Bill C-6 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) remove the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security;
(b) remove the requirement that an applicant intend, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada;
(c) reduce the number of days during which a person must have been physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship and provide that, in the calculation of the length of physical presence, the number of days during which the person was physically present in Canada before becoming a permanent resident may be taken into account;
(d) limit the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of Canada and of one of its official languages to applicants between the ages of 18 and 54;
(e) authorize the Minister to seize any document that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe was fraudulently or improperly obtained or used or could be fraudulently or improperly used;
(f) change the process for the revocation of Canadian citizenship on the grounds of false representation, fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances; and
(g) remove the requirement that an applicant be 18 years of age or over for citizenship to be granted under subsection 5(1) of that Act.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we value all of the ways in which newcomers enrich our society.

We are committed to making sure, with Bill C-6, that we further remove obstacles that were put in place by the previous government for permanent residents to obtain their citizenship. We are moving forward to make sure that we enhance the ability of permanent residents to access citizenship.

We are also aware, under Bill C-6, of measures to further strengthen the integrity of the citizenship program. We want to maintain the value of Canadian citizenship and prevent fraud and misrepresentation.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for her question.

As the member is aware, our government is already moving forward with its commitments to repeal certain provisions of Bill C-24, including provisions relating to the revocation of citizenship on national interest grounds.

That said, while we want to ensure that citizenship requirements are fair and flexible, Canadians also want to protect the program from abuse. I understand the member's comments related to both citizenship revocation and cessation provisions, and I will address both of those.

On the citizenship revocation, that is available under four grounds: misrepresentation, fraud, knowingly concealing material circumstances, or where national interest grounds are at stake. As part of Bill C-6, which has been voted on and passed third reading in this House, provisions relating to citizenship revocation under national interest grounds are being repealed, which is a step in the right direction I think we would all agree.

With respect to the other grounds related to misrepresentation, fraud, and knowingly concealing material circumstances, the most serious cases are prioritized, such as those involving serious criminality or organized fraud. There have been several large-scale fraud investigations across Canada, which have led to the increase in citizenship revocations.

Canadians are proud of their citizenship, and our government is committed to upholding the integrity of that citizenship. The ability to revoke based on fraud has been in place since the inception of the act in 1947, and will continue to do so.

This tool is very important in ensuring that the program remains effective, as the Auditor General indicated in his report.

As things stand now, the minister has the authority to revoke citizenship in basic fraud cases, such as residence fraud, identity fraud, and criminality. The Federal Court has the authority to decide on more complex cases where the misrepresentation is in relation to concealing facts relating to inadmissibility for security violations, human or international rights violations, or organized crime.

With respect to the revocation process, which has been underlined here by the member opposite, under the authority of the minister, once individuals receive a notice of intent advising them that their citizenship may be revoked, along with the evidence that the notice is based on, they are given the opportunity to provide submissions and evidence relating to the case to the decision-maker, which can be taken into consideration.

These are some of the due process components that have to be emphasized to the member opposite. While we are open to suggestions on how to improve the due process protections, certain protections exist at present. In certain circumstances, for example, an oral hearing may be held. Personal circumstances of the individual, including any hardship that may be caused, can be taken into account by a decision-maker.

With respect to the cessation provisions, I know the member opposite has spoken about this. She is an advocate for this provision. We are looking at the cessation provisions, because certain aspects of those cessation provisions, including the retroactivity component and including the ability to revoke not just the refugee status but also the permanent residency of an individual, are aspects that are concerning to this government. We will, indeed, be analyzing those very provisions that have been raised by the member opposite.

I want to underscore, once again, there are due process protections in place for revocation of citizenship, including what I have outlined, but also the fact that a judicial review can be sought with leave to the Federal Court of Canada.

The minister has said publicly many times in this House, and in the Senate where Bill C-6 is currently, that we are open to considering enhancements to the current process for revocation for citizenship fraud, and that is exactly what we will do should those suggestions be made.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 2014, the RCMP targeted about 11,000 people suspected of fraud in obtaining Canadian citizenship by misrepresenting their residency in Canada. There are many other cases that have been flagged by immigration officers.

The minister has said he wants to amend Bill C-6 to allow those cases access to a lengthy and costly appeals process that would divert resources away from people who play by the rules.

