This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.
John McCallum Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, the Senate; the hon. member for Carleton, Small Business; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Human Rights.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Willowdale.
I rise to speak to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act. Bill C-6 would make specific and targeted changes to legislation passed by the previous government in Bill C-24. The objectives of those targeted changes are twofold.
Before I expand on those two objectives, I wish to state the following. We live in the best country on the planet: Canada, which we share with our first nations and on whose shores generation after generation landed. We are a Canada of first nations, immigrants and refugees, and their progeny. These were and are freedom's shores and the land of opportunity. It is a great privilege and good fortune to be a citizen of our country.
I state this as the son and grandson of refugees. Both of my parents and all four of my grandparents were refugees who arrived from displaced persons camps. My paternal grandmother called Canada freedom's shores, where everyone was equal before the law and where for the first time in her life she had the vote. She had a voice as an equal citizen. It is with this very personal legacy in mind that I speak to Bill C-6.
One of the two objectives of Bill C-6 is to make the journey toward citizenship less onerous and to bring it back to the standards and requirements of a system that worked well previously. There are changes such as reducing the length of time required to be physically present in Canada to qualify for citizenship. It would be reverted back to three of five years as opposed to four of six. It would also allow time in Canada before permanent residency to count as half-days toward the physical presence requirement. This would allow people who came here to study or work, or are under protected persons status the comfort of knowing that they are welcome to begin the process toward citizenship. As well, it would amend the age range for language and knowledge requirements from age 14 to 64 back to the previous 18 to 54 age requirement. These are important changes.
However, the most important objective of Bill C-6 is to address the dangerous precedent set by Bill C-24, which created two classes of citizen: first-class citizenship for those who obtained citizenship through birthright; and second-class, revokable citizenship for those became citizens by choice, often by difficult choice and through hard work.
During the last election campaign, our Prime Minister and the Liberal Party of Canada made clear to the millions of Canadians whose citizenship had been denigrated to second-class status and done so retroactively by the previous government's Bill C-24 that we would rescind the offending clauses of that legislation. Simply put, under a Liberal government a Canadian would be a Canadian would be a Canadian once again.
A foundational principle of western liberal democracies is the concept of égalité: that every citizen is equal before the law and is to be treated equally by the law. No citizen has an inherent birthright privilege. This runs counter to historical feudal notions of hierarchical rights granted to different groups based upon birth: caste born into; ethnicity born into; wealth born into; or, in the extreme, the birthright of royalty and the absolute, the divine right of kings. In the liberal democratic west, we are beneficiaries of a system built upon the sacrifices of those who revolted against the injustice of feudal birthright inequality.
The concept of equality was at the core of the French and American revolutions and succinctly put into the American Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, who wrote, “all men are created equal”. I would with humility paraphrase today that all humans are created equal.
In Canada, the principle is enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We live under a system of rule of law. However, all laws must subscribe to the fundamental principles of the Charter of Rights.
When expert witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration during our review of Bill C-6, I asked the panellists, those who both criticized and supported the Conservative Bill C-24, a simple question: “One of the fundamental principles of our justice system is that every citizen is treated equally before the law... Do you subscribe to this principle?” I asked for a simple yes or no.
Surprisingly, both critics and proponents of Bill C-24 responded yes. Only one did not state yes, prevaricating that “For me, it really reflects...the force of that argument, of the position the government has staked out. I still think there are circumstances in which the breach is so fundamental that it requires some other remedy...”.
Even within this prevarication, the only “no” among the witnesses to “should every citizen be treated equally before the law”, one finds an embedded logical disconnect. If the breach is so fundamental that it requires some other remedy, as was stated, should this other remedy, assuming it is a more arduous legal penalty for a fundamental breach, not apply to a Canadian-born terrorist or person engaged in treason, as well?
However, there are other rational disconnects and legal, ethical pitfalls to this section of Bill C-24; for instance, the penalty for a terrorist or treasonous individual who is a dual citizen of a country that is a state sponsor of terror. What would deportation to such a country result in? Would it be a hero's welcome?
