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.

Citizenship Act

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

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

As the minister said yesterday, we are open to making constructive changes to the bill, just as we are open during the discussions that are held in Parliament, in the House, or in committees. That is how we want to work with the other parties in the House. If a good suggestion is made during committee meetings or in the House, the parliamentary secretary to the minister and all parliamentarians on this side of the House will be open to discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech and thank him for his comments.

I want to ask the member about, in part, the comments that were raised opposite, which I find quite incredible. Even after legislation was enacted by the previous government, which explicitly put in an intent-to-reside provision in the legislation and which we are removing, somehow the effects of that impact are being denied by the members opposite.

I was quite taken by the comments of the member for Fredericton in respect to the fact that there are two terrific universities in New Brunswick, St. Thomas and UNB. I wonder if the member for Fredericton could comment on how this kind of legislation, which would create pathways to citizenship and formal and full integration into New Brunswick and Canadian society, assists great universities such as UNB and St. Thomas in recruiting people and retaining them in our Canadian communities.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick is a place with an aging demographic that needs bright, young people with a wealth of skills and potential. I am so fortunate to know that these universities, which serve as welcoming points for newcomers to the community, can help foster that type of education and potential for the province.

At St. Thomas alone, a tiny liberal arts school, which I had the honour of graduating from and being an alumnus, upwards of 10% of the student population are international students. These people go on to become teachers, social workers, human rights leaders, and lawyers, to do the type of work needed to ensure there is a diverse community, not just in Fredericton, not just in New Brunswick, but right across the country.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise in debate today on Bill C-6. As this is Canada's House of Commons, I will do something very special to start off my remarks today, which I have not done before in this place. I am going to take the oath of citizenship.

I swear
That I will be faithful
And bear allegiance
To Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second
Queen of Canada
Her Heirs and Successors
And that I will faithfully observe
The laws of Canada
And fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Most MPs in this House, and I am sure many of our new members on all sides, have taken part in citizenship ceremonies. I think my colleagues would agree that it is a most special occasion, because we see people who come to this country for remarkable opportunities, we see them with family and friends, and they swear or affirm that oath and become an official part of the family. By that point they have already become a vibrant part of their community.

I attend ceremonies, both outdoors and indoors, and on Canada Day. I write to all new citizens in my riding to congratulate them, welcome them, thank them, and urge them to become active members of the community and to really engage in what that citizenship provides, if they have not done so already. We have to keep that in mind. I have been to homes where that letter that I have written them as new citizens is displayed on the wall because they value that citizenship and hold it very close to their hearts.

This is an important debate that has been manipulated at times. It certainly creates passion. I will provide a precise discussion of the subjects in Bill C-6 and hope we can move some of the government members off their stand, which is actually not a principled stand on Bill C-6. I will explore why it is not principled with respect to revocation.

Bill C-6 does not just deal with the elimination of the narrow grounds of revocation that were extended to crimes against the state by the previous government; it also intends to repeal the intent-to-reside provisions. Some members have suggested that this would impact mobility rights under the charter. As a lawyer, I do not think that is the case at all.

The very basic expectation that all members of this House would have when they see people take that special oath that I did at the beginning of my remarks is that they are joining the family with the intent to be part of it. Why would we remove that provision? It makes no sense. We expect people to maintain their ties with whatever country they came from and use the tremendous wealth and opportunity we have as Canadians to go around the world exploring. Intent to reside has no conflict with any of that. In fact, we love the fact—and I have this in my own riding and the wider GTA—that people will then become ambassadors, advocates, or fundraisers for the countries they came from when they joined the Canadian family.

That in no way is hindered by suggesting that new citizens should intend to live in the country they are joining as a full citizen. Therefore, that one clearly makes no sense and has not been well articulated by the government either in its election or in the debate so far.