I wonder why on earth the minister wants to do this.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for raising the point about the litigation. However, I believe she would be aware and members of the House should be informed that the litigation was actually placed on hold pending our government's commitment to reform Bill C-24 by Bill C-6, and we have done exactly that. In its most glaring constitutional violation, Bill C-24 jeopardized people's citizenship based on their places of origin in terms of the ability to revoke, based on national security grounds, the citizenship only of people who were not born here. That change has been made and the litigation has been put into abeyance.

The submissions made by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and other members who attended at committee have been heard. We have received those documents, we are reviewing them, and we look forward to enabling better and more constructive due process provisions going forward in respect of citizenship revocation when it arises in the case of misrepresentation.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, the question on the Order Paper of the member for Vancouver East actually dealt with a substantially different issue, so I will address both in my comments.

The question on the Order Paper related to a matter that relates to funding for language instruction classes for newcomers and settlement services. She received a response from the minister at the time, which I can reiterate and add to. The government takes very seriously the issue of the settlement of all newcomers, particularly in the case of Syrian refugees. On top of the $600 million in funding that was provided in 2016-17 to settlement agencies, an additional pocket of $37 million has been dedicated just for Syrian refugees and their resettlement. We take very seriously the issue of people not only being housed but also being linguistically trained so that they can access the workforce.

In respect of the comments of the member for Vancouver East regarding Bill C-24, I obviously have a very different description of what has transpired with respect to our tabling of legislation, Bill C-6, the significance of that tabling, what it has done, and what it will continue to do for Canadians.

The member made extensive submissions at committee with respect to one particular issue, and I will get to that issue in a moment, but by tabling Bill C-6, we have shortened the time frame for which people are eligible for citizenship. It has been reduced from four years to three years. We have rendered citizenship more accessible by restricting the citizenship testing requirements only to persons aged 18 to 55. It used to be required for anyone as young as 14 and anyone as old as 65. We have also given credit to individuals, such that time spent here prior to becoming a permanent resident can be attributed to one's citizenship eligibility on a factor of 50%, such as temporary foreign workers and international students.

Most importantly, we have also emphasized something that affects me and many members of the House, which I spoke about already in respect of Bill C-6, and that is that we have eliminated the part of the legislation brought in by the previous government which implemented a system whereby one's citizenship could be revoked based on grounds of national security, only for those people who were not born in this country. That is the point about making sure a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. I am very proud of that legislation, and the minister and the department stand behind it.

With respect to issues about revocation of citizenship based on fraud or misrepresentation, it is an important point highlighted by the member for Vancouver East. The issue of revoking citizenship for fraud has existed since 1947, since the Citizenship Act was created. Revoking for fraud maintains an important aspect of what we must do as a government. We revoke for fraud in certain instances, for example, if somebody hides the fact that they participated as a war criminal in some foreign conflict. If that is not presented to officials and is later discovered, we will intervene and revoke that citizenship. It is something Canadians expect us to do and something that this government will continue to do.

The important point raised by the member for Vancouver East, however, is the procedural protections and due process that are or are not available in such revocation contexts. I was at those committee meetings with the member opposite and we heard the submissions. They were important submissions and those changes are not taking place in this form of the bill at this juncture because of the structural and regulatory changes that would be required in terms of the overall apparatus and machinery of government.

Does that mean that they are off the table? It certainly does not. The minister answered a question on this just today in question period in respect of the possibility of looking at such changes going forward.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to further debate the issues related to our immigration policies. At different junctures, different administrations have adopted different approaches and values to Canada's immigration policies. Irrespective of the actions of different administrations, Canada is a democratic country based on some very fundamental principles. Canadians value our constitutional rights.

Under the Harper Conservatives, in June 2015, Bill C-24, Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act passed and became law. The law created two classes of citizens, those who could have their citizenship revoked and those who could not. Under Bill C-24, some Canadians are more Canadian than others, because some Canadians are afforded more rights than others simply because of where they were born.

On June 9, 2014, the Minister of Immigration while in opposition stated:

We object in principle to the arbitrary removal of citizenship from individuals for reasons that are highly questionable and to the very limited opportunity for the individual to appeal to the courts against that removal of citizenship.