On the other end of the spectrum, would we strip Canadian citizenship and deport to a country that subscribes to torture or a country in whose prisons individuals “disappear”?
The question then becomes this. Why did the Conservative government, in the year leading up to an election year, enact a law so deeply flawed; a law that not only offends the fundamental principle of equality before the law; a law that would not stand up to a charter challenge; a law whose penalty in practice could create moral jeopardy or lack of consequence?
Perhaps the answer lies in the observation that it was the same governing group that established a snitch line for barbaric cultural practices during the last federal election campaign—a slightly more camouflaged attempt at the dangerous politics of division and demagoguery that we are currently seeing in the lead-up to the U.S. presidential election.
However, would a Canadian government knowingly resort to undermining the fundamental principle of equality before the law for electoral gain?
As our Prime Minister pointed out not long ago in this House, it was the same Conservative Party that took away the fundamental right to vote from Canadians in the 2011 election.
During the election campaign, I was proud to be part of a team that pledged to do politics differently; whose leader would not succumb to the temptation of dividing Canadians against themselves; who spoke to our better angels.
As I speak today, I think back to the principles my grandmother imbued me with. She was a hard-working refugee who loved her Canada, who loved our Canada, a country that, for the first time in her life, had given her a voice and the same equal rights of every other citizen. She never missed a vote, and she taught her grandchildren to stand against the injustice of inequality, which had been her lot in life prior to landing on freedom's shores.
Our government, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration worked hard and diligently on this legislation.
It is with pride that, this upcoming Canada Day, we will be able to declare that our Prime Minister and our government have fulfilled their commitment and under the current government, once again, in Canada, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I agree that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. However, we are aware of many Canadians who have given a lot of money and set aside hours of time to sponsor private refugees coming into Canada. There is a church in my area that has raised over $70,000, already spent over $7,000 that is gone, and still no sign of the refugee family.
I wonder what my colleague, who I believe sits on the immigration committee, would recommend to clear up this backlog of mismatch between people who are waiting for a refugee family and refugee families who have been waiting in some cases up to six months, have been cleared at all security and health clearances, and yet no action? I wonder if my colleague would have some recommendations for us.
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this issue. We heard one of our previous Conservative colleagues call our electoral pledge to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees—among the most vulnerable on the planet today—a “shameful” pledge. It was inspirational. We stepped up at a time when people were vulnerable. Everyone remembers those awful images of dead bodies washing up on Europe's shores.
We made a pledge. Yes, it is a significant number. We made that pledge knowing that things would not work out perfectly, that there would be problems. However, today before the committee we have heard from refugees who landed in Canada, thankful for the opportunity and explaining that perhaps certain things are not quite perfect. That is to be expected, and that is the role of the committee, to help in this process. The minister has expressed his interest in hearing this testimony so that we can make this process easier. These individuals have lived through horrors. We should really do our best to make sure they can begin a new life in our country.
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend and hon. colleague from Etobicoke Centre for his excellent speech and his points on equality. I know him to be one of the House's most ardent and dedicated champions of democracy and human rights here at home and around the world.
I wonder if he could take a few moments to let the House know about the feedback that he received on Bill C-6 from leaders in his riding who have come from elsewhere, whether it be Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America, or other parts of the world. What has he heard from them about the direction we are taking in Bill C-6?
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from across, but from the same party, for his question and also for the tremendous work he has done over the years in the Middle East.
Often this term is not used correctly, but the GTA is unique in the fact that half of our population was born outside our country. Half of the citizenry of this megalopolis of the GTA, 6.5 million people, were born outside of Canada. They feel it. They understand this. When Bill C-24 was enacted, all of a sudden they felt somehow they did not have the same equal rights to citizenship as their children, for instance, would have.