It would also reduce the number of days that someone would be physically present. This could be debated but is not as controversial. Certainly, the 183-day commitment is a tax-driven number, but it is changing from the old standard of 183 days per year and four out of six years to three out of five. There is less consternation associated with that principle, but it is in Bill C-6 as well. I have not heard a clear reason for a change to be made there; however, it is minor and so it will not be the subject of most of my remarks.

My final point is with respect to the change to language requirements, with the expectation of some competency in English and French for new citizens. The bill changes the target groups from 14 to 64 to 18 to 54. I have some concerns with that as well, particularly in an environment where we see people working longer in the workplace and with respect to the important role that immigration and our new citizens play in our economy by filling gaps, building businesses, and becoming job creators.

A few years ago, I nominated a friend of mine to be top Canadian immigrant of the year, and I think there might be a couple of members of this House who belong in that special awards ceremony given each year. My friend, Ihor Kozak, was serving in the Canadian Armed Forces within a decade of immigrating from Ukraine. I was amazed that he not only embraced the citizenship and opportunity that Canada represented, but coming from an area of the world that was still having problems with Russia, he wanted not just to be part of Canada but also to serve Canada.

I am amazed by immigrants in my riding, new citizens who have built businesses and are employing people, adding to the economy and taking leadership roles in service clubs and their church communities. I am constantly amazed by that. We should target that and make no bones about wanting people to come. We want them to participate fully in our economy, in our communities, in faith groups, in civic organizations, and run for Parliament, and many have. We should encourage that and should not shift it with the expectation that we are changing it.

However, most of my remarks will be preserved for that first element I talked about in my concern with Bill C-6. The Liberal government has suggested that Bill C-6 is a principled stand when it comes to revocation, that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. Unity of citizenship, I heard the member for Fredericton say. That is not true.

If the government and the minister who introduced Bill C-6 want to be principled, they would end revocation. Revocation is not ended in Bill C-6. Some of the grounds for revocation are removed, but revocation of citizenship for a naturalized Canadian remains.

I will show how the narrow crimes-against-the-state provision that we added in the previous government perhaps should attract revocation more than fraud or misrepresentation, or at least equally so, in terms of the morally blameworthy standard, which is the underpinning of criminal law.

I am very proud of the last Conservative government's record when it comes to immigration and new Canadians. We had 1.6 million new citizens over the course of that government. The year 2014 was a record year, with 263,000-plus new citizens joining the family, reciting that oath with which I started my remarks, which is very important. As well, we did not reduce immigration, despite a global recession, because we know how critical our new citizens are to our economy and to building opportunity for others. The Conservative government's average of about 180,000 or so new citizens per year is much higher than the 164,000 or so under the previous Liberal government.

There is a lot of rhetoric with respect to Bill C-6, but I have have not heard much statistical support or even moral clarity for the direction the government is taking.

One thing all members of this House should recognize is that equality is not sameness. Not everyone is the same. In fact, we embrace diversity, and diversity is part of the equality all Canadians enjoy, but it is important to let the government know that there are citizens who have rights and responsibilities as Canadians and that there are citizens who have rights and responsibilities and obligations as other citizens as well. In fact, Canada has almost one million dual citizens. About 200,000 people who were born here have acquired citizenship in another country through a family member, and there are about 750,000 dual citizens who are naturalized Canadians and who retain their citizenship from their mother country or the country from which they came to Canada.

I have heard the Prime Minister say a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. If he wanted to do so, he could eliminate dual citizenship, because dual citizens in some cases have military service obligations, as is the case with Greece, and they may have tax obligations.

Therefore, there are rights and responsibilities as Canadians, but some Canadians have additional rights and responsibilities, and that has to be debated.

I embrace dual citizenship, but I dive into the issues. I do not just use it as a slogan. Let us recognize that for what it is. A lot of Canadians cherish the ability to have that dual structure, but let us not suggest that is the norm.