When the Liberal government was elected, the Prime Minister stated very clearly that there would be real change. Real change should have meant that the government kept its promise to repeal Bill C-24. That did not happen. Real change should have meant that at minimum Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, introduced by the minister on February 25, 2016, fixed the major problems under Bill C-24, especially the sections that violated our constitutional rights. That did not happen either.

There is a gaping hole in Bill C-6. It failed to fix the lack of procedural fairness and safeguards for individuals facing citizenship revocation due to misrepresentation or fraud, whether or not the misrepresentation was the result of an honest mistake. Even if a child's parent presented misinformation on the application for whatever reason, the child's citizenship could still be revoked and the case could not be argued based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Simply put, they have no right to a hearing. This is because the Harper government, under Bill C-24, eliminated the right for an independent and impartial hearing. It also eliminated consideration of equitable factors, or compassionate and humanitarian factors, that could prevent a legal but unjust outcome.

At committee, I tabled substantive amendments to ensure that individuals who face citizenship revocation have the right to a fair and independent hearing and an appeal process. These had broad support, included from the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Legal Aid Ontario, and many others. As long as the rules established under Bill C-24 remain, the Prime Minister's declaration that a Canadian is a Canadian remains elusive. The unfortunate reality is that individuals currently in the citizenship system facing revocation due to misrepresentation still lack the fundamental right to judicial process. It is not a joke that people fighting a jaywalking ticket have more rights than those at risk of losing their citizenship.

Even though the Minister of Immigration acknowledges this is wrong, the Liberal government is aggressively pursuing citizenship revocation of up to 60 Canadians each month under the unfair and unconstitutional process established by Bill C-24. This needs to change.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 adheres to our fundamental election commitment that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, and it revokes citizenship revocation for criminal acts applied to dual citizens alone. That was the central focus of the bill. It has now passed through the House of Commons and will be considered in the Senate.

Citizenship revocation for misrepresentation is under consideration and we are considering further lines of appeal.

Immigration to Atlantic Canada

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

moved:

That the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be instructed to undertake a study on immigration to Atlantic Canada, to consider, among other things, (i) the challenges associated with an aging population and shrinking population base, (ii) possible recommendations on how to increase immigration to the region; and that the Committee report its findings to the House within one year of the adoption of this motion.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand in the House of Commons today to speak to the motion requesting the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to undertake a study to explore ways to increase immigration to Atlantic Canada.

I would also like to speak today to the importance of studying the retention of those immigrants to ensure that we are achieving the goals of strengthening Atlantic Canada's workforce communities as well as the long-term economic outlook.

At this time, I would also like to recognize my many colleagues from Atlantic Canada and across the country who see the importance of this issue and who have become joint seconders to the motion. I look forward to hearing their insight on this issue during the debate.

Although immigration is not an issue that I hear about specifically at the doors in Fundy Royal, many of the priorities and issues relating to economic growth and sustainable rural communities lead back to Atlantic Canada's aging and shrinking population. Let me give a few examples.

The Bay of Fundy is a world-renowned tourist destination and a key economic driver in my beautiful riding of Fundy Royal in New Brunswick. In fact, we are now preparing for the completion of the Fundy Trail Parkway and a significant increase in visitors to the area over the next few years. These visitors are drawn to the area to enjoy the coastline, Fundy National Park, and a host of adventures and authentic experiences offered in the communities throughout the riding. This summer, I spoke to many of the tourism operators who told me that they had a difficult time filling the job vacancies they had this year. They are having a hard time planning for future growth because of the limited workforce.

In addition to the impact on businesses, I have also seen the impact of low population growth in communities. Rural schools are struggling to remain open because of dwindling enrolment. Last year in Fundy Royal, both Norton Elementary School and the Riverside Consolidated School were being considered for closure. Both communities lobbied successfully to keep their schools open, but they realize they need sustainable plans that will rely on maintaining and increasing school enrolment.

Communities and employers across the region are feeling the impact of the current demographics. Ultimately, fewer people of working age are supporting more people who require social benefits. Not only is this bad for economic growth, it means fewer services and higher taxes for residents in a weaker fiscal environment. This correlation was articulated well last winter in a Globe and Mail article authored by former New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna. In his article, he urged the federal government to look at ways to increase immigration to Atlantic Canada as a means to move the dial in respect to the economy.