Therefore, people were extremely happy that under a Liberal government we delivered on our commitment. It will be a proud moment this Canada Day when in Etobicoke Centre we once again swear in new Canadian citizens and we can say, “Welcome. In Canada a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”.
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-6. I will be using my time today to obviously outline why I support this bill, but also why these changes are deeply needed to improve the Citizenship Act as it stands today. I will be splitting my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park.
This bill fulfills many of our campaign commitments that we promised during the recent election, when our party was given the honour to serve as the government. If we look back to the campaign, in my riding of Brampton South, I heard a lot about the Conservatives' approach to immigration. I heard, loud and clear, that their approach pitted groups against one another. It was not about bringing people together. Simply, people told me it was slow.
In the first few months of our government, we have chosen different priorities. We are focused on reuniting spouses and families. We are focused on reducing the backlog. We are focused on a more compassionate approach to refugees. This is why we have taken in many refugees, notably from the Syrian communities, but we also continue to take in refugees from many countries at an exceptional pace of processing.
Immigration is the number one topic I hear about in my constituency office. It is what I hear about all the time, because we live in a globalized world where the links are local through technology to places all over the world.
I do not hear about vague economic ties. It is people's family member, friend, or small business that connects them. Immigration, the movement of people, is at the core of that relationship. The connection our country holds with other countries is enriched and built by individuals. It is about people. Everyone deserves dignity and a fair chance to succeed.
Under the previous Conservative government, the system was broken. It was hard for people to reunite with families, and they were made to feel as if seniors and youth were not worthwhile pushing for.
I will be honest. We should be creating an immigration system that is working for everyone and working in a timely way. The minister's job, and something this minister has been particularly good at it, is to create a fair and just system. A fair system is compassionate, timely, and ensures people have a clear understanding.
Now with Bill C-6, our government is making changes to improve the system. Our government is reducing wait times, shrinking backlogs, and working hard to prioritize people who need us the most. We can be proud of that system and these changes.
Since June 2015, adult applicants are required to declare, on their citizenship applications, that they intend to continue to reside in Canada if granted citizenship. The provision created concern among some new Canadians who feared their citizenship could be revoked in the future if they moved outside of Canada.
The government is proposing to repeal this provision. All Canadians are free to move outside or within Canada. This is a right guaranteed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Bill C-6 would also improve the lives of permanent residents, who would have one less year to wait before being able to apply for citizenship. They would be able to count time they spent physically in Canada before acquiring permanent resident status.
I want to applaud the amendments that came forward at committee. They protect groups and people who need protection, particularly stateless people. I further want to applaud the inclusion of a focus on people with disability. This is a stated priority of our government.
I am pleased to see that, as MPs, we are working together to meet these stated goals. This is about people. I am also pleased to see changes to the language requirements in this bill, which would remove potential barriers to citizenships for seniors and youth who apply. This would make a real difference in the lives of many who are seeking to reunite with family or their spouse.
In May 2015, legislative changes came into effect that created new grounds for citizenship revocation and allowed citizenship to be taken away from dual citizens for certain acts against the national interest of Canada.
These grounds include convictions for terrorism, high treason, treason or spying offences, depending on the sentence received, or membership in an armed force engaged in armed conflict with Canada.
This bill is sensitive to some who were convinced in the previous government's time that terrorists on Canadian soil with dual citizenship could be shipped off because Canada was sending a tough message to terrorists abroad. However, that shirks our responsibility to deal with these people ourselves. It says that our own system is not strong and capable enough and that the person is not a homegrown terrorist. That speaks to an experience others could be having here in Canada. If we have people reading ISIL propaganda here in Canada and plotting, we need to deal with those people and that reality ourselves.
We have had a few examples of this in the past couple of years. We need to tackle the fact that this mentality and this problem is not isolated elsewhere. We cannot just ship off our problems. A Canadian, despite what the person may have done, is still a Canadian and should be dealt with in Canada.
However, the ability to revoke citizenship when it becomes known that it was obtained by false representation, by fraud, or by knowingly concealing material circumstances will necessarily remain in place.
