislation that could ultimately pass to committee stage. There is some value in having the citizenship and immigration committee look at the bill. I would like us to possibly go further, however. As much as I believe there could be opportunities in granting citizenship to those who would serve in the Canadian Forces, I am more interested in how more landed individuals could participate in our Canadian Forces.

Members of the forces get an immense sense of pride serving our country. I was a member of the Canadian Forces. I remember going to the recruitment office and signing up. I thoroughly enjoyed the privilege and the honour of being a member. I would not want to deny that opportunity to others, whether they are Canadians or permanent residents who really want to become members of the forces. There would be some benefit to having that dialogue in committee. I recognize that the government does have a majority, but given that this is a private member's bill, there is a very good chance it will pass and go to committee.

Therefore, the challenge I would put to the Conservative Party is to do what I am going to be recommending my Liberal caucus do. That is to approach the committee in a very open fashion. Given the importance of our Canadian Forces, given the importance of our citizenship, there is great value in allowing for that debate to occur.

The member will not receive any opposition from me in trying to encourage that debate to occur. In fact, what I would like to do is to have a page provide a copy of the Canadian Forces website that I am referring to, where it states one has to be a Canadian citizen. That is one of the things we should be talking about.

I was somewhat touched by the member's comments. He talked about how he came from the Punjab and how Canada is his new home. It does not necessarily mean one forgets about one's old home, but one takes a great sense of pride in one's new home. We want to be able to encourage people who have chosen Canada as their home to participate in our many different national institutions. I believe there are many who would have an interest in serving our great country.

To that extent, I suggest that we allow Bill C-425 to pass second reading. I do have other concerns that I would like to address, but I believe that the issues I have and would like to see addressed will be addressed in a forum that would ultimately allow for a bill to pass that makes sense. Hopefully, we will see the minister responsible for the Canadian Forces see the merit in what we can do to encourage the Canadian Forces, as one of our national treasures, to possibly consider incorporating more landed immigrants.

With that, I look forward to the ongoing debate. I will have a page bring over the sheet, which is a printout of the Canadian Forces recruitment website.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in this important debate on my hon. colleague's private member's bill.

The Conservative sponsor of this bill seems to be trying to do two contradictory things: to fast-track citizenship for some and then to make it easier to strip it from others. I would like to address each of those issues separately.

The bill would offer a new ministerial power to shorten permanent residency requirements for members of the Canadian armed forces who are seeking citizenship.

I want to make it clear that New Democrats support efforts to honour the permanent residents who serve in the armed forces as indeed we should honour all our veterans and current service members.

We also believe strongly in a military that is reflective of Canada's diversity.

In 2006, the Canadian immigrant population rose to 6.2 million, accounting for almost 20% of the Canadian population. It is projected that by 2017 the visible minority population will represent approximately one in five Canadians. However, data from the 2008 census also shows that the Canadian Forces do not reflect the same level of ethnocultural diversity. A small proportion of Canadian Forces personnel, only 6%, were non-Caucasians compared with 17% of the regular working population.

If my hon. colleague's intention is to bring greater diversity to the military, then that is a concept I can support. However, I think it is important for the House to examine this aspect of the legislation very carefully. The reality is that circumstances under which a permanent resident would be able to enrol in the Canadian Forces appear to be extremely narrow. In fact, the Canadian Forces website and a call by my office to the Ottawa recruitment centre have made it clear that a permanent resident may not enrol in the Canadian Forces. It appears that the only way for a permanent resident to serve is if he or she is authorized by the chief of the defence staff to fill a special need or it is in the national interest.

I do become concerned that yet again we have a Conservative member proposing legislation that would affect a tiny minority while ignoring the broader concerns of the majority of newcomers. In fact, the member belongs to a government whose radical overhaul of Canada's immigration system is turning Canada into a less welcoming country. The changes the Conservatives have made limit the possibilities for newcomers to be reunited with their families and help build stronger communities. Under the Conservative government too many newcomers are not getting the fair treatment they deserve. Instead of welcoming skilled immigrants and addressing Canada's long-term needs, the Conservatives are prioritizing temporary work visas to help big businesses pay lower wages.