Since that time, the shrinking population of Atlantic Canada has been identified by all Atlantic premiers as the most pressing concern for the future of the region. The aging population in Atlantic Canada means that right now our workforce is shrinking. We have more people leaving the workforce than we have entering the workforce, and this is compounded by out-migration.

From a business perspective, if people are looking to invest, to grow, and to innovate in Atlantic Canada, one of the things they need to know is that they have the people available to do the work. The other facet to an aging population is that there becomes a need for more and more caregivers. Due to the noted out-migration and new ways of life, many families are not in a position to care for their senior parents and grandparents. This reality will mean a higher demand for home care workers and front-line health care workers at the same time that the workforce is shrinking.

To paint a picture for members who may not be familiar with the realities of the situation in Atlantic Canada, I ask them to consider these facts. Statistics tell us that in New Brunswick, we now sustain more deaths than births. The Atlantic region has the second-lowest fertility rate in Canada, and the population in the Atlantic region has aged twice as fast as Alberta since 1971, meaning that the median age is now eight years older than in Alberta.

The other factor we must consider is that Atlantic Canada has not kept up with the rest of Canada when it comes to immigration. In 2006, Canada received 250,000 immigrants. Although Atlantic Canada makes up roughly 7% of the total Canadian population, less than 2% of immigrants declared Atlantic Canada as their intended destination. Of those, only 40% were expected to stay, and 90% intended to live in urban areas of the region.

We have passed the point where we can repopulate without intervention. We will not naturally become a younger society again. Our workforce will not naturally expand, and investments will not come easily to our region if we stay the course.

The reality is that although the impact of this phenomenon is seen clearly in Atlantic Canada today, the entire country has an aging population, which is only compounded by the ease of out-migration to other provinces. Atlantic Canada is the canary in the coal mine, but we have proven time and again that we are nimble and adaptable and that there is still much room for optimism.

I recognize that the natural inclination to improve the economic outlook in Atlantic Canada may be for governments to remain laser focused on job creation. It clearly is a critical component of any plan for the future. However, the Ivany report states that we cannot sustain economic growth over time unless renewed population growth provides us with more workers, more entrepreneurs, and more consumers.

Over the last several decades, Atlantic Canada has tried to renew economic growth without a focus on immigration, and the result has been a continued loss of skilled workers and educated youth to other regions, and also limited investment.

After reading countless reports and studies on the population and economic issues of Atlantic Canada, the most promising news is that increasing immigration could quite possibly turn the tide. A research paper funded by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in December 2008, and written by academics from Saint Mary's University in Halifax and the University of Prince Edward Island, looked at the socio-economic profiles of immigrants in the four Atlantic provinces.

This report shows that immigration has actually already been working in our favour. The report states that immigrant inflows in Atlantic Canada have helped slow population decline. Had there been no immigration between 1996 and 2001, the region's population decline would have been 16.5% higher than the actual decline. From 2001 to 2006, this decline would have been 93.6% higher without immigration. My own research suggests that from 2006 to 2011, immigration contributed to 53% of the total population growth in Atlantic Canada.

I understand people's reservations concerning the need for more immigrants in Atlantic Canada at a time when people are leaving the region because of the lack of meaningful employment. However, studies have shown a direct correlation between economic growth and immigration. In fact, one only needs to look back over the history of Canada to realize that Canada has always experienced growth by welcoming immigrants. We have seen time and time again that those who take the initiative to move to the greatest country in the world not only settle and make their way but often invest, grow businesses, and employ people.

In Fundy Royal, we only need to look as far as the nearest farm, our successful local chain of hotels, popular eating establishments, the arts community, and industrial suppliers to see what healthy, diverse, sustainable immigration can do for the region and how many jobs can be created through increased immigration.

The Ivany commission report also states that one rarely hears serious arguments that higher rates of international immigration have been bad for Canada over the long term. Immigration and economic expansion are mutually reinforcing, and both are necessary if the future outlook is to improve.

We need to start talking about the success stories related to immigration to counter the most common fear of immigration in Atlantic Canada. The President of the Treasury Board has said that this fear is often simply the fear of the unknown.

The recent welcoming of Syrian refugees in Atlantic communities has demonstrated that Atlantic Canadians can be warm and welcoming to newcomers. In many cases, it has given them the opportunity to experience the value newcomers bring to a community.