Fifty-two countries do not allow dual citizenship. If we are going to have an informed debate in the House of Commons on the issue of citizenship, this should be part of the debate. Many of those countries are Liberal democracies and allies and friends. Germany, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands do not permit dual citizenship, and India, Japan, South Korea, and China do not permit dual citizenship, so when new members of our family from any of those 52 countries become citizens in Canada, they lose their citizenship automatically.

I am not suggesting we go there, but let us have a debate. If we recognize that some Canadians have additional rights and responsibilities attached to their citizenship, then let us have that debate. Let us not suggest that what was done by the previous government somehow diminished Canadian citizenship. The previous government recognized the importance of Canadian citizenship and the duty of fidelity and loyalty and a shared commitment of country and state and the new member.

Revocation would still be permitted by the present Liberal government for fraud or misrepresentation, but not for the narrow grounds of crimes against the state. Since 1977 there have been 56 revocations. It is likely higher than that, because recent numbers have been hard to nail down. One of those was Mr. Amara, one of the Toronto 18 terrorists, who was convicted for plotting a terror attack. The others are primarily Nazi war criminals. In 2011, Branko Rogan's citizenship was revoked, and that was supported by the Federal Court. Justice Mactavish recognized the inhumane acts he committed in the Bosnia conflict and his fraud when he came to Canada, and that led to revocation. What was the abusive act? Evidence was provided that he abused Muslim prisoners in Bileca, Bosnia. His citizenship was revoked. Why was his citizenship revoked? It was revoked for his fraud or misrepresentation in coming here and the court's recognition of inhumane acts, which was why he committed fraud. The court made a moral determination based on his previous behaviour.

However, if somebody committed those same reprehensible, inhumane acts in this country, it would not be determined morally blameworthy enough under Bill C-6. That is, if someone commits fraud after being part of a genocide elsewhere, that individual would have his or her citizenship revoked, but if the individual promotes or creates that here through an act of terror or treason, that would not be considered morally blameworthy enough. That is an absurd position in law.

I have not heard my colleagues in the government articulate a rationale as to why inhumane acts abroad could lead to revocation but such terrible acts in Canada would not. We are talking about three narrow grounds. We are talking about charges under the Criminal Code, the National Defence Act, and our Official Secrets Act, or Security of Information Act as it is called now.

A lot of new members of our family take the oath, which I remind people says:

...I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Many of the people who take that oath would suggest that to commit crimes against the state they are now joining would be morally blameworthy enough to show that they have not lived up to their obligation. This is not window dressing. This is an oath administered in front of a judge, and it is to be a true oath. If there is malice or fraud in someone's heart while that oath is being taken, then that oath should be nullified, in my view.

The last government extended revocation on the very narrow grounds of treason, espionage, and terrorism. Those are crimes against the state. We have heard about the slippery slope. People were misleading Canadians during the election by suggesting that if they committed some criminal act, it might be applicable, but these are narrow provisions, and I will tell the House how rare they are. Since Confederation, there have been eight cases of treason, six of them in World War I. Louis Riel was a tragedy in the early years of our country. That is how narrow the ground is that we are talking about.

Espionage is equally small, and it is hard to get numbers, but it is literally in the single digits. As for terrorism, there have been 22 convictions since the last Liberal government introduced the act following 9/11. Of those, with the amendments made by the Conservative government, there has been one revocation.

The ridiculousness of the slippery slope and the fear created by the government over this issue have been shameful. We are talking about narrow ground. More people have committed fraud over heinous acts abroad than have committed acts of terror or treason here. That has to be part of this debate.

I want to start hearing the same sort of rationale and approach, because this actually is not new to Canada. In fact, between 1947 and 1977, revocation under our Citizenship Act in its various forms has come and gone. Engaging with the enemy or serving in an enemy army was grounds for revocation in the past. Treason was grounds for many years and then was eliminated in 1967, in a time when treason and World War I and World War II seemed far-off notions. This was pre-terrorism and the global rise of terrorism.