I want to return to the issue of honouring the armed forces by making another point. Headline-grabbing legislation is not enough. We need real action to truly honour all of those who serve.

A few months ago it was revealed that nearly 70% of applications for financial help to bury homeless or low-income veterans are rejected by the Conservative government. This latest report just adds to the many embarrassing failures of the Conservatives on the veterans affairs file, from debilitating red tape to failing to transition ill and injured personnel to civilian life due to harmful budget cuts.

It is our collective duty to care for the veterans who gave us the freedom and peace we enjoy in this country. To undermine the sacrifices they made is to take everything we have today for granted. This is not a partisan issue. Canada's veterans fought for all of us.

The second part of the bill seems to strip citizenship from those who are engaged in acts of war against a member of the Canadian armed forces. On its face, this too may seem reasonable. We certainly want to make sure that Canadian citizenship has real value and that we protect our service men and women as much as possible. However, the aspects of the bill that deal with the renunciation of Canadian citizenship raise more questions than they answer and seem ill-considered. I will explain in more detail what I mean.

The bill is not clear that due process before the law is necessary to determine whether someone has committed an act of war, nor is it clear who would make such a determination. Perhaps this is not surprising, given that the members of the government seem fond of stripping due process with very little accountability.

Additionally, some key terms are not defined. The terms “acts of war” and “legal resident” are not defined anywhere in Canadian law.

Without a definition for what would constitute a legal resident of another country, the bill would pose a serious risk of rendering Canadian citizens stateless, in contravention of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which Canada is a signatory.

The Conservative sponsor of the legislation has framed it as creating another pathway to integration for permanent residents, as well as underscoring the incredible worth of Canadian citizenship and honouring the contribution of our men and women in uniform.

On these principles, members will not hear any argument from this side of the House. Like many things from my Conservative colleagues, the devil is in the details or, in this case, the troubling lack of details.

As I have mentioned, Bill C-425 attempts to legislate the time within which certain permanent residents may apply for citizenship, but my New Democratic colleagues and I think the government ought to be working to address the exceptionally long processing times for citizenship more broadly. At the current rate, no one gets their citizenship recognized anywhere near the time they are legally entitled to it. As such, Bill C-425 is making a hollow promise to these permanent residents.

Our citizenship application processing backlogs only seem to be increasing. The data make it clear that even though CIC has been receiving more citizenship applications year after year, the department has been processing fewer and fewer, and there are far longer wait times.

Instead of supporting the immigration department with more resources to reduce the backlog, the government is cutting its budget and closing down its regional offices.

Last week we learned there has been a 73% drop in the number of permanent residents receiving Canadian citizenship under the Conservative government. The minister even acknowledged it is because there are fewer people to process more applications. That is not good enough and it is a failure of the ministry for which he is ultimately responsible.

We know the department is cutting almost $200 million over the next two years and has closed 19 regional offices. These cuts are affecting front-line services and causing backlogs to grow.

A perfect example of this is that nearly two years after paying the required fees and sending their permanent residence applications to Buffalo, thousands still have not received a response from Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

To make matters worse, their files still have not been assigned to agents, and the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism will not even bother to answer their questions.

This Conservative boondoggle transformed the Canadian dream of thousands of people into a total nightmare. I only wish my hon. colleague were spending more time pressuring his government to make the immigration system more fair and accountable to newcomers and Canadians alike.

In closing, I want to reiterate my very strong support for our men and women in the armed forces. We should honour their tremendous sacrifice and do all we can to keep them safe.

However, I would urge members to take a close look at what is in the bill and, more important, what is not.

The bill would do nothing to fix some of the tremendous problems we see in our immigration system. It would do nothing to speed up processing times for hard-working newcomers who want to become citizens. It would do very little to truly honour and support veterans who have served this country with honour.

Let us take a serious look at this proposal, but let us look at the bigger picture.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

moved that Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in this House for the second reading of my first private member's bill, Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian armed forces).

I would like to start by thanking my family for putting up with the crazy hours and travel schedule of a member of Parliament who is also a husband and a father. I thank my wife, Neetu, my children Jatin, Chetan and Arisha, and also my dearly missed parents, Bindra Ban Shory and Maya Shory, who have already gone before me but whose love and blessing on my life I still feel every day.

