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

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understand those difficulties and I sympathize with the whole situation. All I am saying is that the government should have more funds available, more teachers, more ESL classes, and everything possible that can make life easier down the road for people. Most people do not mind learning the language. They know this is goes toward their success. If we go to certain ethnic areas, people are depending on each other rather than mixing with Canadian society. I understand that difficulty, but it can be and it will be done. This is a prime example sitting here.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am afraid I disagree with the hon. member. I particularly note his emphasis on citizenship obtained by fraud.

We have spoken earlier of specific cases, and I have had them in my riding, where it is for reasons that are completely understandable, including lack of information, lack of education, incorrect information, and misunderstandings. People make mistakes, sometimes deliberately, on their citizenship application, but for humanitarian and compassionate grounds, each case should be examined in its own right.

We should not see, as I mentioned earlier tonight, good Canadian citizens being forever barred from bringing their children to Canada. Would the hon. member not agree that good citizens and good, responsible, hard-working people should not be barred forever from having their children live with them for one mistake?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, a good citizen is a good citizen. Nobody is disputing that. The only thing we are disputing is when purposely and knowingly citizenship is gained by deceit, whatever the reason is. For humanitarian reasons, they can always appeal their case. All I am saying is if it is proved by the court or by the immigration minister that immigration was obtained by deceit. We are talking about those people. They should be sent back. For the good Canadians, we always have regard for them.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the question about people who fraudulently obtain their citizenship. I believe, and I think my constituents believe, that it is important that we maintain the integrity of our system. This means that when individuals obtain their citizenship through fraud, we should not draw out the process unnecessarily, that we should recognize that is a problem for the integrity of citizenship and people should lose citizenship in that case.

In response to some of the other comments and how the Liberals seem intent on approaching this amendment, is it not fundamentally in the public interest to ensure we maximize the disincentive to citizenship fraud to ensure upfront that people know that if there is citizenship fraud, there will be a strong response? Is that not an imperative if we are to have a strong and effective immigration system that works for everybody?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, in most of the cases when agencies of crooked consultants or crooked lawyers are doing these things, they are charging a ton of money and making up stories. If we let this go, then there is no respect left for the Canadian passport. Thousands of people are waiting in the queue. We should keep the integrity to ensure nobody gets citizenship by deceiving the system.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his eloquent speech.

Since he is an immigrant like me, does he not believe that by allowing newcomers under 18 to obtain citizenship this bill makes it easier for them to integrate and helps them feel more at home, while it further enriches Canadian society? What does the hon. member think about this amendment to the legislation?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, we believe in it. We are going to support this amendment for the age of 18 or less. We can thank Senator Victor Oh for bringing this amendment forward. We appreciate his hard work. We believe it will make the system easier for minor students, kids. It will affect their lives. In some of the old cases, for whatever reason, when the kids came, the parents did not care, or there were family issues or drug issues, or the kids did not get along. In many of these cases, we hear that 50 years later, 40 years later, those adults were deported.

We are going to support this amendment. We love this amendment. Once again, we want to thank Senator Victor Oh for this amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.