Liberal governments of the past have revoked citizenship for fraud and for a variety of potential grounds. That is the right of the state because, as some scholars have described, citizenship is a right to have rights. We extend a whole range of rights before citizenship, which is great. It is part of our country and our charter. However, we have to recognize that with citizenship come rights and responsibilities.

Revocation is not a criminal sanction. It has been described by scholars as preservation of the conditions of membership. When we use that description, it sounds a lot like fraud or misrepresentation. If someone lies about their name and what their past might entail, that is equally as bad as lying about their intention to faithfully observe the laws of Canada, is it not?

I have not heard an argument here from the government. We are talking about a handful of cases since Confederation that might be extended by these narrow grounds. I am expecting more from the government, and I think our new citizens are expecting more.

If we think about the case of Mr. Rogan, the modern war criminal who created atrocious crimes against the Muslim population in Bosnia, it was right that we did not allow him to use fraud to gain citizenship by concealing his inhumane acts. At the same time, Canadians would expect that if someone came here with malice in their heart, made that oath, and at the same time or shortly thereafter was plotting crimes against their new state, that person was not being faithful to that oath and to our high standards of citizenship.

In the past we have also had constructive repudiation of citizenship. That is something the Liberal government has used in the past as well, whereby a known terror suspect abroad who is a dual citizen is just not brought home and will languish in a foreign jail in the country where he was caught. There has been a handful of these constructive repudiation cases, which I think amounts to the same thing.

What I would like to hear from the government is more than just electioneering. This is the citizenship of our country. A crime against the state and the narrow grounds that we extended revocation to is a crime against what we all pledge and what we all embody as Canadians with the freedom and remarkable opportunities we have.

If the government wanted to be principled, it would have eliminated revocation, but if revocation of citizenship is still there for fraud, for terrible acts conducted elsewhere, why would terrible acts conducted here, in violation of that citizenship oath, not be equally as morally blameworthy and subject to revocation?

I am hoping that in the rest of debate we will hear this, so that we can preserve how important and special Canadian citizenship truly is.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Durham invited a lot of responses and questions.

First of all, he started his commentary with respect to the intent-to-reside provision actually posing no conflict or confusion in the minds of newcomers. Simply put, currently, if one does not indicate an intention to reside, citizenship is not granted. If that does not sow confusion, I am not sure what does. It readily displays how out of touch my friend opposite is with the concerns of immigrants and newcomers to this country.

Second, he stated that revocation has not ended altogether and that we are therefore not principled as a government in what we are proposing in Bill C-6. However, revocation on the basis of fraud has existed in legislation in this country since 1947. We are returning to the status quo ante. The reason revocation for the purposes of fraud is the only provision that has existed, until the previous government decided to up the ante, is that we treat fraud in the context of citizenship with a citizenship sanction. We treat other acts, such as criminal acts and the litany of items raised by the member for Durham, with a criminal sanction. In fact, he said so himself that revocation is not a criminal sanction. That is right, and that is the point. It is why revocation on the basis of criminality has no place in this legislation.

On the last point, the member indicated at length that the record of the previous government on diversity was quite good. However, I find it incredible that one would start with an oath of citizenship reference and recite the oath of citizenship, when the previous government in fact limited the taking of that oath of citizenship for certain women from certain religious communities based on what they wore.

Why does the member continue to defend a diversity record that is in fact lamentable and not recognize that Bill C-24 was a barrier to integration of newcomers, as opposed to some sort of lever to promote it?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the parliamentary secretary to the House. I have read his personal story, and it is an inspiring one.

My best friend is Malian Canadian, and he joined me in the House of Commons when the Aga Khan spoke about how important the cosmopolitan society of Canada is.

In his remarks the member posed a variety of questions. I will not address all of the issues raised, because my speech was mainly about revocation. He did not address the remarks I made about moral blameworthiness. He has conflated that with a number of other things, and we could have a debate on those, but most of my speech was on revocation and equating fraud and the moral blameworthiness of that to crimes against the state.