We also must consider that in 2001, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency analyzed the regions of Atlantic Canada where immigrants settled and suggested that immigrants settle in counties with higher unemployment rates, yet they experience a lower unemployment rate relative to the total resident population. This observation points to the possibility that often immigrants are working in jobs that local residents are not willing to take or that in these particular counties, unemployment levels may be of a structural nature and that local labour pools do not possess the qualifications to fill the vacant jobs.

What we are seeing now is that while federal and provincial governments have many policies and programs in place to help workers receive training and education needed for the jobs available, the projected vacancies are far more than can be filled by Atlantic Canadians alone. Immigration can help address the skill shortages holding back economic development and improve the region's prospects.

For example, just last week I visited J.D. Irving, Limited's Maritime Innovation Limited laboratory in Sussex, New Brunswick, where I was advised that the company is looking to hire 7,278 people over the next three years for its diverse operations in Canada.

Achieving this goal for them means a focus on keeping New Brunswickers at home, as in the case of the company's recent hiring of 47 workers who worked at the closed potash mine. As well, they are looking at growing talent at home through partnerships with local universities and community colleges.

Welcoming newcomers to make Canada home is also part of their strategy. A good example is Mr. Mullai Manoharan, a scientist employed at the laboratory. Mullai came to Canada from India to study agriculture at the Truro campus at Dalhousie University. He achieved his Master of Science degree and was hired by the company to contribute to research and innovation here in New Brunswick. He is currently applying for permanent residence status in Canada.

Two of the fastest growing cities in Atlantic Canada are Halifax and Moncton, and both mayors are looking to immigration as a means of growth, because they project that job vacancies in their cities will exceed the current workforce. In the words of Mayor Mike Savage of Halifax, instead of calling people “come from aways”, we need to tell them “come from away”.

It is also important to note that building more diverse communities in Atlantic Canada will help us in repatriating friends and family who have migrated to other parts of Canada. Those people still come home every chance they get, because they do love the lifestyle of Atlantic Canada. In order to bring them home again permanently, we are going to need outside sources to match the thousands of jobs that have gone unfilled for over a year with existing businesses that have the potential to create new economic opportunities.

As a country, we have an opportunity right now to study the narrative of Atlantic Canada as we develop immigration policy applicable in the region today and other provinces in the future.

I am very pleased to inform the House that since I began work on this motion, a whole-of-government approach, the Atlantic growth strategy, was announced on July 4, 2016, as a series of evidence-based, collaborative actions to enhance Atlantic Canada's economic performance. I would like to think that my work on this motion, and the work of my team and colleagues, has contributed to the government's decision to include a three-year, employer-driven immigration pilot program to attract and retain newcomers in Atlantic Canada as part of the strategy.

Currently, the federal government and the provinces are working together to identify policies that impact immigration, such as credential recognition and legislation like Bill C-6, which would allow 50% credit for time spent in Canada for international students wishing to continue on their path to citizenship.

The Atlantic Canada immigration pilot is an opportunity to test innovative approaches that will help to enhance retention, and potentially could be replicated in other provinces and territories, depending on results. The pilot project will accept up to 2,000 more applications from immigrants, plus their family members, in 2017, with rising numbers in the following years depending on performance.

In addition to the immigration pilot program, the Atlantic growth strategy focuses on four other important areas: innovation, clean growth and climate change, trade and investment, and infrastructure.

The initiative has been well received by the Atlantic provincial premiers, the Atlantic business community, and think tanks such as the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. More importantly, it has sparked a conversation that has people in the streets talking about where we need to go to really change our prospects for growth.

In fact, just last week, I hosted a round table with local business, community leaders, and stakeholders, who praised the initiative. After concluding the round table, I was very encouraged by a local business that wanted to continue the dialogue about how it could start thinking outside the box in order to welcome newcomers to the workforce and include immigration as part of its recruitment strategy. The group came up with ideas, such as having clusters of newcomers working together with support from other employees and management to make sure they felt comfortable and had the opportunity to share ideas concerning safety and efficiencies.

Given the government's swift action on this file, I would be open to a friendly amendment to the motion that would focus the committee's work on the examination of retention and settlement, with a view to bringing forward recommendations on best practices. This would include examining experiences flowing from the immigration pilot.