I also thank the staff and volunteers who have helped me work on this legislation, men and women whose creativity, insight and hard work have helped make the second reading of this legislation possible today. They are: Laura Koch, a member of the Canadian Forces and my legislative assistant who helped with the formulation of this bill in its infancy; Wala Azimi, a proud Canadian who was born in Afghanistan and who nevertheless is understanding my Punjabi more and more each day; Kenton Dueck, my former executive assistant in Calgary Northeast, a man who has been as passionate about this as I am; Patrick Tuns from my Ottawa office and Daniel Boucher from my constituency office, both of whom have demonstrated their support for this bill from their first day; and, my constituency assistants, Sukhi Dhaliwal and Raman Brar, who eagerly help my constituents of Calgary Northeast each and every day.

I would be remiss if I did not thank the hard-working ministerial staff, Chris Champion and Leigh Johnston, as well as Madame Marie-Andrée Roy from the House of Commons legal team who helped put these thoughts into bill form.

I would also like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have offered their support for this bill.

In this legislation, my goals are to promote integration, to better recognize permanent residents who serve Canada, to honour our Canadian troops and to underscore the immense value of Canadian citizenship.

To some who see the colour of my skin or hear my accent, the word “immigrant” probably immediately jumps into their minds. I may have been born, raised and educated in Barnala, Punjab, India, but the fact is that I have lived in Canada for more than 23 years and Canada is now my home. Like millions of others, whether they were born here, flew here or drove here, I believe that our wonderful democracy, Canada, is the best in the world and worth protecting with every resource at our disposal. In that spirit, I tabled this legislation and encourage the support from all sides of the House.

Canadians not only expect but have also told us again and again that they want us to restore the value of Canadian citizenship.

I want to thank the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism for introducing a new citizenship guide to inform newcomers of their rights and responsibilities when they come to Canada. The minister not only introduced a citizenship fraud tip line, but also recently announced efforts to crack down on citizenship fraud, which are paying off.

My Bill C-425 adds to our government's efforts to strengthen Canadian citizenship and would also reward those who are willing to put their lives on the line. It provides citizenship more quickly to those who take on the responsibility honourably serving our country. At the same time, it takes the privilege of Canadian citizenship away from those who betray Canada and everything it stands for.

I urge all members to support this bill going to committee for a thorough review. I am open to looking at any amendments from that review that respect the spirit of this bill and strengthen Canadian values.

It would be safe for me to assume that we all are committed to strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship. We also recognize the importance of the Canadian Forces and its commitment to serving Canada in defending its values, interests and sovereignty.

Along those lines, the House is a place where tough determinations are made on behalf of Canadian men, women and children and our brave men and women in uniform. The House is the place where we debate military budgets and deployments.

Unfortunately, these debates can sometimes become politicized and doing the right thing for our country and our troops can become obscured by the spin and rhetoric. Nevertheless, we all share a duty to support our troops and to do so with our very best judgment on behalf of our constituents.

We parliamentarians from all sides are entrusted to make the kinds of decisions that affect not only Canada, but also the brave souls into whose hands we place our security. I felt it was crucial for me to experience first-hand a glimpse of a day in the life of our courageous Canadian forces. That is why I spent several days in a uniform alongside our Canadian army during a reserve training exercise in Wainwright, Alberta in August 2009, along with colleagues from both sides of the House, as well as my “brother from a different mother”, the member for Medicine Hat. It is also why I spent time at sea off the east coast aboard the HMCS Fredericton in the summer of 2010.

I also want to thank the Minister of National Defence for ensuring that the Canadian Forces have the people, equipment, infrastructure and readiness required to defend Canada and Canadian interests now and well into the future.

Since 2006, under the solid leadership of the Minister of National Defence, the defence budget has grown by over $6 billion and key acquisitions have been made. Our men and women in uniform not only deserve the best equipment to get the job done, but also the best, the brightest and the bravest to be fighting alongside them and to have them at their back.

When Canadian permanent residents who are not yet Canadian citizens answer the call to serve under the red and white banner of this great nation, they are not just performing a duty. They are not simply working nine to five. They are putting their lives on the line for their new home for millions of Canadian men, women and children in the greatest country in the world.