I used the example of someone who committed heinous crimes against humanity under Idi Amin's regime, who then came here and lied about it in Canada. They could have their citizenship revoked. However, someone who came to Canada as part of a sleeper cell and committed an attack would not have their citizenship revoked, even though the act would almost be equally morally blameworthy.

I told the member that we are talking literally about a handful of crimes and crimes against the state. A principled stand would have been to eliminate revocation, if one were truly being principled. The Liberals are making choices, and I have said they have not defended that choice of why the commission of crimes against Canada as a state is less blameworthy done here than crimes committed elsewhere.

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

Mr. Speaker, it bothers me to hear the Conservative Party members keep defending former Bill C-24, which created two classes of citizens. People who had dual citizenship could lose their Canadian citizenship, while people who had Canadian citizenship only could not lose it. The former immigration minister was even dismayed that Canada had signed international agreements preventing it from creating stateless people. We see how far the previous government was willing to go.

Why is the Conservative Party still not defending the principle of equality before the law? Why is it going against the advice of the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, Amnesty International, and the Canadian Council for Refugees, which felt that Bill C-24 was inconsistent with our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is confusing my comments here today and why I feel that the narrow addition of revocation measures for crimes against the state, and my defence of that on a principled basis, is different from recognizing our parliamentary democracy.

The government has a right to bring Bill C-6 forward, but it is my role as an parliamentarian in the opposition to ask it for more of an explanation than a hashtag or some sort of an electioneering slogan. The Liberals have not explained that difference, and I will not reiterate it.

We should recognize that almost all European countries have revocation of citizenship for a variety of reasons, including treason and on public safety grounds. This is not abnormal. In fact, France is basically going the same way, recognizing this new phenomenon that needs to be addressed, where someone could arrive with malice in their heart to conduct an act against the French state. On the narrow grounds we are talking about, it is something that should be examined, as many European countries have done.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member pointed out that under Bill C-6, inhumane acts committed abroad can result in the revocation of citizenship. However, those same acts committed right here on Canadian territory could not result in someone's citizenship being revoked under Bill C-6.

I had the opportunity to sit down with a number of new citizens in my riding, who shared some of their concerns with regard to the legislation that is coming forward. Some of them commented that the reason they came to Canada to become members of the Canadian family was the heinous crimes committed in the countries they came from, huge atrocities committed against them and their families and also against governments.

All of that is to say they came here for the purposes of hope. With this change to Bill C-6, they are seeing very little of that. Could the member comment on that.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's narrowing in on the critical part of my argument here in the House, about the moral blameworthiness of conduct that would lead to a response from the state. That is essentially what criminal law is, whether one is incarcerated, fined, or whatever. That is the state pronouncing on the moral blameworthiness of conduct.

What I find striking, and the member raised it, is that a lot of people are fleeing countries where inhumane acts might occur, and we want to make sure that the perpetrators of those acts cannot come here fraudulently.

I am suggesting to the House that it is a perverse position to say that someone who comes here to do the same thing is not equally as blameworthy. I have to reiterate that since 1867, we are only talking about 30 or so cases this may apply to. The slippery slope and some of hyperbole we have heard from the government on this is simply not supported by the facts.

I am hoping that in our debate here, we start to hear some of those facts and some of that moral reasoning.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member talks about the need to not electioneer, but in fact this issue arose in what seemed to be an endless pre-election period last year.

It was an electioneering issue. Certainly people saw through it. A particularly interesting moment occurred just at the beginning of the campaign. I was in a studio of a South Asian station in Surrey. I was due to go on the air and talk about a variety of things, including Bill C-24.

Just prior to my segment, the member for Calgary Midnapore was interviewed over the phone. He made a point about Bill C-24 to the host and the audience listening to that South Asian station that the listeners did not have to worry because they could not have their citizenship stripped, because India did not permit dual citizenship.