The minister would continue to have the authority to revoke citizenship in basic fraud cases, such as identity and residence fraud, and the Federal Court would continue to have the authority to revoke citizenship in cases where the fraud was in relation to concealing serious inadmissibilities concerning security, human or international rights violations, war crimes, and organized crime. I think all hon. members would agree that no one should be rewarded with Canadian citizenship if they attempt to obtain it through false pretenses.
Bill C-6 is a comprehensive bill that deals with outstanding issues, but it also pushes us forward. Many permanent residents in my riding of Brampton South are looking forward to being given credit for time spent in the country before becoming citizens.
This is what real change looks like, and I am pleased that we are discussing all of these issues. Together we can ensure a Canada that is both diverse and inclusive. We will continue to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.
In fact, on a related note, I want to applaud the announcement of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness yesterday on border exits, which will go a long way in further benefiting our immigration system. Announcements like this are what working together in government looks like.
Bill C-6 is the right bill at this time to fix a system that is not inclusive, not focused on people, and not processing things fast enough for the people affected on the ground, like the people in my riding of Brampton South. I know that they want this bill passed at the earliest opportunity and want to see a system that is fair. I look forward to voting for this bill. I hope all honourable members will be doing the same.
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member's speech. There has been a lot of talk about which aspects of the broken immigration system we should fix first, and I am wondering if the member agrees that Bill C-6 is a really good place to start, given the enormous breakage that was left by the previous government.
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 would ensure the safety and security of all Canadians. The proposed changes would not compromise the security of Canadians. That is something this government is wholeheartedly committed to. This bill is focused on removing the fear the Conservatives had been spreading and would bring in a solid system that is strong in the face of concern abroad.
Canada remains a welcoming, open symbol to the world. That is something I am very proud of, because a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have certainly dined out on the phrase “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” for several months now, but that is not actually the case.
The minister has indicated that he is looking to remove the citizenship of dual Canadian citizens if they commit fraud. If someone is a convicted terrorist who commits terrorism against Canada or Canadian interests, that is okay. That person can always remain Canadian, because a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, even if the person is a terrorist. However, if people commit fraud, then the Liberal government will come against them.
Which one is it, and why the inconsistency?
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-6, as I said, we are looking at that option.
During the campaign, we talked a lot about how the Conservatives offered a two-tier citizenship plan. They think a minister should be able to say who is Canadian and who is not. Despite what anyone has done, one is still Canadian and should face the full force of our legal system.
We believe that we should deal with homegrown terrorists here in Canada, not strip them of one of their two citizenships so they can be shipped off somewhere.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, during the last Conservative government, we saw a huge increase in fees for people who are applying for citizenship. I am just wondering if the member can let us know what the government's plan is on potentially decreasing these.
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the bill was what we promised in the campaign and what Canadians endorsed. It is more fair for the people affected. That is what I am focused on, and that is what the people of Brampton South expect me to focus on.
We said that we would shorten processing times and get rid of the two-tier Conservative system. That is what our government said we would do. It is what Canadians expect us to do, and that is what we are doing.
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Perhaps I will try again, Mr. Speaker.
The member has just said a number of times that they are eliminating two-tier citizenship, but that is simply not true.
We understand that the Liberals, no matter what terrorist act an individual commits against this country as a dual citizen, will protect the citizenship of that terrorist, but they will not protect the citizenship of someone who commits fraud. Why is fraud a more serious crime against one's citizenship than terrorism?
Why are the Liberals having a dual-citizenship, dual-track, two-tier system for those who commit fraud?
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-6, we feel that the challenges in the immigration system matter to those people I meet in my constituency. This is the bill for those people who have a deep love for Canada.
The bill proposes to allow applicants to receive credit for the time they have been legally in Canada before becoming permanent residents. This change is intended to help attract international students and experienced workers to Canada. This is a plan that is good for our economy and the inclusivity of our society.
Again, I hope all members will support Bill C-6.