For their demonstrated honour and courage to stand in the gap when least expected, but when most required, a one-year credit toward Canadian citizenship is the least we can do. Under the proposed change, a permanent resident who is a member of the Canadian Forces and has completed basic training and has signed a minimum three-year contract to serve the forces will be given a one-year credit toward his or her residence requirement for acquiring Canadian citizenship.

Also, under the proposed change Canadian citizens with dual citizenship and permanent residents applying for citizenship would lose their citizenship or become ineligible to become citizens if they commit an act of war against our troops.

I remember once seeing a bumper sticker that said “Stand behind our troops...otherwise, please feel free to stand in front of them”. Of course, the humour was dark, but the underlying truth about our parliamentary responsibility still rings true.

Canadian citizenship is extremely valuable. Members of the Canadian Forces risk their lives to defend it, so it makes sense that those individuals who choose to attack our Canadian Forces should not have the privilege of calling themselves Canadian citizens.

In referring to another key aspect of the second half of this legislation, I would like to make a very simple and direct point about safeguards. Most of us have sprinkler systems in our homes and hope they will never have to be used. Most of us have airbags in our cars and hope they will never have to be deployed. However, safeguards stand in place to protect our homes and protect our lives.

I pray that, like the fire sprinkler in our homes and the airbag in our cars, the second half of my legislation will never have to be used.

I firmly believe this is an excellent bill for Canadians from all walks of life. It is good for longstanding Canadians and good for new Canadians. It is another pathway to promote integration by encouraging new Canadians to serve alongside our armed forces. It supports our troops. It also underscores the immense value of Canadian citizenship.

Therefore, it is with deep Canadian pride and gratitude for our men and women in uniform, the new Canadians who bravely join them in the air, on land and sea, and it is with a profound respect for the Canadian citizenship you and I share, Mr. Speaker, that I proudly stand today on behalf of the men and women of Calgary Northeast in seeking support for my first private member's bill, Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces). I look forward to receiving the support of all members so that it can be sent to committee for a detailed review.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will have eight minutes to continue or finish her speech when the House resumes consideration of the motion.

The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 30.7, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-425 under private members' business.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday night, I returned from a multi-party trade and Commonwealth delegation to southern India and Sri Lanka.

In India, we met political and business leaders in the states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala.

In the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Sri Lanka, I lead a workshop on conflict resolution and peace building. There I emphasized that while parliamentarians have a duty to represent their constituents, they also need to work constructively with other parties.

In that spirit, my private member's bill, Bill C-425, is soon up for second reading. My goals in this legislation are to promote integration, better recognize permanent residents who have served Canada, honour our Canadian troops and underscore the value of Canadian citizenship.

With these worthy goals, I humbly request and anticipate that my colleagues from all sides of the House will support this legislation.

Citizenship Act

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I recently introduced Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian armed forces).

First, it outlines another pathway to integration for permanent residents. Second, it underscores the incredible worth of Canadian citizenship. Third, it honours the contribution of our brave men and women in uniform.

According to the bill, permanent residents who sign a three-year contract with the Canadian armed forces would receive a one year credit toward citizenship. Additionally, a Canadian who commits an act of war against the Canadian armed forces would be deemed to have renounced his or her Canadian citizenship.

To serve Canada in our military is a patriotic act of service worthy of reward. Conversely, to commit an act of war against Canada's armed forces signals a clear rejection of Canadian responsibilities, values and citizenship.

In the coming months, I ask for support from all sides of this House for the bill.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking my colleague for Medicine Hat for seconding my bill.

I rise today to introduce my private member's bill, Bill C-425, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces). This bill is much more than another pathway to integration. It also signifies the deep respect the people of Calgary Northeast hold for Canadian citizenship and for the brave men and women of our Canadian armed forces.

Once passed, the Citizenship Act will require the minister to reduce, on application, the requirement of residence to become Canadian citizen by one year for a permanent resident of Canada who is a member of the Canadian Forces, who has signed a minimum three-year contract and who has completed the basic training.

It would also amend section 9 of the act to provide that individuals are deemed to have made applications for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship or are deemed to have withdrawn their application for Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)