That really twigged it for me. Okay, now all of a sudden, we have one group that can suffer a particular sanction, whereas another group, basically due to a technicality, cannot. Everyone saw through that.

How could the hon. member and his party support that kind of approach?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that question because it does address some of my remarks. I have said that if we are talking citizenship they have not wanted to talk the moral rationale or the statistics leading to Bill C-6. However, in my remarks I did discuss that there are 52 countries, including India, that do not permit dual citizenship, and there cannot be a stateless person at law.

Citizenship has with it a number of rights and responsibilities that flow both ways. As I said, some scholars describe citizenship as a right to have rights or, in our case, additional rights like the right to vote to elect that member.

What we need to have when we talk about these things is a rational discussion about why the former Conservative government really just returned to the 1966 position of having treason as a ground for revocation. Mackenzie King probably brought it in; I should have done that research. This is a rational discussion we have to have, and I think most new citizens, when we talk about these narrow grounds, agree with it to preserve the sanctity of that citizenship.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

Before going any further, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Centre.

I am proud to speak in support of the bill. I am proud to do so as the son and grandson of first generation Canadians, as a former public servant who fought against organized crime and terrorism, and now as a member of Parliament in the House, at the very heart of our democracy.

Make no mistake, Bill C-6 is very much about protecting our democracy. It is about showing respect for the generations of immigrants who helped build our country up from its very foundations. It is about protecting the pathways to citizenship for future new Canadians. It is very much about ensuring that equality of citizenship remains a right enshrined by the charter.

On this side of the House, we believe, as the Prime Minister has said, that Canada is strong not in spite of its diversity but because of it. The new policy measures introduced by our proposed legislation will safeguard this value through and through. This was a key promise during the election, and Canadians are right to expect that we would deliver on it.

Nevertheless, there are some on the side of the official opposition who object to the bill. In brief, they say that our proposed legislation will make Canadians less safe and it diminishes the value of Canadian citizenship. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the law passed by the party opposite drastically overreaches, introduces hierarchical classes of citizenship, does nothing to keep us safe, and does nothing to enhance the value of citizenship.

Let me highlight the flaws under the old Bill C-24.

Under the law as it stands, Canadians who are convicted of certain serious crimes, and yes, including terrorism, may be stripped of their citizenship, but only if they hold citizenship in another country or could hold citizenship in another country. Therefore, it is not just Canadians who are dual citizens, but also Canadians who could be dual citizens, whom the opposition considers less equal than others.

It is not just terrorism, either. In the latter stages of the last election, a number of leading voices from the opposition were calling to expand the list of offences which could trigger revocation. Therefore, when the member opposite asks for evidence and facts about the slippery slope, there it is. It is part of the public record. It is not hard to see why some on the other side of the aisle say these things. Who does not want to punish a murderer, let alone a terrorist, and who does not want to denounce those who denounce Canada by their violent actions, motivated by a twisted ideological purpose?

As we reflect on these questions, I think of my own experience in prosecuting terrorists. I worked on the Toronto 18, along with some of the finest public servants I have never known. This case involved a plot to detonate bombs in Toronto and to wage an attack on Parliament Hill. It was a serious and complex case and alarming to the public.

One of the ringleaders of this conspiracy was Zakaria Amara. He was convicted. Some of my hon. colleagues across the way have referred to Mr. Amara frequently of late. This is because Mr. Amara was born in Jordan and was, thus, caught under the dual citizenship provisions of Bill C-24. Just weeks before election day, he received a letter from the then government by the then minister of citizenship and immigration that he would be moving to revoke his citizenship.

The opposition says that Mr. Amara is the only one who stands to win when we pass Bill C-6, as it will have the effect of reversing the revocation process and allow him to maintain his Canadian citizenship. Mr. Amara is no winner. Mr. Amara is a convicted terrorist and he is serving a life sentence. I helped put him and his co-conspirators behind bars, which is where he remains to this day. The only winner is the Canadian public that saw an individual convicted following a fair trial and due process.