Atlantic Canada has a long history of being resilient, a region settled by a distinct mix of British, Scottish, Gaelic, and French immigrants. The time has come for us to encourage the new visitors to stay and begin a new chapter in the history of the east coast.

(Bill C-6. On the Order: Government Orders:)

June 16, 2016—Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, be read the third time and passed—Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Business of the House

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle.

This afternoon, we are continuing third reading consideration of Bill C-6 on citizenship. Tomorrow, we are going to debate Bill C-2, which would amend the Income Tax Act.

If colleagues would not mind, I would prefer to dispense with the statement for next week's business if that is okay. What I will do is join my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle and associate myself with the very positive and appropriate comments he made.

Mr. Speaker, for you and me and many of our colleagues, the past few months have certainly been a learning experience. This is the first time in your long parliamentary career that you have served in this role that is so essential to democracy. On behalf of my Liberal colleagues, I want to say that we think you have done an excellent job, and we thank you for your service and for taking on the role of Speaker.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to inform the House what the plan is.

This afternoon we will continue debate on the Conservative opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-15, the budget legislation. We have been in discussion with our opposition colleagues, and I hope we will conclude third reading at the end of day tomorrow.

Monday and Tuesday of next week will be allotted days.

On Wednesday, we will have a debate on concurrence of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities concerning the transportation of grain. Following that debate, we would then take up second reading of Bill C-13, which implements the WTO trade facilitation agreement.

On Thursday, we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-6, Citizenship Act amendments.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue debate on the NDP opposition motion.

Tomorrow morning we will commence debate on Bill C-15, the budget legislation. Following question period tomorrow, we will begin consideration at third reading of Bill C-6 on citizenship.

On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week, we will resume debate on the budget bill. We are presently in discussion with the opposition House leaders on the length of debate. Hopefully we will be able to find agreement.

Next Thursday, June 9, shall be an allotted day.

Finally, for next Friday, we will proceed with second reading of Bill C-13, the implementation of the WTO agreement.

Criminal Code

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, back in 2015, when this came out, a panel was set up by the former justice minister. However, I look at the work we have done today, and we can talk about these timelines. Let us be honest, this week we did Bill C-2, Bill C-6, Bill C-10, and Bill C-11. We had all of these things shifted off of the Order Paper.

What has happened here is this. Although it is a very important bill, unfortunately, when it came to the agenda of what we were supposed to be discussing and what we were discussing, a lot of political games were being played at that time. This took away the rights of the opposition members to debate this. We can talk about that. However, let us be honest about what happened this week. We lost hours of crucial debate because of the actions of the government.

Reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

I am very troubled, like many today who have stood up to speak. What I would really like to do is perhaps set the table a bit on how we found ourselves in this position. I think more than one incident has created this really unfortunate position we are in today.

I would like to start with the election of October. The Liberals were given a strong majority. In part, their message to Canadians was that they represented change, a new voice, and a change in our democratic process. Canadians listened to that, they watched, and in October provided a strong majority for the Liberals.

I want to quote a part of the Speech from the Throne, which was just five months ago. It states:

Canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated, not silenced.

Parliament shall be no exception.

In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.

The Speech from the Throne is a very critical document. It is the road map that the government is providing and sharing with Canadians on what its plans are.

The speech also indicated, “give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons, the Government will promote more open debate and free votes, and reform and strengthen committees”.

Those are very important commitments.

In every minister's mandate letter, this is included:

I made a personal commitment to bring new leadership and a new tone to Ottawa. We made a commitment to Canadians to pursue our goals with a renewed sense of collaboration.

Again, every minister has that in their mandate letter. It is in the Speech from the Throne. It is the tone that was committed to by the government to be set in the House.

The government is not very old. It is only six months. Of course, we did not sit until January. We had a small sitting in December and then we had a sitting that started in January after Christmas. Perhaps the first month or two, the Liberals lived up to the commitments they made to Canadians. However, starting in the last few weeks, there has been a significant and noticeable change. The hon. opposition leader, the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland, said it best when she said that the Liberals apparently now wanted to have an audience and not an opposition.

We can look at items like democratic reform, which is fundamental. The Liberals do not want all voices heard; they only want their voices to be heard. If we do not agree with them, they will do things like move opposition days to Fridays, which is a very short time and there is not much opportunity to debate.