Let us put aside the winners and losers rhetoric. The opposition goes on to argue that revoking Mr. Amara's citizenship and deporting him to Jordan or some other place will make Canada safer. They are wrong. Where is the logic in deporting a convicted terrorist from our soil to some other place, where Canada has a diminished capacity to prevent future terrorist activity and where the deportee would only have an increased capacity to continue to recruit, to radicalize, and potentially to return to do more harm to us should he choose to resume his agenda?

I challenge my friends across the way to come up with a credible answer to that question. I think they will find it difficult to do so.

Even looking at their own policies, one finds inconsistencies. For example, the Conservatives also sought to make it a crime for Canadians to travel to some of the very same regions to which they would banish domestic terrorists. How can they reconcile that for the average Canadians? They cannot. Indeed, not only would deporting convicted terrorists not keep Canadians safer, I fail to see how it would keep any of our friends or allies safer.

I want to spend my remaining time talking about one of the central focuses of Bill C-6, which is to uphold the equitable principle of Canadian citizenship.

Taken at its highest, the opposition argues that if we do not strip away citizenship from convicted dual citizens and those eligible to be dual citizens, we are somehow tainting citizenship for those citizens of the “old stock”, to quote one expression coined by the opposition party. The thrust of its position is that it undermines citizenship to allow a convicted terrorist to remain in our midst.

Let me be clear. We in the House are united in our resolve against terrorism. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that terrorists belong behind bars. No one should ever doubt his resolve, nor that of the government, to confront any individual or any organization that would bring harm to our country and to see them brought to justice.

The previous government may not have liked to admit it, but all members, on all sides, take seriously our responsibility to keep our country safe. Bill C-6 would do just that. It would subject all criminals to the full force of Canadian law and the Canadian justice system. It would eliminate the former government's exception for those who hold, or could hold, citizenship in another country. It would mean that every Canadian, whether born here or naturalized, must obey the same laws or face the same consequences. It says that if people are convicted of terrorism in our country, they will go to prison in this country and they will stay there.

The opposition says that we should compromise the equality of our citizenship, but all it offers in return is a false promise of security.

Canadians have rejected the politics of division and fear. They have said, clearly, that there is no place in our laws for discrimination between those of us who were born here and those of us who were not. It now falls to us in the House, with this bill, to say the same.

My support of the bill is based upon the rule of law. My support of the bill is a vote of confidence for all the professionals who work in the law enforcement, intelligence, and corrections communities. My support of the bill is based upon the fundamental principle that it is the bedrock of who we are and the basic measure of what we share. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

To be clear, I do not begrudge the members opposite for being angry, or even afraid in the face of terrorism. Those are the basic human responses to seeing our laws broken and our freedoms abused. However, we must not allow our fears to erode the principles and values on which our country was founded: equality, fairness, and compassion.

We are better than the law that is now on our books. It does not make us safer, but it does make us less equal. That is why Bill C-6 must pass.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member pretty much stuck to one point of the bill, but what are his thoughts on the value of citizenship, the value of permanent residence, and the way to becoming a full-fledged citizen?

In a previous bill, one of the criteria we brought as government was the requirement of four years to six years, being here 183 days, and filing tax returns in our country for those four years to six years. Most the people I talk to in my riding of Huron—Bruce feel this is a reasonable threshold.

What are the member's thoughts in reducing that threshold in the bill?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have always been a pro-immigration country. What we have seen in the last 10 years are the pathways to citizenship becoming more impeded and more difficult to achieve for those new Canadians and those aspiring to become new Canadians. One of the ways in which we are removing those barriers is to reduce the residency requirements.

This is one of the ways in which we will remain a leading nation for people who want to come to our country in pursuit of a better life. That is what brought my family here. That is what brought many of my colleagues here. I dare to say that is what brought many of the families of those on the other side here. That is why we are standing up for this policy.