Everyone in the House recognizes that Bill C-14 is very important legislation, and we need to look at this because it is very important. We returned on Monday, and the understanding was that we would spend most of the day talking about Bill C-14.

I have been in the House for seven years, and I have one of the furthest ridings, which is usually 12 hours door to door. I always make that trip on Sunday night so I am here ready to be present in the House when it opens on Monday.

It is also important to note that the House only sits 26 weeks of the year. There are 26 weeks where members can be in their ridings or cabinet ministers can do some of the important work they have to do outside the House. We know the government wants to get rid of Friday and does not want to show up to work on Monday.

It is very simple math. The government has 184 members, and they need to have 169 in the House on Monday morning. How many were here? There was 139. Even at 169, it means we can still have a few people who are away, or some ministers off doing some of the work they need to do. However, they need to have their people in the House. They were shy of that 169 by 30 members.

The fact the Liberals almost lost the vote is not the responsibility of the opposition; it is the responsibility of the Liberals and their need to show up to work.

Instead of debating Bill C-14, what did we do? With respect to Bill C-14, we hear from the Minister of Health that it has a critical time frame, that it has to get done. Did we debate Bill C-14 on Monday? No. We debated Bill C-10 all day. Although important legislation, it did not have the criticalness to it that Bill C-14 has.

What did we do Tuesday? We debated Bill C-6, the citizenship act, which is important legislation. All legislation is important, but it was not Bill C-14 with its critical timeline.

Then we went back to the debate on Bill C-10, the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Then we debated Bill C-11, the Copyright Act, again, important legislation.

Essentially, we offered to debate Bill C-14 until midnight for two days, but the Liberals had us debate other legislation instead. More important, not only did they have us debate different pieces of legislation, they failed to even provide a parliamentary calendar. That has never been done in the whole time I have been here. We are given the agenda for the week so we can prepare. The Liberals did not even have the respect to provide a parliamentary calendar. All of a sudden we were debating the Copyright Act. That is a profound disrespect to the opposition and it has never been done in Parliament.

Then we hit yesterday, which was Wednesday. We were again ready to debate Bill C-14, which had important amendments from the committee and we needed to debate them. It is important to debate. Debate matters, especially in this instance. At second reading, I had a profound compliment when one of my colleagues said, “Listening to your words in the debate changed my mind in terms of how I'm going to vote”. We are debating life and death. We are debating amendments. What did the Liberals do? They put closure on the debate, maybe one speech at report stage on something so critical. We could have been spending Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday debating the bill.

On top of that, the Liberals introduced Motion No. 6, which was so aptly described this morning as looking at every possible tool the opposition has and taking it away.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills said:

The fundamental responsibility mechanism in the House is the confidence convention. The 20 or so members of Parliament who are part of the ministry who are the government sit there because they have the confidence of the majority of members of this chamber. It is that confidence convention that is undermined by the motion that the government has put on the paper.

By giving members of the ministry the unilateral right, at any time, to adjourn the House...

We can certainly see a whole host of measures. Certainly we were debating a closure motion. The NDP delayed things for, I understand, less than a minute when the incident happened where the Prime Minister lost control.

As I head toward the end of my time to speak to this important issue, there are a few things that I would like to see.

First, the Prime Minister's apology was appropriate. He also needs to look into his heart to see what created that anger within him and why he responded to it in such an inappropriate way.

More important, I think we all expect him to live up to those standards and commitment he made in the Speech from the Throne to respect all members of the House. This would include removing Motion No. 6.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week when the Speaker was ruling on whether to allow us to consider amendments at report stage, he declared this to be a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation and opportunity for members of Parliament. Rather than embrace that, the government is shutting off debate at every stage for this once-in-a-generation piece of legislation.

There are many different views on all sides of the House. However, earlier this week, out of spite for having almost lost a vote with its huge majority, the government called Bill C-10, Bill C-6, and debate on the Copyright Act. After less than one-third of the members of Parliament in the House had been afforded the opportunity to speak, it cut off debate. It moved it on a Wednesday so there would be even less time for debate than on any other day in the House. There will be less than an hour of debate taking place on this bill, this once-in-a-generation piece of legislation, due to the tactics of the government House leader and the Liberal government.

Is the minister proud of the government using procedural tactics to shut down debate after less than a third of the members of Parliament have had an opportunity to pronounce on behalf of their constituents on a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation?