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.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, first of all, I want to thank my dear friend Mr. Ali, not only for bringing all these statistics and personally attending the meetings last week but also for all the great work he does, not only for the people of Brampton Centre but in fact on any real issue. On the student issue, he was there, and on any other issue that comes in that affects the immigrant community, he has always been there. I want to thank him.

Madam Chair, I want to tell the committee members that I came to Canada as an immigrant as well. I came to Canada in 1984 and landed in a beautiful city at that time, Calgary. I went to the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology and to the University of Calgary, getting my engineering degree.

Madam Chair, I got my citizenship in 1987 at the earliest moment I could. I was very proud and am still very proud to be Canadian. It's not only me. In fact, all my family are Canadian citizens, including my mom, who is very vibrant. She worked here in this country. She still today, at 83, goes with me when I am campaigning or doing any social work. She is ahead of me all the time with the energy she carries, but she came to Canada not speaking any English.

I remember when Conservatives were in power and we talked about citizenship for people aged 55 to 65 for people who did not have knowledge of the English language, and I can tell you that my mother would have had to wait a long time if that had been in effect at the time when she took her citizenship. I'm sure there were many, but in fact, I still remember when the Liberals came back to power and brought in Bill C‑6, which brought that age back to 55 and gave many immigrants whose mother tongue was not English or French the opportunity to have their citizenship earlier. I can tell you that the Liberals were helping.

In fact, I took the oath personally, and I have that small card, the one that Mr. Kmiec was mentioning, but I have also seen excitement on the online meetings. I still remember that I was asked to come to one of the homes. Mr. Sashi Kumar, who is a Canadian citizen now, lives in my riding. He invited me. He was very excited to become a Canadian citizen and to have an opportunity to do it online. They decorated the whole home, they invited the whole family and they invited me, and I made my way to them to see the excitement.

The technology changes, and I think it's totally appropriate to have both a personal ceremony and one online for people who are in difficult situations, like Madam Kwan's mom. I'm sure there are still many out there in Canada who are in the same situation today. They cannot go personally to attend their ceremony and they want to opt out, do it at home and celebrate at home, the way that Mr. Sashi Kumar and his family did when they invited me. I was very proud to be part of that celebration at home.

Madam Chair, as I said, I could go on for hours, but I know that Bill S‑245 is a very important bill as well because it is going to help many Canadians who have lost their citizenship. I know Senator Martin. She's a wonderful person. I have a very excellent working relationship with her, and she's also from beautiful British Columbia. I would love to see this bill go through ASAP.

The important question that maybe we should be asking officials in terms of the online test that came in during COVID is about protecting the integrity of that test. It came to my knowledge that there might be an opportunity for some fraud if the people themselves don't appear for the test, but others do, from the outside. What steps are being taken by the department to make sure that we are able to protect the integrity of our examination centres or examination tests or whatever they have for citizenship?

That would be my question, Madam Chair.

With that, I want to thank each and every one of you who spoke so passionately about the citizenship ceremony, whether it be in person or online.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to prolong this debate. Suffice it to say that this is a process that's afforded to all members of Parliament at this committee. I followed that process. The matter will be referred to the Speaker of the House, and we will see how things unfold.

The government, the minister, will have a chance to look at these amendments. Then they will be able to make a determination. Ultimately for it to go through, it would require a royal recommendation. I am hopeful that some of these things can go through.

You know, Mr. Chair, like so many things we do.... I still remember that back in 2015, when I first came to the House as an elected member of Parliament, the first bill was an immigration bill. I never thought in a thousand years, as an opposition member in a majority government, that I would be able to move an amendment to a government bill, Bill C-6, on immigration. That's exactly what I was able to do. I was floored. I had a say in democracy with some hope that, in opposition, we can make change.

This is what I'm trying to do here now.

Citizenship Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and speak in support of Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94).

The bill will change the oath of citizenship. The new oath will now read:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true 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, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

As someone who emigrated to Canada, I know first-hand just how valuable and memorable the experience of taking the oath of Canadian citizenship is. That is why this bill is very close to my heart. When I came to Canada back in 1974, the wait for my citizenship felt like a long time.

The day I went to my ceremony was one of the happiest days of my life. I can still remember the building, the people who were sitting beside me and the colour of the carpet in the room. However, what I remember the most was the moment when I put my hand to the chest and swore the oath. I still think about that to this day, and what it meant to me.

When I speak to other new Canadians, I hear the same thing. The oath is the legal requirement to become a Canadian citizen, but it is much more than that for every newcomer.

To become a Canadian, I had to pass the citizenship test. That test would show I understood the history of Canada and what this country stands for. This was before Canada became one of only a few countries in the world where indigenous and treaty rights were entrenched in our Constitution.

Some of the questions on the citizenship test were things I had picked up over the years, and others were things I needed to study. Canada's relationship with its first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples was not something I was required to know. It was not something that came up often. Back then when people said “Indian”, it was unclear if they were talking about me or Canada's first people.

Let me tell the House about what I did know even back then. I knew about reserves, and I knew about poverty. Many of the homeless I would see in Toronto were, sadly, first nations people. I have learned a lot about Canada's indigenous people since that time, and about the struggles they still face.

For example, reserves to this day have boil water advisories that are decades old. Indigenous people represent only about 5% of the adult population in Canada, but make up 30% of the people behind bars. The lasting impact of residential schools and the mental health crisis has led many indigenous people to take their own lives. The housing crisis on reserves has forced people to live in rundown homes filled with black mould, threatening the lives of those inside.

I have learned much more since being elected. I wish I had known more. I am glad that schools in Ontario are now making sure that students are familiar with these topics. That was not the case when my children were in school.

There is a lot of ignorance about these issues, even though none of these issues are new. They span generations. Where progress has been made, it has come too slowly. Our new leader has said, “....all governments in our history have not lived up to what we owe our Constitution and indigenous Canadians.”

I want to be clear about this. Canada is the best country in the world and I am proud to be a Canadian. One of the things that makes Canada so great is that we consistently acknowledge our mistakes and fix them.

I was not a member of Parliament when it happened, but I remember when Prime Minister Harper offered a full apology on behalf of Canadians for the horrendous residential school system. The Conservative government also created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as part of the 2007 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, which recognized that the Indian residential school system had a profoundly lasting and damaging impact on indigenous culture, heritage and language.

When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action were first released, the member for Papineau, now the Prime Minister, committed to action immediately. He was later given a four-year majority government. When giving some of his first speeches, he talked about how important Canada's relationship with its indigenous people was.

There are 94 calls to action in the TRC report. Although we are implementing call to action 94 today, it is important that Canadians know that the progress the Prime Minister promised has been far from realized.

Four years of a majority government has yielded little progress. A 2019 report by the Yellowhead Institute says that by 2018, only eight calls to action had been implemented. That number increased to nine by the end of 2019.

One of the reasons the progress for Canada's indigenous people has been so slow is they are often treated as an afterthought by the government. It was only at the very end of the majority government that it even put the first version of this bill forward, Bill C-99. After the election, which saw the Prime Minister re-elected, the government put forward a new version of Bill C-6, only to start again. Then the Liberal government chose to prorogue Parliament, killing the bill on the floor of the House before it could come up for a vote.

I recognize that the bill would bring a lot of changes. After four years of the same old, I was pleased to see the bill reintroduced in the current session. However, I cannot stress enough that indigenous people need to see real action on mental health, incarceration rates, housing and much more. That is why it is important that we pass Bill C-8 quickly, as it would affect the lives of those struggling right now.

Some might say this move is only symbolic. I would say that symbols are incredibly important. There is only a problem if the government continues to deliver lip service to indigenous Canadians and not results.

If there are any concerns about the wording of the bill, I am sure we can come to a consensus at committee. It is very important that indigenous groups from across the country have their say. I recognize the committee has many restraints regarding witnesses, so I hope the Liberal government is engaging in consultations as we speak.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak in support of Bill C-8 on behalf of the NDP.

The NDP has consistently called for the full implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. In fact, I tabled an amendment to revise the citizenship oath to recognize and affirm the aboriginal and treaty rights of the first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples in a previous immigration bill, Bill C-6, back in 2016. Sadly, that amendment was not accepted.

Even though this change was in the former minister's 2017 mandate letter, the Liberals failed to act until the dying days of the last Parliament, just before the 2019 election. As a result, the bill did not even make it to second reading.

The Prime Minister has claimed that the new relationship with indigenous peoples is his most important relationship, yet it has taken the minister three years to act on this priority from his mandate letter. I ask the members to think about it. It is astonishing that it has taken this long for the Liberals to act. There is simply no good reason for this not to be accomplished already.

The Liberals have missed the opportunity to ensure that the many new citizens who took their oaths since 2017 began their journey as Canadian citizens with a full understanding of our collective obligation to honour the rights of indigenous peoples. If it takes the Liberals this long to add a line to the citizenship oath, is it any wonder they are failing on their nation-to-nation relationships with indigenous peoples on so many levels?

In 2017, when the Prime Minister declared, “No relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous Peoples”, all of Canada was hopeful. Perhaps we would finally be able to work on redressing this country's historical wrongs and heal the trauma caused by Canada's colonial history. Perhaps we would finally be on the right side of history and move forward with a new relationship that puts the rights of indigenous peoples front and centre. Sadly, the actions of the Prime Minister indicate otherwise.

All we have to do is take a good hard look at the lived experiences of indigenous peoples to know that Canada has failed and is continuing to fail to meet its obligations to indigenous peoples. Look at what is happening with indigenous children. In 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found Canada guilty of “wilful and reckless” racial discrimination by knowingly underfunding on-reserve child welfare services.

Why did it take 10 non-compliance orders against the federal government to force it to act? Why did Dr. Cindy Blackstock have to fight for so long and so relentlessly for the government to treat indigenous children fairly and equitably? Why is it that the basic human rights for indigenous peoples are so hard to honour for the Liberal government, and for the Conservative government before it? It is truly hard to comprehend.

Successive governments' foot-dragging in meaningful implementation and in upholding indigenous rights has had devastating impacts on the lives of indigenous communities across the land for generations, from the young to the old and all of those in between. We see the effect of this in our communities every single day. It is in the violence currently being committed against the Mi'kmaq fishers.

As stated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they have the right to self-determination. This right was enshrined in the peace and friendship treaties and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999 by the Marshall decision. The Marshall decision affirmed their treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather in pursuit of a “moderate livelihood” 20 years ago, yet successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have failed to negotiate with indigenous communities to define “moderate livelihood” and pave a path for indigenous fishers to fully exercise their rights, rights which are enshrined in Canada's Constitution.

How is this possible? Would anyone think, even for a minute, that, if this were a Supreme Court ruling for non-indigenous peoples, it would take more than two decades for the government to act? As a result of the inaction, the Mi'kmaq fishers are faced with violence, intimidation and domestic terrorism. Crimes were committed against them. People were injured, and they have suffered property damage.

Two weeks ago, the Liberal ministers agreed with the NDP that this warranted an emergency debate in the House of Commons, yet during the debate Liberal members voted against the NDP's unanimous consent motion to affirm the inherent rights of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people. The Liberals have refused to confirm their rights, which are enshrined in the Canadian Constitution and by the Supreme Court of Canada. They refuse to recognize that the Mi'kmaq nation deserves full and equal protection under the law from violence, intimidation and domestic terrorism.

Now, according to media reports, the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs is alleging that the DFO is planning to seize the gear and traps of the Mi'kmaq fishers. Do the Liberals really think this is reconciliation? It is utterly shameful.

The Liberal government must stop making a mockery of the meaning behind this bill and act with integrity by taking real action to affirm the rights of all indigenous peoples. The Prime Minister must also pause and reflect on the message he is sending to young indigenous peoples when they witness the blatant inaction of the RCMP when it comes to ensuring the Mi'kmaq nation is afforded the same protection as everyone else.

This situation is more disturbing when compared to the situation of the Wet'suwet'en land defenders, where an ample number of heavily armed RCMP officers surrounded them as they attempted to assert their rights against the Coastal GasLink pipeline. It was truly shocking to learn that the RCMP officers were instructed to “use as much violence toward the gate as you want.”

It is as though the 1997 landmark decision, in which the Supreme Court of Canada found that the rights of the Wet'suwet'en nation had not been extinguished, did not exist. The Liberals are pushing ahead with the Trans Mountain pipeline extension. The voices of the land defenders are being ignored. There is a total disregard for article 10 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which explicitly outlines the need for the government to fully respect the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples when it comes to resource development on their land, including and especially when the answer is “no”.

When the violation of the rights of indigenous peoples are so blatant, how can the Liberals go on pretending that they are affirming the rights of indigenous peoples? Sadly, this kind of injustice is not new, nor is this kind of doublespeak.

My questions for the Prime Minister are theses: What will it take to stop the human rights violations against indigenous peoples? What will it take for him to internalize the fact that the trauma of such human rights abuses is intergenerational?

My colleague, the member for North Island—Powell River, shared the very real lived experiences of her children as indigenous peoples. No parent should have to see their children suffer under the weight of such systemic racism. No parent should have to fear for the safety of their children because they are indigenous, yet this is their everyday reality.

My constituents, who continue to witness this ongoing abuse by the government, are saying that reconciliation is dead. They see an unprecedented number of indigenous children being taken away from their families through the child welfare system. They see police brutality being levied against indigenous peoples. They see racism permeating the health care system. They continue to see indigenous women and girls go missing.

The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls determined that colonial structures and policies, which persist in Canada, constitute a root cause of the violence experienced by indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQ2IA people. This violence, the report concludes, amounts to a race-based genocide against indigenous peoples, especially women, girls and 2SLGBTQ2IA people.

To remedy this and put an end to this Canadian genocide, the final report of the national inquiry put forth 231 calls for justice. When the final report on the national inquiry was released, the federal government promised that a national action plan would be in place on the anniversary of the annual release.

Families, survivors and indigenous organizations have emphasized the need for an indigenous women-led national action plan to implement the 231 calls for justice. However, with the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse, the national action plan has been delayed indefinitely. The longer the government stalls, the longer people suffer.

For example, many of the calls for justice include addressing racism in health care settings and hospitals. The disturbing death of Joyce Echaquan, an indigenous mother of seven children, after experiencing racist and derogatory treatment from health care staff in a hospital, is a sharp reminder that it is inexcusable for the Liberal government to delay the implementation of the calls for justice.

While the government is using the pandemic as an excuse for inaction and delays, the community has been advocating for real concrete actions to improve the safety and well-being of indigenous women and girls on the ground for decades. These include access to safe and affordable housing, reforms to the child welfare system, reforms to the justice system and policing, improving health care access for indigenous people as well as providing core funding support for providers of culturally sensitive and trauma-informed support in community services.

The pandemic is not an excuse to delay what should be a top priority for Canada. On the contrary, the pandemic is the reason to accelerate action. In fact, the pandemic has exposed many issues. Imagine what it is like to not have access to clean drinking water in a pandemic, yet the Liberal government has recently backtracked on its promise to end all drinking water advisories in indigenous communities by March 2021, which is only five months away.

Just last month, the Neskantaga First Nation's community was evacuated amidst a global pandemic after high levels of hydrocarbons were discovered in the water supply. While the government is using the pandemic as an excuse for the delays in fulfilling its promise, this situation was not caused by the pandemic. The community of the Neskantaga has been under a boil water advisory for 25 years. With the COVID-19 pandemic, access to safe water to meet hygiene needs is more important than ever. The pandemic should be a catalyst for urgent action rather than an excuse for delays. The health and safety of indigenous peoples matter. The lives of indigenous peoples matter.

Tied to the issue of clean drinking water is access to safe, secure affordable housing. Canada is struggling with a preventable affordable housing and homelessness crisis. The crisis impacts indigenous communities much more acutely due to the historic and ongoing displacement and systemic racism experienced by indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples are 10 times more likely to become homeless than non-indigenous Canadians.

Indigenous communities in rural, urban and northern communities face some of the worst housing conditions in all of Canada. My colleague, the MP for Nunavut, went on a housing tour in her region. All the families she visited were living in overcrowded situations and all had serious problems with mould. Some homes were in such poor condition that beds were frozen to the wall.

Overcrowded homes and lack of housing means that many people are often forced to remain with abusers. Children are removed from their homes and families because there is no safe habitable housing available to families. As my colleague states, “Putting Inuit in situations where they are dying, getting sick or losing their kids because of inadequate housing is modern-day colonization.”

Urban and rural indigenous communities also face unique and drastic housing challenges. My riding of Vancouver East is one of the hardest hit by Canada's ongoing homelessness crisis, a crisis that disproportionately affects indigenous peoples.

Of all the community members currently living in the Strathcona Park tents right now, it is estimated that 40% of the residents are of indigenous ancestry, despite indigenous people only comprising 2.5% of the population of Metro Vancouver.

The lack of access to housing, a basic human right, is a root cause to the disproportionate number of indigenous children in care and removed from their families. It is a root cause of the violence experienced by indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people. It is stressful, trauma-inducing and injurious.

It is simply incredulous that the housing needs for urban, rural and northern indigenous peoples were completely ignored in the national housing strategy. Despite all the talk over the years, there is still no plan for a rural, urban and northern indigenous housing strategy led by indigenous people for indigenous people.

The amended citizenship oath affirms what should have been true all along; that recognizing and affirming indigenous and treaty rights is at the core of fulfilling one's duties and responsibilities as a Canadian citizen. The government must act now to fulfill its own obligations to recognize and affirm indigenous and treaty rights.

While the amended Citizenship Act helps new Canadians better understand, we, at the same time, also have a crucial role to play in ensuring that Canada meets its obligation to indigenous peoples. It is treaties that give settler Canadians the privilege of living on indigenous lands and with that privilege comes the collective responsibility to commit ourselves to recognizing and affirming indigenous and treaty rights.

Justice Murray Sinclair summarized this obligation best, “Reconciliation is not an aboriginal problem—it is a Canadian problem. It involves all of us.” It is incumbent on the federal government to show that leadership every single step of the way. It is incumbent on the Liberal government to do better than what it has done so far.

Having only completed 10 calls for action is not good enough. Indigenous people should not have to continually wait for their rights to be honoured and for their basic human rights to be respected. Incremental reconciliation should not be the path forward. We need to see action and we need to see it now. We cannot allow for the pandemic to be that excuse. We need to accelerate the program and to move forward. Generations have been waiting for it. Indigenous peoples deserve better.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I am sure my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou will be pleased to be able to speak.

Today, I will be speaking to Bill C-8. Although part of my speech will focus on the substance of the bill, I would also like to talk a little bit about how the bill was introduced and debated, both during this Parliament and the previous one.

To begin, I will give a bit of not so ancient history about the government's desire to modify the oath of citizenship. This is not the first time that this bill has come before the House.

The changes to the citizenship oath, as set out in Bill C-8, were first introduced in Bill C-99 during the previous Parliament, the 42nd Parliament. That bill was introduced on May 28, 2019, shortly before the House closed down. Since Parliament was not set to come back until after the October 2019 election, it was reasonable to expect the bill to die on the Order Paper, which is exactly what happened.

Subsequently, a second version was introduced as Bill C-6 in the first session of the 43rd Parliament. Since the bill was being tabled at the start of the session this time, there was hope that it would not die on the Order Paper. As the ways of the House of Commons and the government are as impenetrable as prorogation is apparently inevitable, Bill C-6 died a premature death.

However, Bill C-6 did get one hour of debate. To ensure that it did not die in vain, I will provide a summary of the key points of said debate.

First, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship stated that in preparing the bill, his department had consulted the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council and the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, an organization that represents indigenous parties in Canada that are signatories to the 24 modern treaties. These consultations had begun in 2016.

Second, to justify the fact that the wording of the oath in the bill was different from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94, the minister said that the parties consulted did not agree on wording. The department therefore chose to go with wording that better reflected the experience of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples.

Lastly, the minister clearly stated the intent of the bill, saying:

The purpose of this bill is twofold. First, our goal is to ensure that new Canadians recognize indigenous peoples' significant contributions to Canada. The government is also reaffirming its commitment to reconciliation and a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples.

Based on how the bill has been managed over time, I do not think the government is in much of a rush to implement the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. The consultations with first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples began in 2016, so it is a little surprising that the government did not introduce the first version of this bill for first reading until May 2019 and that it chose to do so at the end of the Parliament.

Although the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's report was tabled in June 2015, little has been done so far. Just 10 of the 94 calls to action have been implemented. It makes us wonder how willing the government is to take action on this matter. To ensure that the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's report is not just a cosmetic exercise, we must remember that even though every call to action is necessary, each individual call is not enough if it is implemented on its own.

If this is not due to a lack of haste and willingness on the government's part, we at least have to question the government's efficiency. For instance, why not graft the amendment of the oath of allegiance onto Bill C-5 regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation, the bill we just debated and passed at second reading earlier today?

Why did the government not propose amending the oath of allegiance in the 42nd Parliament, as part of Bill C-6, which also amended the Citizenship Act?

If a separate bill is required to implement each of the remaining calls to action, then we have a long way to go. We have every right to ask ourselves the following question: By addressing each call to action through a separate piece of legislation, in addition to rehashing them, is that also the government's way of trying to cover up the fact that its legislative agenda is pretty meagre, to say the least?

In short, either the government is not being very convincing when it says that first nations issues are a priority, or it is being not terribly effective or deliberately ineffective in order to hide another defect, that is, its legislative laziness.

That concludes the editorial part of my speech, and I will now turn to the substance of the bill.

It should come as no surprise that the Bloc plans to vote in favour of the bill. The Bloc Québécois has already made it very clear that we want to be an ally to first nations. In that regard, it is only natural that we support the implementation of one of the recommendations from the report of Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

As I already mentioned, even though each individual call is not enough when implemented on its own, every call to action is necessary, and I intend to vote in favour of a bill to implement this one.

Amending the oath of citizenship to include a promise to recognize the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples is a step in the right direction toward reconciliation with indigenous peoples. First nations peoples are absolutely right to ask for a reference to indigenous rights in the oath.

Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports a nation-to-nation approach. That is the approach that Quebec will take when it declares independence. Indigenous peoples will be equal founding peoples with us when we create the new country of Quebec.

In the meantime, we hope that this new version of the oath will raise newcomers' awareness of the reality of first nations and their history, but also their new country's shameful treatment of first nations in the past. This is an opportunity to open a dialogue between newcomers and first nations. They will be able to speak to each other as equal citizens so newcomers can learn more about not only the history of first nations, but also their contribution to society.

To prevent history from repeating itself, as it sometimes tends to do, we hope this knowledge of the past will better prepare us for the future.

I personally hope the government will ramp up its reconciliation efforts. If it does, it can count on the Bloc Québécois' steadfast support.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill before us has been in the making for five years. Back in 2016 the former minister, John McCallum, introduced Bill C-6, and at that point I made an amendment to bring in this change to that act. It did not pass. It did not get through the system, and so here we are, five years later, and it has taken the government this long to get to this place.

So, given this is where we are, there is a real serious question as to how the Canadian public and newcomers can take the government seriously with respect to reconciliation for indigenous peoples. As well, I am wondering what the minister is doing to ensure that newcomers have access to information so that they can learn about the history and internalize that history, so they can fully respect the human rights of indigenous peoples.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, for generations, Canada has welcomed newcomers from around the globe looking to arrive here and contribute to this great place we call home. Canada has openly welcomed people fleeing political, economic and social hardships as well as those looking for opportunities to better themselves and their families.

The multicultural mosaic of Canadian society has been shaped by people from all walks of life, who have chosen to live freely together to ensure peace and respect for all. In welcoming them to our beloved country, we look to continue and strengthen that tradition of diversity and inclusion for all who wish to call Canada home.

As we begin debate on Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act with reference to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94, we need to acknowledge Canada's colonial history. Embedded in that history are many chapters of how Canada legislated against and discriminated against the ethnic minority community.

The Chinese people who came before me helped Canada build the railway to connect this country from coast to coast. They went through hell to earn me the right to stand here today. They sacrificed everything, and some paid with their blood. They took on the most dangerous work to help build the railway and they fought for Canada, even though they were deemed “aliens”. They were discriminated against and mistreated in ways that make us hang our heads in shame.

I have learned from elders and heard stories of how it was indigenous peoples, who themselves were experiencing discrimination, who came forward to support the Chinese people. They helped them, housed them, fed them, clothed them, gave them medicine, offered a sense of belonging and treated them with humanity. In practice, they have shown the world again and again that the most important life lesson is humanity. This came from the very people who were experiencing colonization, people who suffered extreme hardships and discrimination themselves.

All of this is to say how very grateful I am to the indigenous peoples for their teachings, their kindness and their humanity. What a privilege it is for me to learn from them, to stand with them, to thank them, to appreciate them for the teachings that they have given to all of us. These are the teachings of lifting each other up, of being land defenders, the teachings that water is life and that mother earth is sacred. These are teachings of being united with one heart.

As a non-indigenous person, I stand as an ally. That is why the bill before us is so important. We, as settlers, must learn and understand Canada's colonial history.

The bill would change the text of the citizenship oath taken by new citizens of Canada to align with call to action 94 of the TRC and includes a reference to treaties with indigenous peoples.

The revised citizenship oath would read as follows:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true 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, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

I am proud to stand in this House in support of Bill C-6.

Taking the citizenship oath is a significant moment in a newcomer's journey to Canada. With that privilege comes responsibility. It is absolutely essential that new Canadians understand and respect the constitutional rights of all indigenous peoples, and in fact I would say it is every Canadian's responsibility to be educated about the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples.

For far too long, successive governments have made aspirational statement after aspirational statement about how they would build a new nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples, about how they would take reconciliation seriously, but as we know, broken promises and shameful disappointments always followed.

We have all heard that the current Liberal government would be different. We all wanted to believe that would be true. However, even the bill before us, which is a simple but important change, has been five years in the making, despite being cited as a top priority by the government. In the last Parliament, on May 3, 2016, I tabled an amendment at committee to make this change in another immigration bill that was also called Bill C-6. Unfortunately, the committee deemed my amendment out of scope, so it did not pass.

In the last Parliament, former MP Romeo Saganash wrote to the former minister of immigration in April 2017 to offer support and assistance from the NDP to realize this measure. This offer of collaboration was ignored. Even though this change was outlined in a mandate letter to the former immigration minister, no action was taken until the dying days of Parliament before the election. Bill C-99 did not even make it to second reading.

In that not-so-subtle way, it was clear the Liberals were merely trying to set the stage to say they did try to make this change for the upcoming election. If it takes the Liberals this long to add a line in the citizenship oath, is it any wonder they are failing so miserably on their new nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples?

To date, there are only nine completed calls to action out of 94, and10 with this bill. For someone who claims this is his most important relationship, it sure as heck is moving at a snail's pace. That is 2.25 calls to action per year. At this rate, it will take approximately 38 years before all of the calls to action are implemented. That would mean reconciliation in 2057.

Eva Jewell and Ian Mosby, academics at the Yellowhead Institute, called the Liberals' track record on the TRC calls to action “dreadful progress.”

Canadians are coming to terms with our colonial history and want a Canada where the rights of indigenous peoples are recognized and respected. The Liberal government is continuing to deliberately disadvantage indigenous peoples, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast are noticing. In our country, a shocking 25% of indigenous people are living in poverty, despite making up only 5% of Canada's population. This figure is even worse for indigenous children, with 47% living in poverty, and this figure rises to 53% for children on reserves.

We continue to see indigenous peoples getting poisoned because they do not have access to clean drinking water. What is a necessity for every other Canadian is not afforded to some indigenous communities. What is a basic human right is being trampled on for indigenous peoples.

It is disgusting that indigenous children are being brought to court by the Liberal government. There have been nine non-compliance orders, yet 13 years later the Liberal government continues to appeal a Human Rights Tribunal ruling that it has “wilfully and recklessly” discriminated against indigenous kids. First nations children have been harmed by the severe underfunding of the on-reserve child welfare system and are now being punished by continued government neglect. Instead of providing funding to support indigenous peoples, the government has spent almost $10 million on legal fees in the war to deny rights to indigenous kids. If the nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples is the Liberals' most important relationship, then why will the Prime Minister not honour the ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and stop taking indigenous kids to court?

At the forefront of our nation, we continue to see this colonial approach by the government in addressing the Wet'suwet'en protests. The Prime Minister's comments on Friday were reckless and irresponsible. He said, “Every attempt at dialogue has been made.” What a joke. Right from the beginning, he was trying to avoid any accountability.

He refused to meet with the hereditary chiefs when they made the request to him weeks ago. Up until February 18, he did not even recognize the dispute as a nation-to-nation one. Now he has the nerve to say that patience has run out. Never mind the fact that indigenous peoples have waited 150 years for justice.

This is a failure of leadership. It is a failure of reconciliation. It is time for the Prime Minister to realize that every attempt at dialogue has not even been close to being made. A comprehensive, credible plan for de-escalation and dialogue is required in order for meaningful dialogue toward a resolution to take place.

The hereditary chiefs have said they will not negotiate with a gun to their head. They want the RCMP to stand down and the project to halt.

Given that Coastal GasLinks' final technical data report has been rejected by the B.C. environmental assessment office, this is an opportunity for all levels of government to de-escalate. The government should seize this opportunity. The Prime Minister said that the onus is on the hereditary chiefs. I say the onus is on him.

His irresponsible words on Friday only served to inhibit progress for a peaceful resolution. He should check himself. He should heed the words that are being added to the citizenship oath for newcomers and take to heart Canada's obligation to the rights of indigenous people under section 35 of the Constitution, which clearly states that “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”

The Prime Minister should also know that section 10 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples clearly upholds the principle of free, prior and informed consent. Based on Canada's highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada, the landmark Delgamuukw decision has reaffirmed the rights of indigenous peoples.

When people throw the words “rule of law” around, they need to consider all laws. Canada needs to stop using the rule of law as a weapon against indigenous peoples. Canada needs the Prime Minister to warrior up, and show some real leadership.

I will also remind everyone that Canada refused to acknowledge indigenous titles some 40 years ago under Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government.

Former justice Thomas Berger was appointed by then Indian affairs minister Jean Chrétien to lead a public inquiry into the proposed Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline. Thomas Berger said, “In my judgment, we must settle native claims before we build a...pipeline.“

Canada is at a critical time in our history.

Remember the Liberal election campaign? “Choose forward” they said. Is this going forward? At a time when it is most critical for the government to firmly reinforce its commitment to indigenous reconciliation, the Liberals are going to delay the introduction of UNDRIP. Delaying the introduction of UNDRIP in the House at this time sends a clear message of what the Prime Minister is all about. Time and again, when it comes right down to it, indigenous rights are always put on the back burner. Justice for indigenous peoples can wait. That is the message from the Prime Minister.

To further add fuel to the fire, we are hearing language from the Conservatives that has not been helpful. The more they denounce indigenous protesters as lawbreakers and radicals, the more they serve to inflame the situation.

Recent comments by Peter MacKay, a leadership hopeful for the Conservative Party, promoting vigilante action by congratulating far-right groups that have associations with yellow vest protesters, were highly irresponsible. Congratulating these far-right groups that have outright called for acts of violence against protesters will only contribute to worsen the situation. It is so disappointing to hear a leading Conservative leadership candidate take this approach.

In addition to that, the current Conservative leader, who advocates that enforced violence is the best solution, has the audacity to tell indigenous protesters to “check their privilege”.

A reply from Molly Wickham, a spokesperson for the Gidimt’en camp of Wet'suwet'en members, may have put it best, when she said, "All of Canada is subsidized by Indigenous people. All Canadian industries and transportation infrastructure rely on the theft of Indigenous land for their existence...Calling Indigenous land defenders 'privileged' when so many of our communities are denied basic human rights and services is racist and absurd."

We see time and again everyone citing the rule of law, but whose version of the rule of law are we following? The government cannot pick and choose which laws to follow and which laws to ignore. Will the rule of law continue to be only used as the government's self-serving cause or will it finally acknowledge Canada's colonial history, the precedent-setting landmark decisions that defended indigenous rights such as Delgamuukw?

This is about the perpetuated discrimination and mistreatment to which indigenous peoples have been subjected for over 150 years.

Look around at what is happening. This past weekend in Toronto, thousands of people stood in solidarity with the Wet'suwet'en people. In my riding of Vancouver East, we had countless rallies as well. We had a rally at Vancouver City Hall organized by Dakota Bear and his family, where scores of people gathered to stand in solidarity with the Wet'suwet'en peoples.

The message is loud and clear. The time has come for Canada to be on the right side of history. UNDRIP has to be entrenched in the path forward for Canada in action. To quote statements made by Grand Chief Stewart Phillip to the media:

The challenge here is to move beyond public platitudes and eloquent rhetoric about the intention of implementing the United Nations Declaration, both federally and provincially. It has to be followed through with the work of legislative reform, policy development and rules and regulations that stipulate very clearly how the entire population — both hereditary and elected band council — are able to participate in an exercise to register their support or disapproval of large-scale resource development projects.

We're not there yet. And again, corporations and governments attempt to take the shortcut and we find ourselves in the courtrooms, we find ourselves on the land, upholding and defending Indigenous law.

He further stated that:

...reconciliation cannot be achieved at gunpoint. And we cannot achieve reconciliation by throwing matriarchs and elders and children in jail. We cannot achieve reconciliation by choppering in paramilitary RCMP forces in full battle gear, surrounding encampments....

I can tell you, if choppers start landing in your backyard and teams of heavily-armed police start running through your front yard and dragging you out of your home, you'd be a little upset.

This is Canada's history. This is colonialism. This is a history that newcomers must learn. This is a history that all Canadians must take to heart. This is a pivotal time for the Canadian government to prove its commitment to indigenous people, to prove that it takes reconciliation seriously, and to prove once and for all that it will honour the rights of indigenous peoples and work with them in equal footing in the new nation-to-nation relationship.

Again, quoting Grand Chief Stewart Phillip:

The law clearly states that not only must there be substantial and thorough consultation, but there must also be consent. It must involve both parties, both elected and traditional.

This is a test of the government's will make to good on its promises. I call on the Prime Minister to seize this opportunity of not just committing to Bill C-6, but committing to a truly reimagined nation-to-nation relationship where indigenous children are not taken to court, where UNDRIP is finally implemented and carried out in action as promised, and where he takes personal action in accountability to engage with the Wet'suwet'en people. We are all waiting for the government to do the right thing by honouring indigenous rights, respecting sovereignty and treating all peoples, including indigenous peoples, with basic human rights. The time to act is now, and the world is watching. Let us not just say to new Canadians what it means to honour the rights of indigenous people; it is time for the government to take those words to heart and act accordingly.

The NDP supports Bill C-6 and we consistently call for the full implementation of all of the TRC's calls to action. The NDP honours the work of Justice Murray Sinclair, Dr. Cindy Blackstock and my former colleague, MP Romeo Saganash. In the words of Justice Murray Sinclair, “The road we travel is equal in importance to the destination we seek. There are no shortcuts. When it comes to truth and reconciliation, we are forced to go the distance.”

It is time for all levels of government to go the distance.

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

I do support this motion. I just want to put a couple of pieces of information on the table.

It's my understanding from the finance committee that they're not sure when they're even going to get to the immigration component of the bill, which suggests there's not going to be a lot of time allocated at the finance committee for study. I'm not certain the finance committee members even have an understanding of when or who the immigration officials will be who are to appear. I think the finance minister will probably be hard pressed to answer a lot of the questions that I think we all have on this particular issue.

I'll just make this note. In the 42nd Parliament, I believe this committee has only dealt with one piece of legislation, Bill C-6. There was another motion that we dealt with, and I think that was it.

In terms of reviewing government legislation from a legislative perspective, this committee's been pretty light. There are a lot of substantive changes in both of these divisions in the bill that I would have specific questions for the government on, so I think it would behoove us to take this on and prioritize that review.

I'm happy to let the government members.... I'm not sure, Chair, but I would presume that they're just going to adjourn the debate on this motion. I hope not, but I think even just two hours.... This is weighty stuff, and there are a lot of different groups that I know want to testify on this and who have varying opinions on it. I think, given that we have not really reviewed legislation.... Really the only legislation that this minister has introduced—I guess he's not introducing it, because it's the finance minister introducing it in the House.... To have it not come to the committee, you know, would be a real change, I guess, so I would encourage my colleagues to support this motion, and on behalf of the Conservatives, I would say that we wholeheartedly support it.

[Dr. Harpreet Kochhar, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Chair.

We have seen a significant increase since Bill C-6 came into force. The numbers have doubled or tripled over the weeks, but now it is coming to a plateau. We put in place enough—

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

I have one very small question, Minister.

I know Bill C-6 went into implementation this fall. Can you indicate to us how that's progressing and what kind of reaction you've had from those who are being assisted by Bill C-6?

Opposition Motion—ISIS Fighters Returning to Canada

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

I rise in support of my colleague's motion to condemn ISIS terrorists and their supporters and to call on the Liberal government to not allow Canada to become a safe haven for terrorists.

As I have said in this place before, the top priority of the House must be the protection of all Canadians. The protection of our people should be placed ahead of political manoeuvring and should be of top concern for all members of Parliament regardless of their party.

This view is shared by my Liberal colleagues on the public safety and national security committee, who earlier this year endorsed a national security report that stated, “National security is one of the most fundamental duties—if not the most fundamental duty—conferred upon a government.” On the issue of Canadians who have left Canada to join ISIS and are now returning to Canada, the Liberal government is failing to meet the national security report standard.

The government's threat level is currently at medium as a result of growing terrorist attacks and threats globally and here at home. A medium threat level is where a violent act of terrorism could occur.

A 2016 CSIS publication titled “The Foreign Fighters Phenomenon and Related Security Trends in the Middle East” stated clearly, “One does not have to speculate terribly much to see the potential threat from ISIL to the West given its vast cadre of foreign fighters native to, or previously resident in, those countries. This unprecedented pool of foreign recruits suggests that ISIL would certainly have the capability to undertake...attacks”.

We owe it to those who sacrificed and fought to protect Canada from threats both foreign and domestic. Our armed forces, our veterans, our police, and our national security agencies have paid a price to give us the freedoms we enjoy today. We owe it to every Canadian to ensure that all reasonable and lawful measures are taken to protect our nation from the threat of those who would do us harm and compromise our national security.

Let us be clear. Canadians are strongly opposed to welcoming terrorists back to Canada. We should not mince words, ISIS fighters are terrorists. They are people who have publicly beheaded Canadians and other westerners. They have burned other human beings alive. They have drowned people in cages. They have thrown people off buildings for simply being who they are. They have raped and enslaved women and girls. There appears to be no manner of unspeakable atrocities that ISIS terrorists would stop at to harm those who are not deemed to be true believers.

If we as a House cannot come together to condemn ISIS and their atrocities, if members of the House cannot stand against oppression, slavery, murder, and war, if we cannot agree to oppose the annihilation of the freedoms of worship, belief, and association, then the House has lost its moral compass and its moral authority. ISIS terrorists stand against everything we as Canadians hold as fundamental to our way of life, the very foundations of our society.

There are clear tools to deal with these threats however. Canadians who attempt to travel to join ISIS are recognized and have been convicted under the Criminal Code for treason, which is a crime against our society and our country. Canadians who participate with ISIS, al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups that seek to kill and destroy all who oppose their strict doctrine and beliefs, are in reality committing treason against Canada, and there are charges that can be levied in Canada for returning ISIS terrorists as well. That is treason.

In Canada there are two criminal charges of treason. The first is high treason, which is defined under Section 46 of the Criminal Code as being those who levy war against Canada or assist an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are. In my view, this describes those Canadians who have taken arms and joined with the radical ISIS terrorist groups to attack humanity

There is also the charge of treason, which includes those who in Canada conspire with any person to commit high treason or to do anything to use force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Canada. In fact, the Criminal Code is explicit that for Canadian citizens, treason applies while in or out of Canada.

There is another tool for the government to use to help protect the security of our country. That would be to revoke the Canadian citizenship of dual citizens who have travelled overseas to join or to commit terrorist acts. When the Liberals passed Bill C-6 in June 2017 they removed the authority to strip dual citizens of their Canadian status if convicted of terrorism, treason, or espionage. Therefore, today, we cannot stop these people from returning, and we cannot deport them either. Moreover, as Canada falls behind other western countries in taking away citizenship from these terrorists and extremists, it makes Canada the destination by default for anyone with Canadian citizenship.

Canadians oppose ISIS terrorists returning to Canada, or rejoining our society. These terrorists have, by virtue of participation and their acts against others, forfeited that right. Based on the law of armed conflict, ISIS terrorists are legitimate targets for such a time as they take part in hostilities at both the operational and tactical levels for international engagement for Canadian soldiers.

Stuart Hendin, a lawyer and instructor at the Royal Military College, and the Canadian Forces College, was explicit that the government can target ISIS, Canadian or not, who are engaged in conflict. Unfortunately, unlike many of our allies, Canada, under the Liberals, has withdrawn from this active conflict. If the government will not stop this evil from returning to Canada, will it not vigorously pursue charges of treason? If we are going to provide funding to reform ISIS collaborators, something the Minister of Public Safety has admitted has a very low probability of actually occurring, let it be from behind bars. Let them begin to repay their debt to humanity as soon as they set foot back on our soil. We should treat ISIS terrorists as the criminals they are. Should they receive any support from the taxpayer, whether to de-radicalize or reintegrate, let that funding flow through Correctional Service Canada.

There can be no forgiveness without repentance. The Bible says in Luke 17:3, “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” All who have supported and fought for ISIS are rebuked by the citizens of Canada, if not by the government. For Canadians linked to ISIS, let them serve a sentence in Canada and do their penance, under far more generous conditions I might add than under the oppressive regimes they support. Only then should there be forgiveness and acceptance into our society.

The minister and his parliamentary secretary have said all that can be done is being done. However Canadians are confused about the government's position and actions regarding these terrorists. On November 23, the media asked the Minister of Public Safety directly if passports were being taken away, if names were being added to the no-fly list, and if these people were neutralized in terms of a threat. The minister says that steps are beginning to be taken and that all Canadians can be assured they are safeguarding the security of the country. While I and my colleagues appreciate that disclosing specifics on security operations would be counterproductive, the minister's comments that steps are beginning to be taken are not a strong reassurance to Canadians that the Liberal government is on top of this issue.

What I will commit to with the Minister of Public Safety and the government is we will work together to get this issue of national security and public safety right for the best interests of all Canadians.

[Marta Morgan, Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear once again before your committee in order to further discuss the Auditor General's spring 2016 findings regarding citizenship fraud.

My colleagues and I will be very happy to answer any of your questions following my brief opening remarks.

Mr. Chair, as you know, in May 2016 the Office of the Auditor General presented a number of findings regarding the detection and prevention of fraud in our citizenship system, and made seven recommendations for improvements in the areas it examined.

Along with the Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, IRCC agreed with the Auditor General's recommendations, and last year we shared our management action plan with this committee.

Stemming from the Auditor General's recommendations, this committee provided eight recommendations of its own, to which responses were provided earlier in the year.

Our management action plan established 23 actions to be taken to improve fraud management, including some activities that were scheduled to be completed by the end of March of this year.

Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to report that all actions in the IRCC management action plan have been completed, and ongoing activities continue to receive appropriate attention and resources.

For example, in the spring of 2016 we updated the instructions on creating, updating, and maintaining problematic addresses in the global case management system and centralized the responsibility for the maintenance of such addresses within a single division of our department.

To mitigate the risks identified by the Auditor General, the instructions in the standard operating procedures to systematically enter and update problematic addresses are very detailed. Quality control exercises have subsequently demonstrated areas where staff are adhering to the standard operating procedures and areas for improvement, which have led to further refinements in processes.

We have made improvements on managing fraud risk through internal controls and information sharing, and we are committed to continuously monitoring and improving fraud controls.

We have improved information sharing with the RCMP and CBSA by formalizing practices, by issuing operational bulletins and instructions, and by updating memorandums of understanding.

Although the Office of the Auditor General did not find a significant amount of fraud in the citizenship program, it did find that IRCC was unable to demonstrate the effectiveness of its fraud controls. Since the release of the OAG' s report, we have made significant progress in assessing the effectiveness of these fraud controls. All of the risk indicators have been reviewed using a statistically valid sample of files to verify if they were consistently applied and effective at detecting fraud. We found that risk triaging was consistently applied in 85% of the cases. We have eliminated the risk indicators that were not effective. We have adjusted the remaining indicators to further improve their efficiency, and we have ensured that they are being consistently used. Also, quality assurance exercises have shown that our officers' decisions are typically sound, and that they demonstrate good compliance with fraud detection procedures.

The ongoing implementation of some provisions of Bill C-6 will help us to better detect and prevent citizenship fraud in ways recommended by both the OAG and this committee. For example, the bill's introduction of a document seizure authority, which is expected to be brought into force by the Governor in Council next spring when required regulatory amendments are expected to be in place, responds to the Auditor General's finding of inconsistent practices for dealing with suspicious documents. These provisions will be supported by regulations that provide officers with the process and terms that must be followed once a decision is made to seize suspected fraudulent documents, and with the authority to share the seized documents, as required, with the CBSA.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada takes citizenship fraud and program integrity in general very seriously. The Office of the Auditor General has noted that IRCC has implemented a number of measures aimed at better detecting and preventing fraud in its programs, including the citizenship program, and has continued to conduct various program integrity activities.

In accordance with our citizenship program integrity framework, IRCC has established baselines to monitor refusals and fraud controls. As I mentioned earlier, we have reviewed and assessed risk indicators to verify if they are being consistently applied and if they are effective at detecting fraud.

We have also established a new random selection process to continuously monitor existing fraud controls and identify emerging fraud.

In addition to the fraud controls examined by the Auditor General, IRCC has access to CBSA's border passage history checks to view applicants' entries to Canada, and we have established expertise in each region to deal with exceptional cases and to better detect patterns of fraud.

Mr. Chair, my intention with these brief opening remarks has been to offer committee members a broad overview of this topic.

My colleagues and I will now be pleased to respond to questions from the committee, and to go into greater detail on any topic that members would like to further explore.

Thank you.

[Penny Walsh McGuire, Executive Director, Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce]

I'm Penny Walsh McGuire. Walsh McGuire is the last name. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair, vice-chairs, and members of the standing committee, as well as fellow witnesses.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee on this important topic of immigration in Atlantic Canada.

The Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce serves as the voice of business, providing services, opportunities, and advocacy support for members to enhance their ability to do business. With close to 1,000 members, the chamber reflects a diverse network of businesses from almost every industry sector and profession. I can say that diversity has been an area of growth, with close to 10% of our members' businesses being newcomers to Canada in the last five years.

Since 2011, the chamber has operated the P.E.I. connectors program. You may be very familiar with this. I think there are 23 programs operating across the country. We operate a province-wide initiative. It really extends advisory, networking, and professional development services to immigrant entrepreneurs and investors. Our clients are primarily provincial nominee program applicants. In 2006 we served more than 500 entrepreneurial clients, who were at various stages of their business launch. We also are exploring a number of employment development initiatives for both newcomers to P.E.I. and new graduates. One of our top policy priorities is population growth, so essentially what I'm confirming for you is that, as a chamber of commerce, we're very much invested in the topic.

Like many of our neighbouring provinces, P.E.I. is getting older. In 1971, the median age of Islanders was just under 25, and now we see it closer to 44. We are the youngest province in Atlantic Canada, but we're three years older than the Canadian average and six years older than our prairie cousins. I won't belabour stats too much, but give a little more background for those on the line.

While indicators suggest that the trend is starting to reverse, attracting and retaining immigrants must be at the core of future population growth in P.E.I. International migration remains an important factor in population growth and labour market development for Prince Edward Island. At a rate of 13.6 per 1,000, our province has the highest immigration rate in the country. Those were early spring figures; it could be higher now. We were tied with Alberta, and we do have the highest immigration rates in Atlantic Canada.

Of course we're proud of this expanding immigration story, but one challenge for P.E.I. and many other jurisdictions across the region and the country is around retaining new residents. At present, we retain only 38% of our immigrants over the long term. Long term has been defined as, I think, around five years. Many leave P.E.I. after two years.

The province's action plan for population growth focuses on maximizing retention rates for new immigrants and keeping our youth and our skilled workforce here.

I want to touch on one area that I feel Atlantic Canada is well positioned to succeed in, and that is the retention and recruitment of international students. Obviously, international students are particularly desirable because of their age, skills, and their economic impacts as students. I would be remiss to not mention and recognize the international graduate stream through the Atlantic immigration pilot program. This has, I think, a huge opportunity and potential for our region. I'm suggesting, in speaking to my colleagues at the province, that next year would be the earliest we would see major impacts, simply because the program was launched in March.

With that, I think a few barriers still exist for students, and we do hear this. The Charlottetown Chamber of Commerce was pleased to co-sponsor a national resolution with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Fredericton Chamber of Commerce in support of giving students more pre-graduate experience, because we continue to see that our employers are demanding that from graduates. We're just going to touch on a couple of areas.

We're looking at recommendations for considering international students having the option to qualify for the Canada summer jobs program. That experience is key. We were lucky to be the recipient of a Canada summer jobs grant this summer, but all the international student applicants who came into our search were not eligible.

I think another area would be to modify student permits to allow international students to participate in co-op terms and internships without obtaining a separate work permit.

There are a few other areas, and maybe I'll touch on them, but in the interest of time I think that pre-grad work experience is key. I want to recognize Bill C-6 is certainly a start to how international students can really be a more important part of our recruitment and retention effort in Canada.

I will also touch on the Atlantic immigration pilot program. I did note that there was an interest in talking about this. I think generally it is obviously still early days, but we are seeing some success. I think we're the second or third largest chamber in Atlantic Canada, tied with Fredericton usually. We have heard from a lot of our members who are interested and excited about this. In speaking to the province's immigration office, they are quite confident that we are going to hit our targets for the first year of the pilot. We have certainly heard a lot of success stories.

One concern we do hear, and we hear this maybe more on the settlement side, is about the obligations and the understanding of the resources needed for an employer to truly support a new employee through this program—really that you're supporting the integration of that individual, not just in your workforce but in the community. Although we think it's an excellent approach still providing a customized opportunity for Atlantic Canada, we have heard some concerns from employers on the settlement side. Our settlement agency does an excellent job, but this is a new initiative and probably employers need to understand what is required of them.

I won't say a whole lot more on that other than—

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize another significant promise fulfilled by our government. We have heard loud and clear from Canadians about the significant hardships they have faced on their journey to citizenship, due to unnecessary barriers created by the previous government.

Yesterday, I was proud to join my colleagues from Brampton and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship in Brampton to announce that effective October 11, changes will be implemented to ease barriers for future Canadians on their quest for citizenship. The physical presence requirement for citizenship will be reduced to three out of five years, and the age range for knowledge and language requirements will be returned to 18 to 54 years.

These changes, along with those previously announced in Bill C-6, will help residents of Brampton West and across Canada reunite with their families, contribute to our society, and reaffirm that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

[Mieke Bos]

I have heard those stories with the scenario you are referring to, but this falls outside of my area of expertise. The entry-exit information will apply to everyone leaving Canada, which is information that we currently don't have. The purpose of this information is for us to establish whether the clients applying for permanent residency or citizenship have met the residency requirements. We are legislated to do that.

The committee will have followed the Bill C-6 proceedings. Bill C-6 will come into effect shortly, and it determines exactly what the residency requirements are for future citizens. As I explained before, currently we rely on the information from the client. The vast majority of clients are entirely legitimate, of course, but there are cases of abuse, so this allows us to objectively verify when applicants were in Canada and when they left.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills for her incredible advocacy on so many important files.

In one week from today, on October 11, key changes to the Citizenship Act resulting from Bill C-6 will come into force. We delivered on a promise we made to Canadians to repeal the unfair two-tiered citizenship provisions brought in by the previous Conservative government.

We know that one of the strongest pillars for successful integration into Canadian life is achieving Canadian citizenship. We know diversity is our strength, and for this side of the House, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to inform the House that, when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures—Chapter No. 9.

Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Canada National Parks Act—Chapter No. 10.

Bill S-233, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (presentation and reporting requirements)—Chapter No. 11.

Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act—Chapter No. 12.

Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code—Chapter No. 13.

Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act—Chapter No. 14.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the standing committee that assisted in drafting Bill C-6, I am honoured to rise today to celebrate the recent changes to our immigration system. The passage of this important legislation represents not only the realization of another pivotal Liberal campaign promise, but also reaffirms the highest ideals of Canadian identity and inclusive citizenship.

As the member of Parliament for one of Canada's most multicultural ridings, I am proud to represent a government that fully appreciates that our diversity is a source of great pride. Furthermore, as an immigrant to this country myself, I found the previous government's unjust, two-tiered citizenship model to be disgraceful and abhorrent.

By contrast, Bill C-6 repudiates the previous government's cynical politics of division and once again upholds our noble calling that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, irrespective of where one is born.

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

Thank you.

All right, here we are, and I'm looking at my colleagues and their staff from a point of wanting to do something that resembles work.

What I've found in my time as opposition critic for immigration is that the immigration file involves some legislative and macro-level things that we need to look at, such as the study that's before us today, but it's also really process heavy.

A lot of the things that come before us in terms of problems.... If we all agree that it's not a matter of if Canada does immigration but a question of how, then we need to look at process issues when they come up.

I don't think anyone here could argue that this year, we've seen some pretty challenging situations involving process, in terms of immigration policy in Canada. Without getting into partisan rhetoric one way or the other on how we think process should go, there is a legitimate need for study on some of these issues.

On the motion that my colleague, Jenny Kwan, raised with regard to border crossings—I don't have the exact wording—the reality is that while we might differ on how that process should look, a woman froze to death trying to cross into our country this year, and we've had no study on the process by which that happened. I think the border crossing issue is probably one of the top public policy issues that we've seen in Canada this year. Ms. Kwan moved a motion on this, and debate was adjourned. I'd like us to have an opportunity to see that voted on.

Similarly, we spent a lot of time on Bill C-6 this week, with regard to the appeals process for citizenship revocation in cases of fraud. I moved a motion to have study on that in committee, and the best way to do that. That was not voted on either. Debate was adjourned.

The minister has only appeared before the committee once. He hasn't even appeared before committee on this.

When all of these process issues happen, we have to ask ourselves, as opposition members what our avenues and ways are of being able to address these issues to do what we're tasked to do by the Canadian public. The answer is to question the government's management of these types of processes and policies.

While there was unanimous consent in the House to—

Citizenship Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion in relation to the Senate amendments to Bill C-6..

The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address important Senate amendments to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act. It is critical that the House give thorough consideration to the amendments to Bill C-6 to ensure public safety, to ensure fair treatment of all citizenship applicants, and to ensure that the greatest possible opportunities for success are given to newcomers.

Conservatives are pleased to recognize how immigrants have contributed greatly to Canada, strengthening and enriching our nation. Immigrants offer unique experiences and perspectives that add to Canada's diverse culture and strengthen the nation's future. It is important to ensure that Bill C-6 in fact enables newcomers to have every opportunity for economic success and to enjoy fulfilling and safe lives here in Canada.

The Senate revisions to Bill C-6 address three areas. First, Bill C-6 would be amended to ensure a court hearing for people facing citizenship revocation on the basis of fraud or false representation. Second, it would be amended to change the requirements regarding age and knowledge of an official language to 60 years of age. Third, it would seek to minimize red tape so that minors applying for citizenship could have their applications processed in a manner that was fairer, less complex, and more efficient than the existing process.

The first revision I will address is the amendment that would ensure that a court hearing is given to people who face having their citizenship revoked for fraud or false representation. If the amendment were passed, the immigration minister would be required to inform people who are having their citizenship revoked of their right to appeal their citizen revocation in Federal Court. The inefficiency of this proposed system is unacceptable. It would lead to further backlogs in the already inundated Federal Court, which is already strained due to the Liberals' inability to fill judicial vacancies. It would also cost Canadian taxpayers thousands of dollars to process. The process of stripping citizenship should be left to officials rather than an arbitrary appeal board, which is now stacked with Liberals. Not only that, but applicants already have the right to appeal decisions made by the lRCC in Federal Court if the immigration department made an error in the interpretation and application of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

At this point, if the appeal mechanisms for those who obtained their citizenship through fraud are increased, it could provide an incentive for people to lie on their applications. The government should not focus on increasing appeal mechanisms for those who obtain their citizenship by cheating the system. The focus should be on educating people about the consequences of fraud and how to properly obtain citizenship.

The Federal Court recently ruled that there should be an appeals process, but this ruling and the Senate's amendments are at odds. For example, there is inconsistency between the Federal Court ruling and the Senate amendments with regard to which body people should be appealing their citizenship revocation to. We expect the Liberals to make it immediately clear whether they plan to appeal the Federal Court ruling. This information is necessary for parliamentarians to consider before voting on these amendments. In light of this, we call on the federal government to appeal this ruling to protect the integrity of our immigration system.

At this time, we also call on the government to address the holes in the immigration fraud detection process that were identified by the Auditor General in 2016. Although Canada is compassionate, we must maintain that Canadian citizenship obtained by fraud and deceit is not a right, because that person was never entitled to it in the first place.

Second, the Senate's amendments to Bill C-6 raise the age requirement for knowledge of an official language from 55 to 60. Although we would have liked to see the age remain at 64, we are relieved to accept this new age requirement over the original age of 55 that was proposed by the Liberals. Language proficiency is an integral component of Canadian citizenship. In Canadian society, we see evidence every day of how language binds us together and knits together Canada's incredible pluralism.

On a practical level, knowledge of one of Canada's official languages eases the transition for immigrants into a new workplace, school, or community. Immigrants who cannot communicate in Canadian society struggle with ordinary tasks such as grocery shopping, hospital visits, and driving. In fact, access to language services is a serious problem for refugees and immigrants.

Over and over again, the Liberals have heard how serious this issue is for newcomers to Canada, and how the existing system is failing immigrants. While refugees and immigrants are anxious to begin working, they are unable to access language training and thus are unable to secure a job. Rather than reducing the age requirement for knowledge of an official language, the Liberals should be talking about how to ensure that immigrants will have a smooth transition into Canadian society.

Third, the Senate amendments to Bill C-6 would eliminate the red tape that currently complicates the application process for many minors. Specifically, it affects minors who are permanent residents, but who are applying for citizenship without a permanent resident parent or guardian.

As it stands, permanent residents who wish to apply for Canadian citizenship must either be over 18 years of age, or must apply concurrently with their permanent resident parent or guardian. This means that even if a minor fulfills all other citizenship requirements, if he or she does not have a permanent resident parent or guardian, the minor has virtually no choice but to wait until the age of 18 before applying.

I say “virtually” because it is technically possible to prove that it is necessary for the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to waive these requirements, but actually getting this waiver is inconceivable for most permanent resident minors. Apart from taking years for IRCC to process, it requires a great deal of financial resources and specialized legal assistance. Additionally, minors who may benefit from this discretionary decision likely do not know of its existence, since it is hidden in the statute. In short, the waiver mechanism is not a solution.

The existing system effectively penalizes some of Canada's most marginalized people based on their age, which is not a factor that they can control. The category of “permanent resident minors” includes minors without a parent or guardian in Canada, minors whose families cannot afford the fees for citizenship applications, and minors whose parents do not meet the citizenship requirements. It also includes minors whose parents or guardians cannot or will not help them apply, and minors who no longer have family relationships due to abuse or neglect. In fact, numerous witnesses testified before the House of Commons and Senate committees, highlighting the consequences of such restricted access to citizenship.

We now know that highly marginalized minors with a less secure status risk deportation in their adult lives. This is extremely unfair. The Senate amendment would change the Citizenship Act by repealing the 18 years of age requirement and clarifying that the language and knowledge requirements do not apply to minors.

It also authorizes the minister to waive the requirement that a minor's application must be made by an adult. These changes will ensure that in almost all cases, a minor will be able to submit his or her own application. It is important that all members of the House lend their support regarding the amendment, since Bill C-6 does not currently address this unfair discrimination against minors.

Canadian citizenship is a crucial component of our national identity. It knits together our diverse country and comes with many rights and protections. Preserving its integrity is of the utmost importance.

I therefore ask my hon. colleagues to reject the amendment regarding the appeals process, at least until further information is given regarding the recent Federal Court ruling. I ask that all members of the House support the amendments regarding age and the knowledge of an official language.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Willowdale for sharing his time with me.

I welcome the opportunity to speak today about Bill C-6. The legislation would send a clear message to Canadians and indeed anyone who aspires to become a Canadian citizen that Canada is a country of inclusiveness and fairness. Many of my constituents in Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam spoke to me about the need for Bill C-6. The aim of the bill is to provide greater flexibility for applicants to meet citizenship requirements. In doing so, our goal is to help foster an even greater sense of belonging and connection to Canada among all newcomers.

In my time here today, I wish to address proposed changes to Bill C-6. It would amend the age range of those required to meet language and knowledge requirements for citizenship. Under changes implemented in 2015, the age range for citizenship applicants who must now meet language and knowledge requirements was expanded from those aged 18 to 54, to those between 14 and 64 years old.

Older newcomers, in particular, may have greater difficulty in learning a new language and taking tests. For that reason, we believe these changes unnecessarily introduce barriers for applicants in the expanded age group. Bill C-6 would make citizenship more accessible to both older and younger applicants. Under the legislation, the age range of people who must demonstrate knowledge and language competency would be reduced once again to those aged 18 to 54.

Proficiency in either French or English and knowledge of Canada are important aspects of citizenship and this will still be required for a majority of citizenship applicants. However, we also believe that acquiring citizenship is an important step in the integration prospects for immigrants. It is also important for all Canadians as they benefit from newcomers' full participation in our society.

Reducing the age range to meet language and knowledge requirements would make it easier for immigrants to build successful lives in Canada. Through citizenship, newcomers gain a deeper sense of belonging in our society. They become more engaged and they become more active members of our communities.

These changes under Bill C-6 would ensure newcomers, when they apply for citizenship, are not at a disadvantage due to their age, whether they are younger or older. Older adults would continue to find support to speak our official languages and gain more knowledge about Canada through a wide variety of services. Just as all other Canadian children learn about our country and master our official languages, younger applicants will acquire knowledge of Canada and official languages at school.

Once again, it is our objective to make it easier for newcomers to succeed in Canada and gain a deeper sense of belonging. Therefore, we do not support the proposed Senate amendment that would change the upper age range from 54 to 59 years old. It is our aim to require only applicants aged 18 to 54 to meet the knowledge and language requirements and we continue to support the intent behind this important change. We wish to remove barriers to citizenship. We believe that expanding the age range to applicants who are 59 years of age would create a potential barrier for older applicants.

Our reasons for these changes to the Citizenship Act are quite simple and reasonable. We are committed to a Canada that is both diverse and inclusive. One of the strongest pillars for successful integration into Canadian life is achieving citizenship. That is because the acquisition of citizenship contributes to a greater sense of belonging. By removing these barriers to citizenship for younger and older applicants, we will facilitate the integration of these newcomers and foster their full participation in our society.

In summary, our proposed change in Bill C-6 would help both younger and older applicants achieve Canadian citizenship faster, it would help them to build successful lives in Canada sooner, and it would help them to contribute to the country's economic, social, and cultural success.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated previously, under both ministers of this government, we have seen energetic leadership. It would be fair to say that on a monthly basis we see concerted efforts to improve our immigration system.

As Bill C-6 was being contemplated, I recall that the question of revocation of citizenship did arise. On numerous occasions, the then minister of immigration stated that he was open to considering procedural safeguards that could be brought in to strengthen the integrity of our immigration system.

This is a government that recognizes full well the merits of immigration and how it enriches our country. Going forward, I have no doubt there will be more changes to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the member for Willowdale says the government is open to certain additional changes, but I agree with my friend from Vancouver East. We had every reason to hope that there would be more in Bill C-6 to undo the damage of Bill C-24.

I certainly will support the bill. I am grateful the amendments were made by the Senate. It improved the bill over what left this place to go to the other place.

As we continue to try to repair the damage done by the previous government, can we do more to address the issue for refugees, particularly those who are facing deportation? I asked the hon. minister this question and he said that there were adequate means for people to protest and to appeal. I have not found them adequate. People who pose no threat to Canada are being deported and do not have an adequate opportunity to defend themselves or stay in our country.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member is well aware, after the House adopted Bill C-6, it went to the Senate. Numerous people had an opportunity to speak to the senators who were examining the bill. As we are all well aware, they put a lot of hard work into this. The various revisions and amendments they made are reflected in the bill as it has come back to us.

Obviously we have a government that is very much concerned with ensuring our immigration system is accessible and it is not arbitrary like the previous bill brought to the House several years ago by the Conservatives. I am certain, with the energetic leadership of our minister, we would consider bringing more changes in the future.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the House that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.

It brings me great joy to rise again before the House to discuss Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. Bill C-6 represents not only the realization of a fundamental Liberal campaign promise and a signature achievement of our government, but also serves as a powerful articulation of Canadian identity and a reaffirmation of the various benefits of diversity.

Before I continue, I would be remiss if I did not thank both the former minister of immigration, refugees, and citizenship, the Hon. and, I might add, tireless John McCallum, for his hard work on this file, as well as the steady leadership of his successor as minister, my hon. friend and colleague from York South—Weston.

I would also like to commence by thanking my former colleagues on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for their work on the legislation, as well as the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for providing sober second thought to the bill. Having had the honour of being involved in the committee study of the bill as it was originally conceived in the House before it was sent to the Senate in June last year, I am deeply aware of how important the bill is to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

In fact, since being elected in October of 2015, few, if any, issues have resonated with my constituents in Willowdale as powerfully as the need to modernize our immigration system and to repeal and repudiate the most odious changes to our immigration system brought in by the previous government. Whether knocking on doors or in ongoing conversations with constituents, my staff and I have consistently heard the same refrain. Bill C-6 represents a welcome change in policy and tone for Canadians and their families. If any concerns have been expressed, it is the delay that people have experienced in seeing the enactment of Bill C-6.

As an immigrant to this country, I am profoundly sympathetic to this inclination. I understand what Canadian citizenship means, both here and abroad, to generations of families who have come to this great country seeking a better future. As someone who had the great privilege to arrive in this country in my teens, I certainly fully appreciate and would never take for granted the significance of immigration as a lifeline to our future well-being and prosperity.

I can also confidently say that the love of country one has for a place where we were not born but which has nonetheless given us all the opportunities in the world is very different than the affinity one feels for the nation of one's birth. Naturalization occupies a cherished place in one's heart that is neither blinded by history nor blood, but instead by one of deep gratitude. I have both admired Canada from afar and also lived to enjoy its greatest blessings: its educational system, its esteemed place in the world, its deep respect for all persons, its quiet dignity, and of course our spirited people. I recognize the noble value in Canadian citizenship and I am proud of our government's assiduous efforts to restore and reaffirm the bedrock values upon which Canadian citizenship is based.

In its original form, Bill C-6 aimed to accomplish four key objectives: first, to remove the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security; second, to remove the requirement that an applicant intend, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada; third, to reduce the number of days during which a person must be physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship; and fourth, to return the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of Canada and of one of its official languages to applicants between the ages of 18 and 54.

In doing so, Bill C-6 repeals or amends the most misguided elements of the Conservative Party's Bill C-24 and establishes a more effective, robust, modern, and just pathway to citizenship. This is not, in other words, a radical departure from established laws and customs, but rather a return to sensible policies following the excesses of Bill C-24.

I would like to briefly examine these four key objectives before examining the amendments before us. First is that it removes the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security.

The most crucial element of Bill C-6, I believe, is that it revokes the unprecedented ability, granted through Bill C-24, of the Canadian government to strip its own citizens of fundamental rights, namely the rights to inalienable citizenship and equal protection under the law.

In rejecting a two-tiered approach to Canadian citizenship, Bill C-6 would bring government policy in line with the recommendations of a litany of stakeholders who condemned the arbitrary, unconstitutional, and undue nature of Bill C-24. This includes the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Layers, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International, and many leading academics, journalists, and civic leaders.

The second question relates to removing the requirement that an applicant intend, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada.

Further among its many ill-conceived statutes, Bill C-24 also stated that adult applicants had to declare on their citizenship applications that they intended to continue to reside in Canada if granted citizenship. The provisions created concern among new Canadians, who feared their citizenship could be revoked in the future if they moved outside of Canada.

By way of example, Canadians whose work required them to live abroad for extended periods felt that their declaration of an intent to reside could negatively affect their international mobility and, by extension, their ability to work abroad.

Within the current context of our open and global economy, this would place Canada at a serious competitive disadvantage. Rather than disincentivizing engaged global citizens from seeking Canadian citizenship, Bill C-6 instead supports the government's goal of making it easier for immigrants to build successful lives within Canada, reunite with their families, and contribute to the economic success and well-being of our country.

I will now move to the various amendments that were suggested. The legislation before us today has, of course, been further modified by several amendments put forth at the Senate committee stage. I would like to use my remaining time to briefly address these amendments.

There are three proposed amendments before us today. One is an amendment to change the citizenship revocation model. The second is an amendment allowing minors to obtain citizenship without a Canadian parent. The third would change the upper age for citizenship language and knowledge requirements to 59 years.

After careful assessment and consideration, our government agrees with two of the three amendments adopted in the Senate, as they support our commitment to remove unnecessary barriers to citizenship, make citizenship more accessible to the more vulnerable, and enhance procedural fairness in the citizenship revocation process.

With respect to the proposed model to have the federal court act as a decision-maker on most citizenship revocation cases in which citizenship was acquired fraudulently, allow me to reiterate that ever since the current decision-making model came into effect in 2015, the minister has been the decision-maker on most cases involving fraud and misrepresentation, while the Federal Court has been the decision-maker on more serious cases involving fraud related to security, human or international rights violations, and organized criminality.

Under the Senate's proposed model, all individuals facing revocation of citizenship would have the right to request that their case be referred to the Federal Court for a decision regarding revocation on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation.

In cases in which an individual refers their case to the court, the minister's role would be to bring an action in the court to seek a declaration that the person obtained citizenship by false representation, by fraud, or by knowingly concealing material circumstances. It would then be up to the court to make the final decision.

The government has considered this amendment carefully and is supporting this new decision-making model, but with some key changes. The government believes that the minister's authority should be limited to revocation cases that the individual does not wish to have referred to the Federal Court.

Our government also supports, with modifications, the Senate amendment allowing minors to apply for citizenship without a Canadian parent.

Our government must respectfully disagree with the proposed Senate amendment to change the upper limit for language and knowledge requirements.

As mentioned previously, the language and knowledge requirements brought about via Bill C-24 were seemingly imposed at random, and this side has yet to see a compelling argument for this amendment.

The government has considered these proposed amendments very seriously and has accepted some key proposals regarding a new decision-making process for the revocation of citizenship.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these amendments should have been in Bill C-6 to begin with. They were not.

These amendments were amendments that I brought to committee. Then they failed at committee. Then I had to go and lobby the senators to make these changes. I am glad that worked, and that they brought these changes back. I am glad that the government is going to accept what the senators are bringing forward.

I support Senator Omidvar and her work, because I met with her about it and urged her to take action. She did, and I am delighted to know that. I am delighted that Senator Oh took up my amendment on the issue around minors.

I wish there were senators who would have taken up more of the amendments I tabled at committee that failed. I know they did not, but given that this is where it is, I will accept what is here before us and will support the bill. This has been our position right from the beginning, that we needed to repeal Bill C-24. I wish the government had done that. If the government had done that, we would not even be here having this debate right now.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak in this important debate.

It has been almost a year and half since Bill C-6 was introduced in the House of Commons. The bill was sent to the Senate on June 17, 2016, and it has now finally made its way back to the House from the Senate, where it was held up for more than a year. Many people in our communities have been waiting anxiously for this legislation to be passed and to come into effect.

Members may recall that when he was on the campaign trail, the Prime Minister promised Canadians, particularly those in the ethnic community, that he would repeal the Conservatives' Bill C-24. Like so many Liberal promises, that did not happen. Instead, the government introduced Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

On February 25, 2016, Bill C-6 was first introduced in the House. About a month later, on March 21, 2016, it passed second reading and was referred to committee. Bill C-6 was then sent back to the House for third reading. It passed third reading and was sent to the Senate on June 17, 2016.

I should note that no amendments were made during second reading or at committee stage at the Senate, but three amendments were made during third reading.

The first amendment included providing a pathway to citizenship for minors. This was similar to the amendment that I proposed at committee, and I am glad to hear that the Conservative member and the government members now support it. At committee, though, government members certainly did not support it.

Another amendment proposed providing judicial appeal for citizenship revocation for fraud and misrepresentation. This amendment is similar in principle to my amendment to provide due process for these cases, but differs in the procedure. I support this amendment. Due process being restored has been a long time coming for those who face citizenship revocation.

The third amendment has to do with increasing the age of individuals who must pass a language test to 60. This Senate amendment I do not support.

In reviewing the process that we have embarked on with Bill C-6 to arrive at where we are today, let me point out that at committee I tabled 24 amendments on a range of topics. Two out of those 24 amendments were passed at committee. They included changes in two areas.

First, a statelessness provision would provide the minister with the authority to intervene in cases that would cause a person to become stateless and provide him or her with status based on humanitarian and compassionate factors. I was pleased that amendment passed.

The second amendment that also passed was with respect to disability rights. My amendment would ensure that the Citizenship Act adhered to Canadian human rights laws and regulations around reasonable accommodation for those with disabilities. I am pleased that this amendment also passed.

While I am happy that these amendments were supported at committee, there were many that were not. One set of amendments that I had hoped would be adopted at committee would have ensured that there would be judicial fairness and due process again for those faced with citizenship revocation. As members may be aware, the Conservatives' Bill C-24 fundamentally altered the process for revoking citizenship.

The process in place before Bill C-24 involved three steps. The first was a report under Section 10 of the Citizenship Act that the minister was satisfied a person obtained citizenship fraudulently. Second, once notified of the report, the person could request that the matter be referred to the Federal Court for a hearing. Third, if the Federal Court made the finding requested by the minister, citizenship could be revoked by the Governor in Council, which could consider equitable factors.

The Conservatives' Bill C-24 eliminated the Federal Court hearing process. The minister now decides on revocation with no requirement for a hearing, and this is wrong.

As pointed out by the Canadian Bar Association:

Bill C-24 also eliminated consideration of equitable factors that could prevent a legal, but unjust, outcome. Before then, the Governor in Council could consider equitable factors when deciding whether to revoke citizenship. This is no longer possible.

The BC Civil Liberties Association also challenged this, and stated:

In our submission, the government should repeal the procedural changes made to the Citizenship Act by Bill C-24 and restore individuals’ right to a fair hearing before an independent judicial decision-maker who can take humanitarian and compassionate considerations into account in making their decision.

There is no question that this needs to be rectified.

Perhaps the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers put it best when it said:

A permanent resident subject to deportation for misrepresentation has a right to both a hearing and an equitable appeal. Yet a Canadian citizen whose citizenship is to be revoked has no such rights. These provisions are currently being subject to a legal challenge—

I will diverge from the quote to say that a decision has been made by the courts, and the BC Civil Liberties Association, which took this matter to court, won.

These provisions are currently being subject to a legal challenge in the Federal Court as being inconsistent with the Charter of Rights. There is no reason why the new government should support these reforms which deny citizens a fair hearing. Indeed, while in opposition Liberal Members of Parliament opposed these very provisions.

The amendments that I proposed at committee were based on a system put forward by the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, known as the CARL system, supported by experts and stakeholders that use the IRB. Prior to Bill C-24, individuals could appeal to the Federal Court. Because of the cost, duration, and lack of availability of the courts, this has been called an inefficient system by some experts.

The Immigration Appeal Division currently undertakes similar appeals and reviews of decisions for statuses such as permanent residence. For that reason, this board is adequately situated to handle citizenship cases as well, and can handle them more efficiently than the Federal Court system. My amendments would have instituted this policy as well, which is what I proposed. The aim was to restore the consideration of humanitarian and compassionate grounds as well as put forward a system of appeal that is more efficient and cheaper for taxpayers. Sadly, these amendments were not supported at committee, as they were deemed to be out of scope.

Former minister of immigration John McCallum acknowledged that this needed to be fixed. Many of us in the community were led to believe that this would be done. However, no action was taken. When the government failed to address the issue, the BC Civil Liberties Association challenged the government in court on this fundamental violation of people's right to due process and won. There is no question that this needs to be fixed, and finally, here we are.

The matter was then pushed over to the Senate. That is exactly what happened. The government did not introduce a bill in the House to fix the problem, so it was pushed over to the Senate for the Senate to deal with. I lobbied a number of different senators on the need to address this issue and I am glad to see that Senator Omidvar agreed to champion the cause. Now, after more than a year, I am happy to see that the Senate has attempted to rectify this huge gap in our Citizenship Act with its amendment, and today the government motion before us indicates that this amendment will essentially be accepted.

With this Senate amendment, individuals will have the right to a judicial hearing, and humanitarian and compassionate considerations related to the person, particularly in situations where the best interests of a child are directly affected, will be considered, although the government's motion uses different terminology. Instead of humanitarian and compassionate considerations, the government's motion uses “any consideration respecting his or her personal circumstances”. At the end, the effect, I believe, is the same. Therefore, the NDP supports this amendment.

I would like to point out that there seems to be some suggestion from my friends on the Conservative side that having an appeal process in place would incite people to somehow defraud the system and misrepresent their applications. I will take a moment to respond to that, because that is simply absurd. People do not think that because there is an appeal process, they will think about how to defraud the system or misrepresent their cases. That is absolutely not how people operate.

We need to have due process in place to ensure we do not presume people are guilty before they make a final decision. By the way, there are situations where a case could well have gone awry from the officials, that they might have received misinformation about a particular application. It is absolutely essential in a democratic society for an individual to be able to challenge the alleged misrepresentation against them. Allowing the appeal process to be restored will do exactly that.

In addition, the government motion also added the provision whereby an individual could request that his or her case be heard by the minister. That is to say that an individual would have the option of having the matter referred to federal court or be heard by the minister.

As the government motion allows for this to be a choice, the NDP will support this change as well. If it said that it would be up to the minister to make that decision, we would not have supported it. People should have the right to choose an independent judiciary to make that decision. However, since this is not what the government has proposed, I will support the option to allow for the individual to make that choice.

The truth is that the Harper government should never have taken away someone's rights to a judicial hearing in cases of citizenship revocation.

Tied to the process of citizenship revocation, another issue I hope the government will rectify is the notion of indefinite suspension. As it stands right now, the minister has the right to suspend the citizenship process indefinitely. Instead of putting in a system of accountable and extendable deadlines, the government is continuing the indefinite suspension provisions. This is wrong.

Under this system, a person could be under investigation indefinitely without ever knowing when it might come to an end. Imagine what that would be like. In criminal cases there is a statutory limitation, but not in immigration. Does the government not think it is wrong to indefinitely investigate someone? Do the Liberals really think it is an appropriate thing to do in the case of citizenship and immigration? While I moved an amendment on this during committee, unfortunately the committee did not accept it, and that is too bad.

Let me turn to another amendment before us today. The Senate proposed an amendment to provide unaccompanied youth or those under state care pathways to citizenship. I called for this at committee. At issue, as explained by justice for children and youth, is:

Section 5(3)(b)(i) allows for an applicant to make a request to the minister on humanitarian grounds for a waiver of the age requirement...this humanitarian exemption poses a generally insurmountable barrier for children wishing to access citizenship and is not a reasonable limitation or a satisfactory solution to issues raised by the age requirement provision.

The provision in effect restricts access to Canadian citizenship for children—solely on the basis of age—who otherwise meet all the requirements.

It restricts access to citizenship for the most marginalized children, i.e. unaccompanied minors, children without parents or lawful guardians, and children with parents who do not have the capacity to meet the citizenship requirements or do not wish to apply.

Unfortunately, my amendment was rejected by the committee. I am so glad now that the Senate, particularly Senator Oh, picked up this amendment, advanced it and has now referred it back to the House.

The NDP will wholeheartedly support this amendment. I had wanted to see this adopted at the committee stage.

Let me turn to the last amendment before us.

The Senate saw fit to bring forward an amendment to increase the upper age requirement for passing a language test from 54 to 60. This is where I diverge from the Senate. The NDP does not support this change and I am pleased to see the government also disagrees with it. The government motion has changed the upper age requirement for passing a language test from 60 back to 55.

It is my view that we should go further than this. I moved an amendment at committee to reinstate the allowance for an interpreter to be used during the knowledge test in the citizenship process. The current system amounts to a second language test, which is harder than the actual language test, due to non-standard terms and events contained in the knowledge test for those who do not speak English or French as their first language. I was saddened that my amendment did not pass at committee.

I learned English as a second language. I immigrated here when I was young, and I did not speak a word of English. I spoke Cantonese. I have my Cantonese language. I speak the Cantonese language fairly fluently. I can understand, communicate, and I can do interviews in that language without any trouble. However, when technical terms come up, it is very difficult to know what the technical term is and how to articulate it well. This is the same thing for those who are subject to this citizenship test. The issue around technical terms is that they differ in the first language, and often it is difficult for the person to pass the knowledge test if they do not have the technical language. That does not mean that they do not speak English well enough—they speak it very well—but some technical terms are very difficult to master.

There was a time, prior to Bill C-24, that the interpreters would be allowed to attend these tests so that those technical terms could be explained in the person's first language. However, that has now been done away with, and I am saddened by that.

There are other amendments that I wish were before us. At committee I called for the expansion of the definition of “statelessness”, to better capture how people can fall through the cracks. In particular, I called for the provision to prevent any official from being able to engage in a decision that would contravene any international or human rights agreements that Canada is a signatory to, especially those on statelessness. Unfortunately, those amendments were not supported, as they were deemed to be out of scope.

On a related matter, I would like to see changes made to address the issue of lost Canadians. For decades, Canadians have found themselves to be stateless due to a number of arcane laws. We heard from a number of people who lost their citizenship out of the blue one day because of these arcane laws. There are situations of second-generation Canadians who had been born abroad not being recognized as Canadians.

This year we are heading into the 150th anniversary of this country. When we celebrate this nation's 150th birthday, would it not be something to know that there are Canadians who have been Canadians all their lives, have somehow become lost in the system, and we have done nothing to fix that? That was something I wanted to advance at committee, yet once again the committee did not accept my amendments. I am concerned that the government did not bring legislation to address this issue before July 1 of this year. That should have been done.

The other issue I want to raise is with respect to cessation provisions. We talked about this issue with respect to refugees. These are people who, unbeknownst to them, find their status affected for no other reason than that they travelled back to their country of origin at a time when the cessation provisions were not in place and when the threat that had forced them to flee their country no longer existed. Even then, the status of these people had been affected by cessation provisions. In most cases, cessation proceedings are brought against them when they apply for their citizenship. That is outrageous. I hope that all members of this House would agree with me that those provisions need to be done away with. We need to bring in legislation to repeal the cessation provisions that were brought forward by the Harper government.

With that, I know my time is running out. I am glad to see that this bill is finally before us. I hope to see a speedy passage of it, so Canadians can ensure that their rights are protected. I hope that those who have been waiting for this bill to pass will finally see it go through all stages of the House and come into force and effect.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Nose Hill touched on many subjects this evening, but I would like to get to the heart of the matter, which is Bill C-6. I am going to read the questions I have prepared because I would really like some good answers from her.

Let us talk about fraud. When the Auditor General issued a report on fraud in the citizenship program in 2016, the findings were a damaging report card for the Conservative government's lack of action on this front. It turned out that while the Harper Conservatives enjoyed touting themselves as tough on fraud, their actions failed to match their words, and that was after having an entire decade to address this problem. In fact, it is our government, as members know, that has taken concrete steps to address citizenship fraud and ensure the integrity of the program. We are doing this through concrete actions to achieve that objective, unlike the member opposite's party, which put up arbitrary barriers to citizenship for newcomers. My colleague will perhaps be able to offer some comment on this regarding citizenship fraud.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon, during your intervention, and my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands made a comment about women's attire, and I would like to say that in the American tradition, we should all have the right to bare arms, especially at this particular juncture. That is a position I support.

The other reason I think it behooves the government to take a little extra time for a study, rather than supporting the Senate amendment, is that our parliamentary committee has been charged with reviewing the issue of how immigration consultants are governed in Canada and the impact they have on both citizenship fraud and defrauding people who might be using them.

I want to say why this is important. I am going to start by saying that there are many excellent immigration consultants to legitimately help people navigate Canada's immigration system and become citizens. They are good, hard-working people who have the best intentions and play by the rules. However, there are those who do not. Many people in this place who have had experience doing casework on immigration in their ridings have had a constituent who has suffered the consequences of an immigration consultant who has provided people with illegitimate advice, has advised them to lie on a citizenship application, or has defrauded them of money.

There was a very weighty, in-depth study at committee. We have not yet issued a report, but I want to highlight some of the testimony. We heard over and over again concerns about the ability of the current oversight body, the ICCRC, to regulate this sector. My colleagues from Dufferin—Caledon and Markham—Unionville and I all heard serious testimony from witnesses who were essentially left destitute because of this. To the relevancy of the amendment at hand, more often we heard about people who were advised to lie on their citizenship applications and hence had their applications revoked.

After going through the exercise at committee, I am of the belief that the current oversight process is inadequate and is not working. The status quo cannot be maintained. There are serious governance challenges within the ICCRC board itself, bordering on dysfunction. I am just going to put it out there. This is not just my opinion. This was highlighted in witness testimony. We have to think about the end user.

One of my colleagues from the NDP has made the point that this is about compassion. We need to have compassion for people who are being defrauded in these situations. The oversight situation we have is not adequate. The testimony was very clear and very damning in that regard. It is not working, and there needs to be change.

I know that all members of the committee are going to be considering this testimony and considering recommendations for the government. I would like the government to consider those recommendations in the context of how we deal with both the Federal Court ruling and the response to the Senate amendment. I do not understand why the government has not appealed the Federal Court ruling.

If we are indeed risking sending a message to the international community to not worry, because there is a lengthy appeals process if people lie on their citizenship applications, that is congruent with some of the issues we have been dealing with in terms of how to reform the system for immigration consultant governance.

There was an article, published in January 2016, that spoke to the issue of ghost consultants. This was something we heard about in the course of the study I just mentioned. Ghost consultants are people who are essentially not regulated by our current oversight board, and often that is where many of the instances of fraud occur. The article said:

On the federal government’s website, in no fewer than 21 languages ranging from Arabic to Vietnamese, people looking to immigrate to Canada are warned to be on the lookout for fraud and to stay away from unauthorized consultants.

Don’t be the victim of a scam, the site warns.

And don’t be tempted into using false documents.

Despite the government’s efforts to regulate the industry, however, large numbers of unlicensed consultants continue to operate under the radar, sometimes going to great lengths to dupe the system—or their clients—and making loads of money doing it.

Last fall, Xun Wang, an unlicensed consultant in Richmond, B.C., was handed a stiff seven-year sentence for carrying out one of the biggest immigration frauds authorities say they’d ever seen involving doctored passports and other forged documents.

While that prosecution was successful, critics say so-called “ghost consultants” continue to operate largely in an enforcement vacuum.

This article continues:

Internal records show the border agency fielded more than 400 complaints about alleged unauthorized immigration consultants from June 2011 through September 2015. It opened 71 cases and laid 12 charges.

“Little attention is given to rogue agents, the ghost agents. The public is being taken for a ride,” said Cobus Kriek, a licensed immigration consultant in Calgary, who obtained the CBSA records through an access-to-information request.

A CBSA spokeswoman said the agency reviews all complaints and tips. Investigations are opened if officers believe consultants have misrepresented themselves or the information they’ve put in applications, or if they have counselled others to do so....

If anyone dialed the Halifax phone number Mohd Morelley wrote in his application for citizenship as proof he was integrating in Canada, it would ring out in an office on the outskirts of Halifax. Someone might answer, but it wouldn’t be Morelley or his wife or three children, who all wanted to be Canadians.

They were all living in Kuwait.

Along with the bogus phone number, Morelley and his family bought a full-service bogus citizenship package from an immigration consultant, including a Halifax address for a home he never lived in, tax returns and employment records for a job he never held, payment of utility bills he never used, ATM withdrawals to show local transactions he didn’t make and a letter from a local Islamic society saying he was deeply involved in the activities at a mosque he didn’t attend.... Morelley’s phantom phone—and fake life—were far from unique: more than 140 cell phones, labeled with the number and name of a client, were organized in the Bedford Highway office of the Canadian Commercial Group, run by immigration consultant Hassan Al-Awaid....

“The CBSA sets priorities and focuses criminal investigations on cases that are likely to have the greatest impact, for example large-scale fraudulent operations,” the statement said. As of late November, the agency said 16 investigations had closed, resulting in 15 convictions.

Critics say it’s not enough, that unsuspecting customers are falling victim to crooked consultants who lack qualifications, fail to file paperwork, or simply take their money and run.

This is what is important:

....not all clients are victims. Some clients are willing participants in the fraud, paying consultants to create documents that make it seem like they’re living in Canada when they’re not.

I do not want to politicize the issue, because this has been an issue that has crossed different governments, but something needs to be done.

We are sending a message to people. I can just imagine how a conversation would go in a situation like this if someone had any qualms about perhaps not being truthful on the application. What I do not want to happen is a ghost consultant or someone who is not regulated saying, “Don't worry. You can appeal the decision. You would have a long period of time. If you are found out, the penalty has been reduced.”

What is the government doing to ensure this situation does not happen?

I will continue, because there are some other excellent points. It says:

Before foreign nationals can apply for Canadian citizenship, they must spend 1,095 days in Canada in a four-year period.

Bill C-6 would change that. It continues:

The Federal Court of Canada has said this residency requirement protects “precious Canadian citizenship,” and ensures would-be citizens have “the everyday opportunity to become ‘Canadianized.’”

“This happens by ‘rubbing elbows’ with Canadians in shopping malls, corner stores, libraries, concert halls,...”

Many, however, are paying to skirt these rules.

“We do not have to be Pollyannas here,” Phil Mooney, past president of the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants told a parliamentary committee in 2011.

Again, this issue has been ongoing for a while. This is the second time, and probably more, that the citizenship and immigration committee has looked at this issue. It goes on:

“A large number of individuals participate willingly in attempts to defraud the system … and there are hundreds of thousands of people who will do anything, sign anything, pay anything to come here.”

That said, many prospective immigrants are falling victim to ghost consultants, who also “take money away from legitimate consultants who follow the rules and pay a high price to be regulated,” Mooney said.

“Further, we suffer added indignities because the public cannot easily distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys.”

The problem is the CBSA doesn’t have enough resources to investigate the bad ones, said Dory Jade, current president of the industry group.

The public cannot easily distinguish between the good guys and the bad guy.

We heard at length over numerous meetings that preventing ghost consultants from defrauding people was a problem. However, what we hear in this article, and what we heard in testimony, is that some people choose to defraud the system and willingly put false information on their citizenship applications. How is the government going to address this problem given what is proposed in the Senate amendment? It is a huge mess and we should reject it outright.

There is one recommendation that I support, and I want to speak to it. It was made out of a spirit of compassion and would improve the immigration system in Canada. I will at least provide the House with some positive things. This was an amendment supported by Senator Victor Oh. I will read a statement that was put out by Senator Oh on June 12. It states:

Senator Victor Oh commends the government for its decision to support an amendment to Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and make consequential amendments to another Act, which would provide equitable access to citizenship to children and youth under the age of 18 who meet all the requirements.

Bill C-6 is a government bill that seeks to make changes to the legislative provisions regarding grants of citizenship by naturalization, grounds for citizenship revocation, and the authority of the Minister with regard to fraudulent documents. However, it did not address barriers that prevented certain minors, including children in the care of child welfare authorities, from obtaining citizenship in Canada.

Under the current laws minors submitting an application with a parent or guardian or who have a parent or guardian who is a citizen face no significant barriers. However, those without parents or guardians and those whose parents or guardians are unwilling or unable to apply have virtually no option but to wait until they are 18 years of age to apply on their own. The only exception is to request a waiver for a grant of citizenship on compassionate grounds from the Minister — a highly discretionary process that is simply ineffective...

The amendment, which was passed by the Senate on April 11, 2017 with 47 votes in favour, 27 votes against, and 3 abstentions, would allow children and youth with a permanent resident status to submit an application for citizenship separately from a parent or guardian. “This change would not only ensure that these minors can have a permanent and secure status in Canada, but also provide them with increased opportunities to succeed and thrive” said Senator Victor Oh.

"It is my sincere hope that now that the bill will return for further consideration my colleagues in the House of Commons and the Senate will vote in favour of the amendment with the changes made by the government to clarify who can apply for citizenship on behalf of the child” added Senator Oh. “This would be a landmark moment in the history of advancing the rights of children and youth in Canada, and I am proud to have played a role in it.”

I actually agree with the sentiment presented here by the Senator. I actually think this is a common-sense, compassionate amendment that will give us all, regardless of political stripe, great pride in the Canadian citizenship process. I commend Senator Oh for his work. I certainly support it. It is my understanding that the government will slightly amend his amendment. This is where it gets complicated for the viewers at home, but with that, when I read what is being proposed by the government in terms of amending Senator Oh's amendment, it looks fine to me.

For once, on a very hot and muggy June day in the House of Commons we can agree between the government party and my party that this is something that is worthwhile, so we will be supporting that particular change. As it is implemented, it will certainly support better immigration processing in Canada.

Just for people who might be asking me, I often find after I give these speeches, people write to my office and say, “Why are you supporting this? What is going on?” Just to be very clear on what this amendment does, the issue is that permanent residents that apply for citizenship in Canada must be either 18 years of age or apply concurrently with a permanent resident parent or guardian. For minors whose application is attached to that of their parents or guardians or whose parents or guardians are Canadian citizens, the current process presents no serious issues. However, minors without parents or guardians, or whose parents or guardians are unable or unwilling to apply, have virtually no option but to wait until they are 18 years old, as Senator Oh said.

The objective of this amendment is to provide a direct pathway to citizenship for minors under the age of 18 that meet all the requirements, but do not have a parent or guardian to make an application on their behalf or whose parents are either unable or unwilling to apply.

Right now, subsection 2(1) of the Citizenship Act defines both “minor” and “child”. A child “includes a child adopted or legitimized in accordance with the laws of the place where the adoption or legitimation took place”. A minor “means a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years”.

The proposed amendment does not affect the processes for minors who would have entered Canada and qualified for permanent residence. Minors who make an application will still have to meet the eligibility requirements for citizenship, including the physical presence requirement.

Just to be perfectly clear, to anyone who might be watching or to my colleagues who might not have read the substance of the amendment, there is no need to worry that this amendment somehow changes the process by which a minor might be looked at for admissibility. Essentially what this does is it changes the eligibility, but it does not change the review process itself.

To remain consistent with the proposed changes under Bill C-6, the children would not need to meet the language or knowledge requirements. Under the proposed amendment, minors whose parents or guardians are submitting an application concurrently or whose parents or guardians are citizens of Canada will continue to apply under subsection 5(2) of the Citizenship Act.

In contrast, minors without a parent or guardian, or whose parents are unable or unwilling to make an application, will be able to directly apply under subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act, because it will no longer be necessary to be the age of majority. A main outcome of the proposed amendment is that the applications for citizenship of minors will no longer be dependent on their parents' citizenship and the parents' willingness or ability to apply for citizenship. However, a child will still need assistance from a legal guardian to make his or her application.

The child will also be required to countersign his application after the age of 14. This process is consistent with Citizenship Regulation No. 2, paragraphs 4(a) and (b), which apply to the applications under subsection 5(2) of the Citizenship Act. My understanding is that the reason this safeguard is in there is to ensure that children are not being abducted or forced away from a family unit against their will.

I read through the Senate testimony and I talked to Senator Oh. He has done a good job in terms of laying out the case for this. What I am not certain about is how this relates to other countries that might have best practices in this regard, but certainly going forward if we implement this and do it well, we would have some best practices to share with the world.

There is a point that I forgot to make that was very important. I am going to jump back to the amendment I was addressing prior to Senator Oh's and that is the amendment around the appeals process for citizenship revocation in cases of fraud. I would be remiss not to mention that one of the reasons the government and all members need to reject this amendment is the strain on the backlogs that we see in the Federal Court. We have had rigorous debates about the appointment of judges and the fact that the government has not been on the ball in appointing judges, as there are many vacancies. In Calgary, there are courtrooms that are empty. It is a shame and I know there are many qualified applicants in Canada. I do not understand why the delay is happening.

Prior to adopting this amendment, the government needs to deal with this issue. When we think about how many people have had their citizenships revoked that this would apply to, it is going to create delays and backlogs. In terms of the current processes in place, the Federal Court will examine appeals if the department errs in interpretation or application of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. A quote from the IRCC website, which details the current process of citizenship revocation, reads:

The Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (SCCA) introduces new grounds for revocation of citizenship and provides for a streamlined revocation process. Previously, the citizenship revocation process generally involved three steps: the Minister, the Federal Court, and the Governor in Council. Under the new revocation process, the Governor in Council will no longer have a role except for some transitional cases.

The new process has two decision-making streams:

the vast majority of revocation cases will be decided by the Minister;

certain complex cases will be decided by the Federal Court.

Note: The Case Management Branch handles all cases considered for revocation of citizenship. Local office staff are not involved with these types of cases, other than to alert the Case Management Branch should information come to their attention regarding a case that should be investigated for possible revocation.

As the IRCC website makes clear, under the current process, some special cases are sent to the Federal Court. The cases that currently go to the Federal Court are examined if IRCC erred in interpretation or application of IRPA. This is a particularly important caveat as it ensures that errors of the department do not lead to revocation; however, it also maintains that people are not incentivized to lie on their applications.

It is important to consider that the courts are facing serious challenges in terms of existing backlogs and hearings. These backlogs exist largely due to the fact that under the government there is a growing number of judicial vacancies, which have contributed to a large number of serious criminal cases being thrown out of court. We have not heard from the minister if he has actually worked with the Minister of Justice to figure how the volume, if the government decides to accept this amendment, is going to impact the backlog further or if she is going to somehow take action in appointing or expediting some judicial vacancies that are currently unfilled. This appeals process will likely put an excess strain on the courts, which are already strained by judicial vacancies.

To illustrate how problematic the issue of judicial vacancies are and for one to understand what the Federal Court ruling could impact, I want to read from an article in the Toronto Star, on August 11, 2016, which states:

...Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin linked the number of empty seats on federally appointed court benches across the country—44 at the moment—to unacceptable trial delays, especially in the criminal courts.

McLachlin said she has no argument with the Liberal government’s effort to overhaul judicial appointment processes across the country, but said “I hope we can find a way to bridge the gap while we’re perfecting the processes—but that’s in the government’s hands, properly, under our Constitution.”

Asked what options might bridge that gap, McLachlin emphasized “it’s not for me to tell the government how to appoint judges. That’s not my business. But there are names, I understand, that are in the system from the previous (judicial advisory) committees.”

She said it is the current government’s “prerogative to appoint in accordance with their processes” but added there is a pressing need for vacancies “be filled in a prompt manner.”

McLachlin made clear there is a lot at stake for the justice system, saying the vacancies are “a huge difficulty. It’s more than a challenge. It makes it very, very difficult to comply with the constitutional requirement that people be tried within a reasonable time,” she said in an interview at her office west of Parliament Hill.

McLachlin pointed to the Supreme Court’s July ruling in a case called R. vs. Jordan, a split 5-4 decision in which she dissented.

In the interview, she said the court addressed the “lamentable delays” in criminal trials. She said the decision was clear that “we have to have strict compliance with the constitutional right of people to be tried within a reasonable time,” adding that “this is going to be a challenge for the justice system in the years to come.”

The majority ruling warned past approaches to how the courts considered delays—based in part on the high court’s own rulings on issues of procedural fairness—have created a “culture of delay and complacency.”

It set out a new framework that set limits on how long the justice system should reasonably take from the laying of a criminal charge to the actual or anticipated end of a trial.

I just want to leave members with one quote from this article, which states:

[Justice] McLachlin said she first started expressing concern about empty seats on Canada’s courts in 2006 when “I think there were 35 vacancies and I said that was unacceptable at the time, and today there are—how many?—41?”

The issue of judicial vacancies is not something that is a partisan political construct. It is something coming out of a concern raised from groups such as police associations across the country and victims advocacy groups. The reason this is material to why I think the Senate amendment on the appeals process should be rejected by this place is that we have not addressed the issue of vacancies in the courts, and this will add a significant burden to the Federal Court process. We have not had the minister come in and talk about that important procedural component on how we will do this.

We have also had some discussion at committee on this. I believe my colleague moved a motion to study the issue of the resourcing of the Immigration and Refugee Board. We know that there are significant amounts of delays happening in that particular body. Why has the government not addressed this?

The point I am trying to make is that we have not had any material debate on these issues, either at parliamentary committee or in the House. The minister has not been out in the media on these issues. The ramifications of the Federal Court ruling and the Senate amendment that we are debating tonight, which I do not think the government has done a particularly adequate job of shaping, have huge impacts on the integrity of our immigration system in that it could incent people to lie on citizenship applications.

The integrity of our immigration system is currently threatened according to the findings of the Auditor General's report, for which the minister has not yet responded to the House or committee with respect to what the government is going to do to address that. There are also issues with respect to backlogs at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

There are issues with regard to resourcing in the Federal Court process. There are issues around the processing of ghost consultants. There are issues related to awareness campaigns on how people should be accessing immigration consultant support services. There are issues around the provision of benefits, and other rights and privileges afforded to Canadian citizens who may have obtained this through fraud.

The point I am trying to make is that there is so much to study here. This is not immaterial, yet the government has treated it as immaterial.

I have spoken for almost two and a half hours on this. There is more than two and a half hours' worth of study that is needed on this issue. We have not had this debate. The government cannot continue to come forward, say “Welcome to Canada”, and expect Canadians to say that everything is great when it is not putting material scrutiny or any sort of effort into addressing these challenges.

Oftentimes, one is arguing for or against immigration. I am arguing for an adequate process, with integrity. There are serious problems with it right now, as I have outlined in detail, that the government has not addressed.

What are we doing tonight? With the minister coming forward and saying that this is how he is going to alter this amendment and support it, he is saying, “I don't care about the rest of this stuff. We're just going to proceed.” I would like to tell him, let us put partisanship aside for a minute. Everyone here on this side is saying to take a bit more time. Get this right. If you do not get this right, there are serious implications not only for Canadians, but for people who are seeking to enter the country.

There are so many people who are trying to enter the country legally. We hear of spousal sponsorship, inland sponsorship, people who are waiting for years to come to this country, and they are doing it the right way. What we are debating tonight is something that incents people to do it the wrong way, without addressing some serious concerns. It is not the Conservative Party of Canada that is raising the issue—certainly we are shining a light on it tonight—but people like the Auditor General and Justice Beverley McLachlin. These are not partisan people. These are people whose job it is to raise issues. The minister has not responded to this.

Every once in a while, we have to take a bit more time in this place. That is why I had the right to speak as long as I did tonight. I feel it is very important to put on the record the fact that this particular amendment is so wholly inadequate. It has not been studied. Send this to a parliamentary committee. I would love to do a summer study on this. Let us have experts come in to talk about the implications of this ruling.

I would like to move an amendment. I believe my colleague, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, would be amenable to this.

I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. In closing, with an impassioned plea to my colleagues—I know I have spoken for a long time tonight—from the bottom of my heart, and I know it is June, we have to get our immigration system right. We cannot just keep saying “welcome to Canada” and not deal with these process gaps. That is the form and substance of my intervention.

Based on everything I have laid out tonight, I am very happy to sit here—adequately happy—and look at my colleague who is passing me a note, and implore the House to not support this amendment around the revocation of citizenship in cases of fraud. I think we all want to incent people to come to Canada the right way. I want to, from the bottom of my heart, encourage the minister to take the time to get this right, rely on parliamentarians to help him with the scrutiny of this—it would be great if he could come to committee once in a while—and to actually care about how we process citizenship in Canada.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your extraordinarily adequate intervention in the House.

This quote is just so earth shattering, I want to put it on the record. The revocation notice is essentially how people are notified that their citizenship is going to be revoked for fraud. The minister said the following:

In fact, the whole point of sending the revocation notice to the affected party is to allow the party to gather information and provide any personal circumstances to the decision maker so that the decision maker takes those personal circumstances into consideration, which would include humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

When asked about whether the person has the right to counsel, the minister noted, “Absolute right to counsel. The written submissions and the case, you’re allowed to use counsel. There’s no prohibition against having counsel.” He further stated, “You have a right to a judicial review with leave.”

At the same Senate committee meeting, Ms. Hubers, the director for citizenship program delivery at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, explained the process. This is the process by which this happens, so I want to put this on the record for my colleagues. She said the following:

First, one division in the department initially investigates cases to see if there is sufficient evidence that may warrant consideration of revocation. Where there is belief that there is sufficient evidence, the file then gets transferred to a different division that will then make the decision whether to proceed with a notice of intent to revoke. The notice of intent provides all of the evidence upon which the decision maker would be relying at that point in time to make their decision and invites individuals to submit all factors related to that which they should take into account when making the decision, including personal circumstances, such as the length of their time in Canada, the age they were when they acquired citizenship, their ties to Canada and those sorts of things. At that point, when that material comes in, the decision maker will decide whether to proceed with the decision.

What the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the department official I just quoted laid out at the Senate committee is that there is in fact a process. This is not just done arbitrarily. It is very wrong to present the fact that people who are undergoing this have no due process. That is not the case. It is also important to note that there is a difference between what the Federal Court ruling said with regard to this issue and what the Senate amendment that has been proposed suggests. They interact with each other, but they are not exactly alike, as the amendment specifically lists the Federal Court as the appropriate appeals body. Further study needs to be done to assess whether this would even be the most appropriate body. For instance, the Canadian Bar Association has stated that the immigration appeals division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada would be more appropriate.

Therefore, here is what I suggest. Given the Federal Court ruling, given the Auditor General's findings on the lack of ability for our government to detect citizenship fraud, and given the acknowledgement that citizenship fraud is an issue, my understanding is that the government and the minister have put forward a very wordy and convoluted amendment into the record. However, rather than deal with that, because the minister has been silent on this, because we have not had any study in committee on this issue, we have not had any debate on this, we have not heard from expert witnesses on how to reconcile all of these issues with regard to the Auditor General's findings, and because the government has not talked about what the Auditor General's findings were or how to address that, first we should not entertain the Senate amendment. Rather than trying to amend it with words here, we should reject the amendment, have further study, and then the government should come back to Parliament, be it to a parliamentary committee, or with some sort of announcement stating what it is going to do to address the Auditor General's findings, and how it is going to educate people that lying on their citizenship application is a bad thing to do. I also believe that the minister has an onus and a responsibility to tell Canadians why he chose not to appeal that ruling.

The government is running out of time. Not only did it let the clock run out on the time in which it could appeal the ruling, as I pointed out at committee last week—and I would have to pull it from the ruling, but I am also happy to read the entire ruling—but I believe it only has another 30 days to respond before the current situation times out, and I do not think the government has addressed some of the key process issues on immigration in Canada.

In speaking to one of my Liberal colleagues today with respect to our parliamentary committee, I made the point that immigration in and of itself is a very process-heavy department and topic for the Canadian government, because when we accept immigration as something that should happen in Canada, it becomes a question of how and under what circumstances. As a result, a lot of what we are tasked with as legislators is providing direction to the department on how to do things.

One of the great frustrations I have had at parliamentary committee this year—and I kind of understand where they are coming from—was when questioning department officials on process. One of my Liberal colleagues had asked department officials what they thought we should do and how we could improve. The response was that they need parliamentary direction, that as the public service they need political direction, because they cannot just change things.

I believe we need to provide direct and clear guidance to the department on how to ensure people are not incented to lie on their applications. I do not understand what incentive people have to be truthful on their applications under this change. The government has to come up with either some sort of awareness campaign or punitive measure. I do not know what that would be and I would very much welcome an expert study that would address the issue of citizenship fraud.

The Auditor General's findings have to be addressed. To underscore this point, this is an article that was published on May 3, 2016, on the Auditor General's findings. It states:

Despite the former...government’s anti-fraud efforts, ineligible immigrants have continued to beat the system and secure Canadian citizenship, the auditor general says.

“People were granted citizenship based on incomplete information or without all of the necessary checks being done,” Michael Ferguson wrote in an audit of the citizenship program tabled Tuesday in the House of Commons. “Since revoking citizenship after it has been granted is costly, while the cost to grant it is far less, it is important to ensure that only eligible applicants receive it in the first place.”

That statement goes to the heart of it and exceptionally and adequately summarizes the point I am trying to make, which is that we do not have an adequate response from the government on this particular issue. It is extraordinarily inadequate.

It continues:

The auditor general investigated citizenship applications between July 2014 and last fall and found Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada did not have a systematic method of identifying and documenting fraud risks and that existing guidelines were not followed consistently by staff.

In response to the report, Immigration Minister John McCallum said he is working with the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP to improve information sharing and to put in place a new integrity system by December.

December has passed. Where is the new integrity system? What has happened? I would love to hear the response from the minister in the context of both this amendment and the Federal Court ruling.

It continues:

“We have thoroughly reviewed all cases flagged by the Office of the Auditor General to determine if citizenship fraud may have occurred. As a result, we’ve opened investigations toward possible citizenship revocation from about a dozen individuals....”

In this article the minister is talking about the fact that the government is acknowledging that this is a problem, yet we have not heard anything about what is being done in the context of this particular amendment.

It continues:

“We are continuously looking for ways to improve fraud detection and prevention processes in all of our programs.”

To become a citizen, permanent residents must have lived a minimum amount of time in Canada, pass a language and knowledge test, and obtain criminal clearances from the RCMP.

The most common fraud involves pretending to have lived in Canada to maintain permanent resident status and meet residency requirements for citizenship, the report said.

Another article from May 3, 2016, underscores this point. It was a busy day for citizenship fraud.

Immigration Minister John McCallum says the government will investigate dozens of new Canadians that the federal auditor general found may have obtained their citizenship through fraud, and pass new laws to catch such cheats in the future.

Where are those laws? I do not see them in Bill C-6. As well, the minister has not gone to committee.

I am going to pause reading this article for one moment. I have really tried to make this point in Parliament over the last two weeks. I spoke at great length in the parliamentary committee last week on the need for the minister come to committee to talk about what the government is doing to address this issue. Unfortunately, debate was adjourned on my motion. It was a very sad moment in time for democracy in Canada, because I believe if the minister had gone to committee, there could have been a much more constructive and productive debate on this particular bill.

The article further stated:

The promises came in response to a damning auditor general’s report released Tuesday that criticized the immigration department for failing to catch dozens if not hundreds of fraudsters and suspected criminals before they were sworn in as Canadian citizens.

Auditor General Michael Ferguson said serious holes in the immigration department’s screening failed to weed out prospective citizens who were obviously trying to cheat the system or who otherwise should have been ineligible to become Canadians.

Reviewing only a small sample of the more than 260,000 people who became citizens in 2014, Ferguson and his staff were able to find nearly 50 cases where immigration officials failed to catch what in hindsight should have been fairly obvious cases of fraud.

The terminology that is used is “obvious cases of fraud”. Why is the department incapable of catching this? As for what the minister said earlier in this article, where is the plan that was promised?

The article continued:

“The steps we took to try to identify these cases of citizenship fraud were not complicated.... It was fairly simple for us to find these 50 cases, and so I think it’s 50 cases too many.”

Because they were able to avoid detection, the citizenship cheats were sworn in and able to enjoy all the benefits of being Canadian, including access to health care and other social services as well as the right to vote and obtain a passport, without having met the government’s requirements to become citizens.

That leads me to my next argument on why the government needs to have a think. We should very strongly not support the Senate amendment. There is a term about polishing fecal matter that I could use in this case, but I believe that would be unparliamentary, so I will not. Rather than undertaking that particular process, the government should take some time, certainly the next 30 days, and be very transparent with Canadians about what it is doing in response to the Auditor General's findings.

There is something I have not made the point on yet. When people become Canadian citizens, they have access to the benefits of being Canadian, including access to health care, social services, voting, and obtaining passports. I saw a study that ranked the value of Canadian passports as very high. I think it is one of the top 10 most valuable passports in the world. We do not want to send a message to our major trading partners and allies that there are holes in the process by which people can obtain Canadian passports. A Canadian passport is one of the most treasured documents on the face of the earth, yet this Ottawa Citizen article on the Auditor General's findings clearly lays out that we might have a problem in terms of long-term benefits being given to people who are not entitled to them.

Rather than the government massaging the wording of the Senate amendment and taking some time to come up with a process, as alluded to earlier, the other reason that members in the House should not accept the Senate amendment is that the parliamentary committee has not yet produced its report on—

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. I also want to take this opportunity to thank him for his service as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I have greatly benefited from his long experience as chair of that committee in previous Parliaments, and I have learned a lot from him.

Continuing on the issue of the legislation's silence on how Canada is supporting LGBTQ refugees, I firmly believe that many positive recommendations were put forward by members of civil society who appeared in front of our committee that could have been adopted into some sort of program. It is shame that this omnibus legislation that the government has tabled does not address the needs of that particular group. It is something that I hope the government will address. We will continue to put pressure on the government to see the pilot program that was established under our government become a regular program, and that it be done with the help and advice of members of the community in Canada who have been doing excellent work.

Another good point is that we have not addressed the issue of how best to support private sponsorship groups. Some of the testimony that we heard during the study on Syrian refugees earlier this year, or late last year, indicated that many improvements could be made to harness the generosity of Canadian philanthropists and people who choose to bring refugees into their homes through private sponsorship.

One frustration facing many of my colleagues across political lines is the wait times for applications to be processed to bring these refugees to Canada. There are many reports of people losing their deposits on apartments that they secured, or not being able to connect the refugee family they have identified with the support here in Canada because of processing times. This continues to be an issue.

It always behooves us to be thankful, as well, in this place. On behalf of all parliamentarians, I want to thank the many Canadian private sponsorship groups who have worked not only through the Syrian refugee initiative, but who have helped to bring persecuted ethnic and religious minorities to Canada as well. I am speaking of groups such as Rainbow Railroad, and groups related to and working within the LGBTQ community. They have assisted in bringing persecuted people from those communities into Canada through the private sponsorship program. Again, the recommendations relating to those improvements are nowhere in these amendments.

I do not understand what priorities are in the bill, as opposed to some of the most urgent issues we have seen come before our country with regard to immigration.

I would be remiss if I did not talk about the bill's silence on one particular issue of great interest to all parliamentarians and many Canadians, and that is the issue of those coming across our land borders illegally, irregularly, whatever words one wants to use. A great tragedy that has not been acknowledged in this place adequately was the recent news that we received last week of a woman who tried to cross into Canada from the United States to presumably seek asylum, which is my understanding from media reports, and perished in her journey. That is deeply tragic, and yet the government has been silent on it. This is a problem.

The government has been silent on the problem of border crossers. We have seen a sharp rise in the number of people who are making the journey across the border to seek asylum. Community resources are strained. The resources of CBSA, the RCMP, and local municipal governments have all been greatly strained, and yet the Liberal government has not come out and said anything. It took the government months to even allude to the fact that this is not a safe activity.

I grew up in southern Manitoba, and I know what a -30° winter evening looks like. It is not a safe activity to cross the border in this regard. When the Prime Minister tweeted a welcome to Canada in that context, I was just so dismayed. I was not dismayed to share the sentiment that Canada is an open and welcoming place. That is not in political dispute. The dispute is that the manner in which people enter our country should be done through proper procedures. Where there are gaps that enable the activity that is happening here, that is why we have the opportunity to debate legislation such as Bill C-6. Bill C-6 has been completely silent, in the amendment process and everything, given that it is an omnibus bill, on the issue of the safe third country agreement and the process by which people can seek asylum in Canada if they have already entered the United States.

For those who are listening who might not be aware of this issue, Canada has an agreement with the United States. It essentially functions such that if somebody makes an asylum claim, we acknowledge that our asylum systems are both very robust, arm's length, operate on principles of generosity and compassion and due process. If someone makes an asylum claim in the United States, they cannot automatically also claim asylum in Canada. The safe third country agreement essentially was designed, among other things, to ensure that our asylum system is open and transparent and fluid for the most vulnerable people in the world, and that it is not being gummed up by people making claims in both of our countries. The safe third country agreement speaks very specifically that if individuals cross the border through proper border channels, they are not allowed to make asylum claims. However, it is silent on the issue of individuals who cross a land border or a border that is not controlled. This allows people to cross the border illegally into the country and then make an asylum claim.

I do not think that this is sustainable. My colleague from the NDP, whose riding name I cannot think of, has been very eloquent in raising the concerns of the legal community, in saying that maybe the safe third country agreement should not exist and we should abandon it. I feel that this is a loophole that we perhaps should close. That is my position. There are other people saying well, what about those positions in the context of treaties that Canada has signed onto with regard to refugees? The point is that we have not had a debate on this issue at all. The government has not even acknowledged that this has been an issue. It is absolutely absent from this bill, and that is a huge problem.

As we go into the summer season, experts are anticipating a very high number of people who will be coming to Canada in this fashion. I visited communities in my former province of Manitoba which have been experiencing this. There have been some members of the Canadian community who have been trying to paint the raising of concerns such as this as a xenophobic activity. I remember having a conversation with three women on the street in Gretna, in front of a facility that was designed to house senior citizens and had been used to house and process people who were crossing the border illegally. Members of this community are saying that their community is very small, and they are now seeing the equivalent of roughly a third of their population being processed through the centre on a daily basis. That is not sustainable, not only for the community, but for the people who are crossing into this country. I have had conversations with the provincial government in Manitoba, and it is saying that the province needs more financial support from the federal government. My question and my push-back to them is on whether we need more financial support, or does the government need to make a call on how it is managing these asylum seekers writ large?

I have great concern that without the government providing some direction or some notice to the international community on where it stands on this issue, we are never going to come to a resolution on either a process fix or a legislative fix, or even on an awareness or education campaign, that is going to prevent trafficking groups from ramping up activities. These are all legitimate policy concerns the government has been entirely silent on in the context of Bill C-6.

The problems along the Manitoba border show a failure of our ability as parliamentarians to address a critical issue. We had a tragic and insightful moment during the federal election campaign of 2015 when we saw the body of a small child washed up on a beach because his family was trying to migrate away from an area of crisis. We should be equally outraged about the fact that a woman died under the processes we have in place for trying to seek asylum in Canada. We need to have a hard conversation about how many refugees we allow into the country and under what circumstances. That includes the components I raised earlier in my speech with respect to long-term support.

There is a cost. We need to have a plan. The government needs to be transparent to Canadians about that and not just say it is the responsibility of the provincial governments. My colleagues in the Manitoba legislature have a point in saying that we are abdicating responsibility to the provincial government in not addressing this issue.

The Minister of Public Safety has said in the House that they are monitoring the situation, etc., etc. However, monitoring the situation is not cutting it, because someone has died, and we cannot continue to allow that to happen. The bill is silent on this issue, and the Minister of Immigration has also been silent on this issue.

My colleague from Vancouver who sits on the immigration committee with me has raised a salient motion at the committee to study this issue, yet every time she has brought it forward and made impassioned arguments to have the study completed, she has had the issue curtailed and debate cut off. We have not even voted on the motion.

We are here today looking at Bill C-6, one of the most pertinent public policy issues of our time, and the bill is completely silent on the topic of the safe third country agreement or long-term support for refugees. I find that atrocious.

How can government members continue to get up and say that Canada is a place where we welcome refugees, or go to international forums and say that Canada is the best model for how to deal with refugees, and realize that we are not exceptional? Canada is exceptional in our naïveté and our arrogance to think that our process cannot be fixed.

I look at the failures of our country when the going got tough in dealing with the question of refugee admissions, such as the MS St. Louis, when the federal government had a policy of none is too many. When we say never again, we have to mean it, but we also need to ensure that there are adequate processes in place to ensure that never again does not happen and that we have long-term support and social licence for Canada to continue to be a welcoming country.

Where are we in this? We are at talking points. That is all the government has offered. I have colleagues in the Liberal caucus who feel strongly about this and want to be compassionate, but we cannot be compassionate without having a conversation about how. I might not have all the answers, and they might not have all the answers, but surely we can use our time for debate and our time for bill study for issues like this. The government has tabled a piece of legislation, and the Senate has sent back amendments, that are silent on these most pertinent issues. That is an abdication of responsibility.

I would like to know how the government plans to deal with fixing the issue of the long-term prioritization of refugees. I would like to know how it plans to support them, but there is nothing in the bill.

I will transition to the bill's requirement for language proficiency. I do not even know where to start, because we have seen so many iterations of this. To become a citizen, there is a language proficiency requirement. At present, I believe the age is 65. Someone under the age of 65 has to be proficient in one of our official languages, either French or English. I remember in the first debate I gave a lot of evidence and testimony that language proficiency is a unifier. People coming to our country need to have proficiency in one of our official languages to obtain employment and participate in the economic fabric of our country but also to ensure that they are not isolated.

I worry, especially in the context of a Syrian refugee study done by the parliamentary committee, that many women come to Canada and do not have the opportunity to obtain language-training services and then become isolated in ghettoized communities because they have not been able to learn English. The whole rationale behind the age requirement of 65 is that many people are expected to work, and do work, well into their sixties. People in this place are in their sixties and work very hard, but to participate in Canadian society and in the workplace, they need to be proficient in one of our languages. The bill originally purported to reduce the age at which refugees needed to demonstrate proficiency in one of our official languages before they could obtain citizenship.

Some of the points I have been emphasizing is that language proficiency binds us together in Canadian pluralism for the long term and that rather than reducing the age limit we should talk about how to ensure that new Canadians integrate into Canada. If age is a barrier to learning the language, how do we overcome the barrier? These were the questions I asked the minister at committee. I asked what evidence the minister had to show that this was somehow going to be beneficial, rather than talking about access to language training services. This is material to the Senate amendments, because the Senate amendments are directly pertinent to the age by which language proficiency training happens.

Mr. Paul Attia, a spokesperson for Immigrants for Canada, stated:

...we at Immigrants for Canada view citizenship like being a member of a team. Everyone has the opportunity and the chance to try out for that team, but you have to meet certain requirements. You have to show up to practice—that's residency. You have to be able to communicate with your teammates—that's the language issue.

Former Minister McCallum stated:

I think it's a question of balance. I accept totally the evidence suggesting that mastery of one of the two official languages is a good thing, that it promotes and enhances an individual's ability to do well in Canada, to get good jobs, to integrate. On the one hand, we do favour language requirements. On the other hand, I think for older newcomers it's less important.

I think one has to take into account cultural issues....

I don't regard 55 to 64 as super-old, but those above the average age will not necessarily be required to do this, even though as a general principle we believe that the mastery of English or French is important for the success of newcomers.

In his statement, the minister did not provide any evidence or rationale as to why the reduction of the language proficiency requirement at a certain age was a good thing.

I remember asking both the IRCC officials and the minister about whether there was an economic analysis of the impact on the Canadian economy this language proficiency requirement would have. Ms. Catrina Tapley, an IRCC official, said, “to continue on with the previous questions, a full economic analysis of changes on language is not something the department has undertaken”. That is important. She pointed to other countries in terms of the language proficiency age for citizenship, but there was no justification for why this was happening in the Canadian context, especially given that Canada is a pluralistic country.

We welcome people from around the world under different streams of immigration processing. If we are going to lower the age of language proficiency to obtain citizenship, what will that mean for the Canadian economy? We are going to have people who likely self-deselect from the economy, because they are not able to communicate in one of our official languages in the employment sector. That would have been an opportunity to prove me wrong.

A witness from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Sheryl Saperia, said,

I would just add, though, that language is the key to success in a new country, so I would never want to impose unduly high standards, but you do want to encourage new citizens to learn so they can succeed and make the best possible life here.

I introduced on the front end of my speech evidence and commentary on the Syrian refugee initiative. One of the things we heard over and over again in witness testimony was that to see success for people who entered Canada through the Syrian refugee initiative, language training and language proficiency would have to be top of mind in government planning. This is a quote from Sandy Berman, from the Or Shalom Syrian Refugee Initiative, said:

We are very frustrated. We are ready to support, but we are also trying to be innovative. We have approached people who would donate apartments in the interim as a way of addressing the housing issue. All our refugees who are privately sponsored, even the family of six, are not going to get their housing needs met, because we cannot afford to support them in the apartments they need to be living in, which are three- or four-bedroom apartments. We recognize that they are going to have to make a compromise about where they live.

In terms of English language training access, I really support your concern. Getting access to English or French is of critical importance in getting employment. There are refugees, for example, who are working for Arabic-speaking construction companies here, but many people do not and cannot rely on Arabic-speaking people within an employment situation to help them through the process. Access to English and French is of critical importance.

It is very clear that at the heart of any policy or legislative change we make, we need to ensure that language training is an issue. When the former minister, Minister McCallum, was in front of committee, I remember asking him point blank about this. Why are we focusing on lowering the age of proficiency when we are not focusing on having a stronger, more robust national framework for language-training services for newcomers to Canada and also seeking a mandate from Canadians to spend money on it? Again, going back to the campaign platform, the government said the Syrian refugee initiative would cost $250 million. We all know that this is very low. I want to make sure that the government acknowledges that by waving its magic wand with this bill, it cannot erase the need to have language-training services.

Ms. Leslie Emory, the board director for the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, said:

The Syrian refugee resettlement initiative highlighted the need for affordable and appropriate child care, more language classes for different levels of learners, and different service times outside of the usual daytime classes in many more locations.

Ms. Leslie Emory also said:

I can't speak to the costing that is happening on the government side.

None of us can. That is very clear. She continued:

I can certainly say that, with the large number of refugees in the community needing language instruction, child care, and all those things, there isn't the full capacity to support them at this point in time.

She also said:

I think that in the case of Syrian refugees, women without the language and often with large families, with those factors together, tend to be isolated. What we need to do is introduce programs that work for them and work with their lifestyle to bring them into the community, and offer, for example, alternative language instruction models with child care.

That is really at the heart of why we need to oppose this particular component of Bill C-6. The point that Ms. Emory makes here is that without talking about that other side of the coin, the long-term support for integration, we actually are not getting the question of how we integrate right. Again, I do not understand why the government has provided no compelling arguments, no evidence, and no research to show that the reduction in age of language proficiency to obtain citizenship is something that is positive.

This is a very blunt quote, and it was from a Syrian refugee. This is taken from interpretation in Arabic. He said:

No, I am not working. How can I work if I don't know the English to communicate?

Again, I am trying to build an argument on the front end of my speech talking about how the government's position on Bill C-6 on the reduction of age of proficiency for language for citizenship, because it has not addressed the issue of language training, is the wrong policy approach. We should be keeping that high, and then looking at and examining the systemic barriers that people encounter to learning a language to ensure that they have long-term employment prospects. To me, that is how we continue to build the case for immigration in Canada.

Here is another quote from a refugee:

In my case, I went to a different centre, and again they told me that it was full, that I had to wait. When I told them that I am a newcomer and that I wanted to register for ESL classes, they told me: “That's good, but again, we don't have any vacancy now. We don't have any seat for you. Can you go and come back?”

Why? It's because, they tell me, there is a very big number of Syrians, the newcomers, and that's why all the classes are full. Apart from that, there are some immigrants who had been living there before the coming of the Syrian refugees, and now these immigrants also have started going back to ESL classes. This has created a different situation to ours.

To me, there is a complete lack of evidence. To all of my colleagues in this place, this is very serious. I know I am going on at length, but there is a lack of evidence to show that the reduction in the age of proficiency is the correct policy vehicle. Rather, the evidence that has been before us in committee testimony, as well as writ large, is that we should instead be looking at the systemic barriers to integration when it comes to language and addressing those.

On that, my understanding is that Senator Griffin, in the other place, proposed an amendment to Bill C-6 that would come up with, for lack of a better term, a happy medium. Rather than having, as Bill C-6 originally prescribed, the age of language proficiency for citizenship be 55, that it be 60. She has provided some excellent rationale for that.

This is my summary of it. The previous Conservative government was the first to define the age cut-off in statute at 65. Prior to that, in the early 1980s, the criteria for a routine waiver, this is the proficiency requirement, was set at 65 and over. By 1994, the waiver was lowered to 60. At some point between 1994 and 2014, the waiver was again lowered, this time to 55. My colleague in the other place argues that these were never political decisions but rather mid-level management decisions that stem from the bureaucracy.

Taking from her speech in the Senate:

According to the Library of Parliament, the age of 55 for an exemption from the requirements is a more recent trend that was not decided at either the political or the senior departmental levels.

Therefore, age 55 seems to be an arbitrary number without any evidence for this decision. Senator Griffin continued:

As well, the Library of Parliament analyst cannot find any record of age 55 being transmitted through ministerial instruction. The age of 55 appears to have been decided at a middle management level via an instrument of delegation.

She has based her argument on a June 1994 committee report and this was under the majority Liberal government of the time. The report was entitled “Canadian Citizenship: A Sense of Belonging”. To paraphrase the findings of that committee report, it argued that lowering the voting age would arbitrarily lead to misplaced compassion that could isolate new Canadians and hinder participation in Canadian society. Lowering the age for routine waivers from 65 to 60 led to a 10% to 15% drop off in attendance at language and citizenship classes, according to a judge who testified at committee. The witnesses all stressed in that report the importance of language to the integration process and to the sense of belonging that is the essence of citizenship.

I know that people might say that 1994 was a long time ago. It does not feel like a long time ago to me. It has gone quite quickly, but that said, what I find interesting is that whenever the government is talking about justification or examples of integration of previous refugee cohorts into the country, it references refugee cohorts who have come to this country in a much different context than we see today.

The reality is that language proficiency is even more important today than it was in 1994, given the fact that our modes of communication have greatly changed. We are expected to be able to use a wide variety of electronic communication devices in order to be proficient or work in many jobs. If people do not have that language proficiency, that precludes them from being able to fully participate in the workforce or to have any sense of being able to move upward in their career progression.

The report is an interesting read and I encourage my colleagues to look at the report. There were two recommendations that I want to highlight. First, it says:

The Minister should retain the discretion to waive on compassionate grounds the requirements of knowledge...and/or an official language; this discretion should, however, be exercised on a case-by-case basis and only following a genuine effort on the part of the applicant to comply.

It continues:

The power of the Governor in Council to enable citizenship to be granted to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exception value to Canada should be continued.

The point is that even back in 1994 the case that was being made was that language is a unifier and helps people participate in the Canadian economy; ergo, we should not be lowering the age of the proficiency requirement. I do not understand why the the government is doing this here today. I would rather have my colleagues support the amendment that has come from the other place, from Senator Griffin, because it acknowledges the need to encourage people and to provide the services to have people become proficient in the language.

I understand the government is not supporting this. I took that from the minister's speech. I would urge my colleagues to think about that. It is not in our best interests. I will address some of the pushback and rationale that could be used. There were some witnesses who talked about people who did not have access to becoming citizens because they had circumstances in their lives that precluded them from learning the language. We heard many witnesses at committee talking about circumstances in which people cannot learn the language, but again, the recommendation that I just read from the 1994 report shows the minister already has discretion to be able to waive the requirement. He can do that on a case-by-case basis under situations of compassion.

To reiterate my point, we should be undertaking a study to look at why people experience barriers to learning language in Canada. Instead of seeking to change the age, we should be seeking to overcome the barriers to programming, and then relying on civil society and the communication of expectations to people coming to Canada that this is very important.

By lowering the age, we are sending a value statement to the world that at 55 years old we no longer expect people to be productive and employed members of society, and that somehow we are passing people by. Perhaps that is not the intent of the government. However, that is how it feels to me without that justification, that case the minister could have convened a committee but did not, from the quote that I read. Therefore, I really feel strongly that this particular Senate amendment should be supported.

The large amendment is with respect to the appeals process for people who are about to have their citizenship revoked because of fraud or misrepresentation. It was an amendment that was put forward by the Senate and it came up at the committee stage. Therefore, I will provide some context as well as a position on it. We have not even touched on this issue at committee or in the House at all.

All of us here maintain constituency services. We have immigration processing and casework as part of our responsibilities. This has a huge impact on the immigration system in Canada, both in terms of the integrity and the capacity of our immigration system to manage this change.

Bill C-6, in its original form, removes the requirement from Bill C-24 for people convicted of terrorism to have their citizenship revoked. As I mentioned at the outset of my speech, this would affect somebody like Zakaria Amara. However, throughout the debate on Bill C-6, in its original format, and at committee, my understanding was that the government would always retain the ability to remove citizenship from people who had obtained their citizenship through fraud.

I would argue, and I hope no one would disagree with me, that if people lie on their citizenship application or provided fraudulent information they should not be entitled to keep their citizenship because they lied to get it and were not entitled to it in the first place. It is a different argument than revocation of citizenship for terrorism or other acts. We could have an entire other debate on that, and we have had debates on that. However, in this instance, the revocation of citizenship for fraud or misrepresentation is right and just because people were never entitled to it in the first place. The decision by the government to grant them citizenship was predicated on the provision of false information. Nobody wants that to happen, yet we know that it does happen.

Citizenship fraud is a very serious issue. We started to look at citizenship fraud in the previous government. It was early in the last Parliament. I believe it was in Toronto, in 2013, that there were thousands of instances where people had been found to have cheated the system.

Citizenship fraud is a matter of great concern. This was highlighted in the Auditor General's report of 2016, in which the Auditor General found signicant instances of citizenship fraud.

This was an article written by Stephanie Levitz in early 2016, which stated:

People with serious criminal records and others using potentially phoney addresses are among those who managed to secure Canadian citizenship, thanks to a system that doesn't do enough to root out fraud, the auditor general has found.

Michael Ferguson's audit of citizenship applications between July 2014 and last fall found the Immigration Department has granted citizenships based on incomplete information or without all the necessary checks because it's not applying its own methods to combat fraud.

The issue isn't the department's alone--the auditor general found they weren't getting timely or enough information from border officials or the RCMP either to help flag suspect cases.

“This finding matters because ineligible individuals may obtain Canadian citizenship and receive benefits to which they are not entitled,” Ferguson wrote in his spring report, tabled Tuesday in the House of Commons.

“Revoking citizenship that should not have been granted takes significant time and money.”

The problems range from immigration officials not routinely checking travel documents against a database of known fake papers to a failure by officers or their computers to flag problematic addresses that could point to residency fraud.

This blew my mind when I read this.

In one instance, it took seven years for an official to realize that a single address had been used by at least 50 different applicants during overlapping time periods. Of the 50, seven became Canadian citizens.

A review of 49 cases where an individual's address had been flagged as problematic concluded that in 18 instances, citizenship officials didn't follow up to see if the applicant actually met residency requirements.

In four cases, the RCMP failed to tell the Immigration Department about criminal charges laid against people who'd already passed the criminal records check step of the citizenship process. Two eventually became citizens; a third failed the knowledge test while the fourth abandoned their application.

The auditor general also found four people who should have been ineligible because of their criminal records, but were granted citizenship even though the officers had access to the information.

It was not immediately clear Tuesday whether any of the red flags raised by the auditor general's office have resulted in new fraud investigations.

In response to the audit, the Immigration Department, Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP all say they are working to improve their efforts and a better system should be in place by the end of this year.

Tuesday's collection of audits also flagged problems at the start of many people's path to citizenship -- the Immigration and Refugee Board, which handles asylum claims

As part of a review of appointments to government tribunals, the auditor general found ongoing and lengthy vacancies at the IRB, as well as at the so-called specific claims tribunal, which handles decisions on First Nations claims against the Crown.

In both cases, the vacancies are contributing to delays in tribunal decisions--at the IRB, 21 positions are vacant, leading to wait times of an average of 18 months, up from the last study of the appointments process in 2009

When it comes to filling vacancies, the auditor general flagged the fact that for part-time positions, there was no evidence of a selection process or an assessment of candidates against required qualifications.

In 2016, early last year, the Auditor General, and I would love to read the whole report, but I am not quite sure if there is the appetite for that, found significant failures within departments. I do not want to make this political. There is a huge bureaucracy here. Where it becomes political is what political oversight will do to rectify the problem.

I have had some colleagues ask me if citizenship fraud really is that much of a problem. This was an article which I wanted to find. It is what precipitate us to make some changes in the citizenship, the revocation appeals process.

It is a CBC News article written September 10, 2012. It states that 3,100 citizenships were ordered revoked for immigration fraud. Then the lead was that 19 individuals were stripped so far as Jason Kenney's department investigated some 11,000 cases. The federal government had started the process of revoking the citizenship of 3,100 people suspected of lying to become Canadians. It said:

Speaking at a news conference on Ottawa Monday, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said the federal government is "applying the full strength of Canadian law" to crack down on individuals suspected of obtaining citizenship fraudulently or falsifying information required for permanent residency.

Canadian citizenship is not for sale," Kenney told reporters. "We are taking action to strip citizenship and permanent residence status from people who don't play by the rules and who lie or cheat to become a Canadian citizen."

There are a few other quotes in this article I want to highlight, which state:

This crackdown on fraudulent citizenships is part of an investigation into some 11,000 people who may be lying to apply for citizenship or maintain permanent resident status....Of these, nearly 5,000 people with permanent resident status have been flagged for additional scrutiny should they attempt to enter Canada or obtain citizenship, a departmental release said Monday. The majority of these individuals suspected of residence fraud are believed to be outside the country.

Clearly, fraudulent applications and misrepresentation are not an anomaly in Canada.

There is also a famous case that theNational Post wrote about in 2014. The article is titled, “Blatant lying loses family its citizenship—but earns them a $63K bill from Canadian government” details how a Lebanese family was stripped of its Canadian citizenship, “after they were caught blatantly lying about living in Canada, part of a government crackdown on bogus citizens that could extend to thousands of cases.”

In this case, the family, a father, mother, and their two daughters, signed citizenship forms, claiming they had lived in Canada for almost all of the previous four years when they really lived in United Emirates, a fact posted online in the daughters' public resumés on LinkedIn.

The point I am trying to make is that the amendment brought forward by the Senate, which was debated in the House committee, has significant implications because both the incidence of fraud is high and the Auditor General has found serious deficiencies in the government's ability to detect citizenship fraud.

We have these two issues. We know citizenship fraud happens. We know there are deficiencies in the government's ability to detect it. The government has been silent on what it is doing to address this to date. Why is this important? The amendment would ensure that a court hearing would given to people facing citizenship revocation on the grounds of false representation or fraud. That is from a Globe and Mail article on May 3, 2017.

The next is from a Nation Post article on March 9, 2017, which states, “the amendment requires the immigration minister to inform them of their right to appeal that decision in Federal Court.”

After the government's Bill C-24, revocation processes were streamlined such that people were not automatically granted a right to defend themselves if their citizenship was about to be taken away. That content is from a senate motion aims to restore due process to Liberal citizenship bill.

I will start laying out my argument on why I believe we have a problem here.

Our priority should not be to increase appeal mechanisms for those who have cheated the system to obtain citizenship. This will lead to further backlogs to the already inundated federal court and will cost Canadian taxpayers significantly in order of magnitude to both process and to maintain the benefits of people who are here under fraudulent circumstances.

Already applicants have the right to appeal an IRCC decision in federal court if the immigration department erred in the interpretation and application of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The process of stripping citizenship should be left to officials, not to an arbitrary appeal board.

This is the problem I have, and for all of us who do casework in our office. This could incent someone to lie on his or her application when the focus should be on educating people about the consequences of fraud and how to properly obtain citizenship.

All of us, regardless of party affiliation, have had casework in our offices where people have come and said that their citizenships are being revoked because they lied on their applications. Usually it is a variation on these stories, such as they have received bad information from an immigration consultant to put fraudulent information on the application. In that situation, it is very difficult for members of Parliament to intervene because they lied on their citizenship applications.

The second thing we sometimes hear is that there are extenuating circumstances. For example, people felt they were convicted of crimes in countries where they were fleeing persecution and they felt the courts were corrupt or they were unduly found guilty of crimes that they chose to hide those convictions on their application. After they have been found out about this and their citizenships are at risk of being taken away, they say that their citizenships should not be taken away because of the circumstances in their previous country. In those situations, many of us would say there is a generous and fair process to evaluate their situations, including criminal records if they are truthful on their applications to begin with.

The original amendment from the Senate and the reason why it was not brought forward by the government as an amendment during the House of Commons review at parliamentary committee was that if we put the emphasis on the appeals process and gave people who were cheating the system an additional layer of complexity around appeal, not only were we potentially gumming up our federal court system, but we were telling people not to worry, that if they lied, they had a second chance.

That should not be the message. So many people are coming to Canada. They play by the rules and will be amazing contributors to the Canadian fabric, either our economy or our social fabric. However, the finite resources we have to review applications or the finite resources we have for benefit provisions will be provided to people who have made a conscious choice to provide false information on their citizenship applications.

I understand there are going to be circumstances by which people might hesitate to put something on their applications, but the consequences of lying on their applications are their citizenships could be revoked. That is where we should be spending our time. That is where the government should be focusing its resources, in educating, promoting and saying that if people lie, there are serious consequences and citizenship will be taken away. Not that we are going to have a long appeals process. I think there is cross-party agreement on this.

It was a harrowing committee study on the issue of immigration consultants and some of the fraudulent activity. Some of the testimony was mind-blowing. Many members who listened to it were convinced they had to do something to fix this. While there are many positive, strong immigration consultants, people who give advice for a fee to navigate Canada's immigration system and citizenship process, there are also people who abuse the system. I do not want to send any sort of message to those people that it is somehow okay to provide false information on a citizenship application.

We should think about this. We now have started to say that with this amendment, we will put the focus on the appeals process on the back-end. We know there is a high degree of immigration fraud. We also know the government does not have the capacity or the processes in place to detect fraud. This is a material change to the integrity of our immigration process and the government has been completely silent. To a large extent, the media has also been silent on this. This is a fundamental change to how we operate and what values we place on the process by which we obtain citizenship in Canada.

This amendment and the government's response have unfortunately made further complex and that is because there was a federal court ruling that came out about a month ago related to this situation.

There was a Federal Court ruling that states there is a need for an appeals process in instances of citizenship revocation. However, there are a variety of problems that this ruling could pose, which includes that it could increase backlogs, as I have said, incentivize lying on one's application, and bringing into question whether fraudulent recipients have a right to Canadian citizenship.

In regard to the Federal Court ruling and what it does, the government has now allowed the period of appeal on this Federal Court ruling to expire. The ruling itself essentially said that what was in Bill C-24 was not applicable. It argued that everyone has the right to appeal citizenship revocation. In its 62-page ruling, Justice Jocelyne Gagné found that new provisions, I believe in Bill C-24, violated the Canadian Bill of Rights.

This is interesting. It is violating the Canadian Bill of Rights, not the charter, which is a quasi-constitutional document. The decision affects more than 200 individuals who have lost their Canadian citizenship since May 2015 under this shortened administrative process. Many will now be entitled to full hearings and may be able to get back their revoked citizenship.

The decision addresses eight test cases that challenged the constitutionality of the changes made in May 2015...over alleged lies on their residency or citizenship applications. The changes also barred them from reapplying for Canadian citizenship for 10 years after revocation.

The government had 30 days to appeal this ruling, and the clock ran out late last week. To date, the minister has not appeared before committee or answered in the House as to why the government let the clock run out on this. I believe there is a very strong argument that could be made to appeal this decision. Again, and I have talked to a couple of constitutional lawyers on this, it is really the definition of citizenship. I believe this ruling, and I would love to have a debate with someone on it, is predicated on the notion of the right of Canadian citizenship.

If this decision is predicated upon that understanding, an argument could be made that a citizenship that has been obtained fraudulently was not someone's right to begin with because they obtained it under false circumstances. To apply the logic and notion to making a court ruling that somehow we should be extending rights of a citizen to someone who has obtained their citizenship fraudulently and therefore is having it revoked, I think is grounds for appeal. However, the government has not actually talked about this.

Some people have said that we need to talk about this on compassionate grounds. I think there is a myth out there that there is not already a form of appeal. I am going to quote the current Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. He was at the Senate committee on March 1 of this year. He said, “In fact, the whole point of sending the revocation notice—

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise tonight to debate the amendments to Bill C-6.

I think a lot of Canadians in the last year have realized how important the issue of immigration is to the country, not so much as an if immigration is important conversation but how we do it well. Bill C-6 is the Liberal government's first legislation to deal with immigration. In the ensuing time since Bill C-6 was originally put in front of the House, many issues related to how we do immigration in Canada have come up which the government has not addressed.

To provide context for the Senate amendments, it is first important to paint a picture of how we got here.

There are several components to Bill C-6, including issues which I will speak to at length, issues such as language proficiency for people who seek to become citizens, at what age they become exempt from those requirements and why, the situations and circumstances under which people can have their citizenship revoked and why, and how they are addressed in the bill.

There are other very important components to Bill C-6, but I want to start with restating the position I and my party have on the components of Bill C-6 in its original form.

New Canadians enrich and strengthen our country. Their experiences and perspectives make us stronger. Immigration is an important part of who we are as a nation and the strength of our nation's future. We want newcomers to Canada to have every opportunity to succeed, opportunities for economic success, the experience of our many freedoms, and the experience of safe communities.

We are concerned that the Liberals' first priority, when it came to tabling legislation and public safety legislation, was to effectively give back the citizenship and protect the rights of a committed member of the Toronto 18, Zakaria Amara.

Under the bill, a dual national citizenship cannot be revoked for committing a terrorist act, but can be for fraud. Revocation for obtaining citizenship under fraudulent circumstances is still allowed under the bill, but the amendments would materially impact this component.

The bill would also lower the language requirements for citizenship, but we believe adequate knowledge of either French or English is a key factor in successful integration into our communities and the labour force. Canadian citizenship bestows rights and protections that many foreign nationals do not have. As Canadians, they can vote and seek an elected office. Proficiency in our official languages helps enrich both their experience and our country's future. This again speaks to the residency requirement that has been changed in Bill C-6. These are material changes that Bill C-6 would make to how we would allow immigration in Canada.

The parliamentary committee review on Bill C-6, after it progressed from second reading, gives me cause for alarm on a few things. When we asked for quantitative justification on why some of these changes were made, both the minister and the officials were not able to answer. That is concerning. I do not think we should provide arbitrary justification for changing things such as the age of the language requirement. There should be some justification or rationale given that language is a unifier, for example.

The same thing goes for the residency requirement that has been changed in Bill C-6. I do not know why no justification was given by the minister, officials, etc., on how this would impact the ability of newcomers to Canada to spend time to connect with our country, promoting successful integration, both for the newcomers of Canada, as well as Canadian society as a whole. A lot of testimony was lacking on Bill C-6.

I have followed the progress of this bill through the Senate. I think that the Senate was wise to look through the form and substance and make some changes to it, some that I accept and some that I do not. I also notice that the Liberal government has made changes to some of the amendments that have come forward, and I want to speak to those as well.

Again, the bill was tabled well over a year ago now. In the ensuing time, a lot of things have happened in Canada with regard to immigration. The migrant crisis in the Middle East has escalated. It is now, I would say, a top policy concern, not just for European nations that are being impacted by it but as a humanitarian crisis that impacts every country around the world.

We are having very serious conversations about how many people we allow into the country and under what circumstances. I just feel that as a country, we have not completed the sentence that started with “We are bringing 30,000 Syrian refugees to Canada”, or whatever the number was.

We, in our parliamentary committee, had a very in-depth study on the Syrian refugee initiative, and one of the most moving moments for me in the last year of my parliamentary career was listening to a Syrian refugee talk about not being able to access language training services because of issues such as child care and lack of funding for some of these programs. I was very disheartened when the Calgary Board of Education appeared before that same committee in that same study to talk about how the Calgary Board of Education gladly and with open hearts welcomed several hundred Syrian refugee students—the equivalent, as they said, of an entire new elementary school in the Calgary school system—yet had had no conversation with the minister or with the provincial government on how to address the funding needs that were precipitated by having to address the unique and worthy needs of these students coming into the school system.

We have to understand that many of these children that we welcome into Canada have had very difficult lives. They have grown up in refugee camps. They have fled from their homes. Their education has been interrupted.

I notice that the government's talking points have changed since the campaign, just recently. Until now it has always been about numbers. There is a flip side to that coin, which is how to support these people into success.

The result of that committee study was some very damning testimony on the state of our government's plan to provide support for these refugees. The minister has only appeared before our committee once since he has been appointed. I find that very odd, but when he did appear, we asked a very pointed question about how many government-sponsored Syrian refugees had found employment, and he was not able or willing to answer the question until he was repeatedly put under the gun. It was to the point of my frustration and everyone else's to admit that the government does not have a plan to help refugees integrate with employment or to have an honest conversation to ask, “Should we as a country be expecting Syrian refugees who have lived through this situation to find employment, and if so, what is the cost of that to the Canadian public and how will we pay for it?”

That is not a sexy conversation. It is not one that will sell a campaign slogan very well, but it is one that is worthy. As a legislator I feel a level of responsibility to the people we brought to this country. If their success is not guaranteed or seen through, not only have we failed them, but we have also failed to develop social licence within the Canadian public, writ large, for sustained high levels of refugee admissions, and that is my concern.

When I look at the rhetoric that happened around Brexit, the rhetoric that happened in the American election, I am greatly concerned that unless we have a very difficult and worthy conversation on how we deal with the issues of integration of newcomers to Canada, we will continue to see this type of us-versus-them rhetoric, when in fact there is no “them” anymore. We are a globally integrated community.

We need to have government policy, with honesty in that policy, in order to see success in the long term, and I am not seeing it there.

To go back to Bill C-6, this bill was introduced in the House of Commons and has gone through successive stages of passage without dealing with some of the most pressing issues of our time. Speaking further to the Syrian refugee initiative, I found it very disheartening to spend nearly six months working with members of my caucus to raise attention on the Yazidi genocide. While I realize there are many people in need in the Middle East, surely when a genocide occurs, there are people who require immediate and out-of-the-box-thinking help. The fact that it took us so long to acknowledge the genocide and then to include Yazidi genocide victims as part of our commitment to bringing high levels of refugees to Canada was very disheartening.

I am going to be very blunt. I strongly feel that our process for selecting and prioritizing refugees and internally displaced people for resettlement is flawed. I met with one of the representatives from the United Nations who deals with referrals to Canada through the government-assisted refugee program, and I asked very bluntly, “Why were there zero Yazidi genocide victims referred to Canada as part of the government-assisted refugee program?” I had my staffer in the office, so there were two people there who witnessed this. The answer that came back was essentially that they were under a very severe time crunch from the government to fulfill a quota, and it was easier to refer the people they did. In that moment I wondered, “Are we seeking to do what is easy, or are we seeking to do what is right?”

A process that cannot refer genocide victims to our country for resettlement is flawed. I am not saying it is necessarily the government's fault. It becomes the government's fault when we fail to discuss these issues in a way that seeks justice and beauty in our immigration processes, and there is none of this in any of the government's approach or forward motion on the immigration file.

Since that discussion, it has been interesting to watch the international reaction, because I think that there has been some acknowledgement that the process by which Canada selects refugees to come to our country deserves the scrutiny of Parliament. That has not happened at all, but internationally people are starting to realize that it is a topic worthy of debate.

Right now, we know that there are gay men in Chechnya who have been rounded up and are being placed in concentration camps simply because of their sexual orientation and who they are, and they are being persecuted and tortured. That is wrong. That is a place for Canada to use our refugee resettlement policy as a way to send a strong diplomatic message to states that sanction this activity, yet we have a failure to be able to act. Every single time a situation of urgency like this happens, we should have some sort of mechanism as parliamentarians or within the government to respond to these crises without having to spend opposition day motions and go through political chicanery for months in order to do what is right.

I do not think there is a single person in this place who would disagree with me that we need to be bringing Yazidi genocide victims to Canada under resettlement or that we need to be addressing the issue of gay men being tortured and persecuted in Chechnya or that we need to be addressing the issue of the South Sudanese, which I am sure will be declared a genocide in very short order.

The point is that we do not have a mechanism to deal with this situation. The government comes forward with talking points, saying it relies on the UN to provide lists of refugees to come to Canada. In that case, we should be able to audit those processes. None of that has been discussed in any of the amendments or this bill. It is a glaring gap for me.

I realize we cannot change the bureaucracy of Canada overnight, like the United Nations, so the trick becomes how Canada can exert pressure. There are many worthy things the UN does, but on this issue, it cannot respond quickly enough. The United Nations does not have a nimble way of dealing with the resettlement of internally displaced persons. It does not have a nimble way of referring genocide survivors or people living with the situation in Chechnya to us. That is something we should be asking the United Nations to change.

Where is the government on this issue? It is silent. For a government that purports to be compassionate on refugee resettlement, not using its leadership position to ask these questions, which are not partisan but humanitarian, is a glaring gap. I do not know why we do not have a subcommittee to our parliamentary committee to deal with the issue of internally displaced persons in emergent situations, such as ones in Chechnya or South Sudan.

I have to give credit to the chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration across the aisle, who I felt put partisanship aside and went to bat in his caucus to have a hearing on the Yazidi genocide, which led to action going forward. We should not have to argue over whether we will study something and then study it to death while people are dying when we could have intervened. It is a great frustration and sadness for me. Members of the government have privately talked to me and said it is a frustration for them too, yet the government has refused to act.

My request to the government on this issue is that it put partisanship and the rhetoric of the United Nations aside and say that this needs to change, that we cannot act this way anymore.

The second thing I would like the government to do with regard to refugee resettlement is be honest about the fact that what was said in the campaign was not the reality. I remember television talk show panels and debates on the question of the Syrian refugee crisis, and two things came up. The first was a game of one-upmanship on who was going to bring more people here, which I found deplorable.

I remember being on a panel with former minister McCallum and listening to some of the things he said. He said the initiative was going to cost no more than $250 million within the context of a fully costed platform, and he also made a very clear statement that refugees add to the Canadian economy. They might, but we have seen that many government-assisted refugees who came to Canada under this initiative—I believe the minister said 90%—have not found jobs 13 months after they came to Canada. That number is important because that is when their refugee resettlement funds run out.

The fact that the numbers are so high is at odds with what the then minister said during the campaign. We should have a conversation on whether we expect government-assisted refugees to become employed. Many Canadians would say yes, some Canadians would say no, but regardless of what the government chooses or feels on that question, it needs to be honest with the Canadian public about the cost of integration and support over the long term, and it has not done that. It has not done that to date.

I asked the minister in committee about there being no planning for the cost of social assistance payments for refugees who do not find jobs. That might seem very callous, but the government made a statement during the campaign about the economic impact of refugees. It should have said it was going to be charitable and would support refugees, told us how much it was going to cost, and asked Canada to give it a mandate to do that, but it chose not to.

In doing so, the Liberals off-loaded the cost to provincial governments, including my provincial government, which is having some very tough times right now. Who is left in the lurch on all of this? It is the refugees themselves.

We heard testimony from one Syrian refugee at our committee who said that they were living in a bug-infested apartment. This is not the experience that Canada should be offering to newcomers. We should be talking about things like the cost of affordable housing, the cost of social assistance, and special education for children who have had their education disrupted, yet we are not. This allows the rhetoric of not helping: What about me? What about us?

To be honest, it is the right of Canadian taxpayers to ask how much this is going to cost and why we are doing this. However, we have not had a space to have a public debate on this topic in this place, which is why I am very pleased to stand tonight to finally be able to put this on the record in the House of Commons.

It is very, very frustrating. As the years go by and we follow Syrian refugees, my prayer and hope is that they are going to be successful. However, when I hear numbers like 90% not finding employment after one year, what is the plan? What is the government doing to move them to a place of employment? What about the lack of language training services? What about the fact that there might not be the best alignment in terms of educational systems? The government has not completed the sentence on this project. Moreover, the Liberals have not completed the sentence on this project where they are failing some of the world's most vulnerable, like genocide survivors, or LGBTQ who have been persecuted.

We just underwent a study in committee on how Canada can support LGBTQ refugees. However, there is nothing in the bill or any of the amendments that have dealt with this. The reality is that LGBTQ members of this community are some of the world's most vulnerable and persecuted people. We know there are countries that have state-sanctioned persecution of members of this community.

Our former government started a pilot project that provided assistance to an NGO to prioritize and assist in bringing persecuted members of the LGBTQ community to Canada through our refugee program. However, the current government has not committed to making that an ongoing program to date. Where is that in how we do immigration in Canada? It is nowhere in the bill or in the amendments. Again, the testimony we heard in committee on that issue was heart wrenching. It is one thing to stand and march in a Pride parade in Canada and to acknowledge that we still have work to do at home, but it is another thing entirely to be silent on how Canada is assisting members of this community through formal government policy, including refugee resettlement.

It is not just about refugee resettlement. Whenever we look at international policy related to displaced persons or migrant crises, there is more than just the resettlement component of the policy stool. There is also the question of military intervention, and long-term aid and development, to build civil society and processes by which people can stay in their indigenous homelands, which is certainly something that is a question around genocides. Is resettlement the only option? The government, especially on this issue, has been largely silent. As we said—

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

Madam Speaker, I was certainly very happy to see Bill C-6 tabled for first reading, and am happier now to see it with amendments.

There is another area where the previous government did damage, not for citizens but for people who were on the verge of being deported. The past practice was to deport as soon as was practical. The previous government changed it to deport as soon as is possible. Does the minister plan to turn his attention to protecting people from rapid deportation.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I disagree strongly with the hon. member's contention that the bill would make dramatic changes to the immigration system. In fact, what made dramatic changes to the immigration system was Bill C-24. Bill C-24 introduced barriers to citizenship when the barriers did not exist. Bill C-24 made two-tier citizenship possible in our country, something that is completely unacceptable to the vast majority of Canadians. They feel that two-tier citizenship is the wrong thing to do. Bill C-24 created a system in which people would have to wait longer and jump through so many hoops to become citizens.

Bill C-6 would address those issues and contribute to more integrity within the citizenship system. For the first time, it would empower immigration officers to seize fraudulent documents. I encourage the member opposite to support our amendments.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has been very helpful as we have worked on this issue. I really appreciate his work on the file.

With respect to the collaboration with the Senate on this issue, as a government, we value the work that senators have put into Bill C-6. They have collaborated with us in making the bill stronger with the amendments they have proposed. The conversations we have had about the bill have resulted in a much better and stronger bill. The proposed bill will enable us to continue to remove barriers to citizenship for eligible immigrants. We will continue to have more permanent residents than ever become Canadian citizens and become more attached to our great country, to contribute greatly to our economy, our common prosperity, and to the social cultural mosaic of Canada. I am proud of the work the Senate has done on this file.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the minister on his excellent speech and the wonderful job he has been doing since he was appointed Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Every day I am impressed by how hard he works and, as parliamentary secretary, I am learning a lot from him. I also congratulate him on taking the time to learn a few sentences in French to open and close his speech.

The minister talked about our collaboration with the Senate on Bill C-6, which was very important to our party during the election campaign. Could the minister expand on that?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

moved:

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, the House:

agrees with amendments 1(a), 1(c), 4 and 5 made by the Senate;

proposes that amendments 1(b)(i) and (ii) be amended by replacing the number “60” with the number “55”;

proposes that amendment 1(b)(iii) be amended by replacing the words in paragraph 5(1.04)(a) with the following words “made by a person who has custody of the minor or who is empowered to act on their behalf by virtue of a court order or written agreement or by operation of law, unless otherwise ordered by a court; and”;

proposes that with respect to amendment 2:

the portion of subsection 10(3) before paragraph (a) be amended by deleting the word “revoking” and adding the words “may be revoked” after the words “renunciation of citizenship”;

paragraph 10(3)(d) be amended by replacing all the words after the words “advises the person” to the word “Court.” with the following words “that the case will be referred to the Court unless the person requests that the case be decided by the Minister.”;

the portion of subsection 10(3.1) before paragraph (a) be amended by replacing the word “received,” with the words “sent, or within any extended time that the Minister may allow for special reasons,”;

paragraph 10(3.1)(a) be amended by deleting the words “humanitarian and compassionate” and adding after the words “including any considerations” the words “respecting his or her personal circumstances” and by adding the words “of the case” after the words “all of the circumstances” and by deleting the word “Minister’s” before the words “decision will render the person”;

paragraph 10(3.1)(b) be amended by replacing the words “referred to the Court” with the words “decided by the Minister”;

subsection 10(4.1) be amended by replacing that subsection with the following “(4.1) The Minister shall refer the case to the Court under subsection 10.1(1) unless (a) the person has made written representations under paragraph (3.1)(a) and the Minister is satisfied (i) on a balance of probabilities that the person has not obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances, or (ii) that considerations respecting the person’s personal circumstances warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case; or (b) the person has made a request under paragraph (3.1)(b).”;

subclause 3(4) be amended by deleting all the words beginning with “(4) The Act is amended by adding the following” to the words “under this Act or the Federal Court Act.”;

proposes that amendment 3(a) be amended in subsection 10.1(1) by replacing the words “If a person” with the words “Unless a person”;

proposes that with respect to amendment 3(b):

subsection 10.1(4) be amended by replacing all the words beginning with “If the Minister seeks a declaration” and ending with the words “knowingly concealing material circumstances.” with the words “For the purposes of subsection (1), if the Minister seeks a declaration that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances, with respect to a fact described in section 34, 35 or 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Minister need prove only that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances.”;

by deleting subsection 10.1(5);

proposes that amendment 6(a) be amended by replacing clause 19.1 with the following “19.1(1) Any decision that is made under subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act as it read immediately before the day on which subsection 3(2) comes into force and that is set aside by the Federal Court and sent back for a redetermination on or after that day is to be determined in accordance with that Act as it reads on that day. (2) A proceeding that is pending before the Federal Court before the day on which subsection 3(2) comes into force as a result of an action commenced under subsection 10.1(1) of the Citizenship Act is to be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with that Act as it read immediately before that day.”;

proposes that amendment 6(b) be amended by replacing clause 20.1 with the following “20.1 If, before the day on which subsection 3(2) comes into force, a notice has been given to a person under subsection 10(3) of the Citizenship Act and a decision has not been made by the Minister before that day, the person may, within 30 days after that day, request to have the matter dealt with and disposed of as if the notice had been given under subsection 10(3) of that Act as it reads on that day.”;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 7 because it would give permanent resident status to those who acquired that status fraudulently;

proposes that amendment 8 be amended by replacing all the words after “(3.1) Subsections” with the following words “3(2) and (3) and 4(1) and (3) and section 5.1 come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”.

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the amendments to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the senators for all of the work they put into Bill C-6 and the amendments that we are considering today. Our government feels that the collaborative work of the senators has made Bill C-6 stronger. In that spirit, our government agrees with the principles behind two of the amendments. I will now detail in my remarks how we also propose some further adjustments.

I would like to emphasize that Bill C-6 reflects the government's commitment to fostering a diverse, fair, and inclusive country. We know from decades of experience that immigrants who become Canadian citizens are more likely to achieve greater economic success in this country, and to make greater contributions to Canadian society, thereby contributing to our common prosperity.

Furthermore, we know that a significant predictor of successful integration outcomes is the attainment of Canadian citizenship. Historically, a very high proportion of newcomers to Canada have become Canadian citizens. It goes without saying that this integration not only benefits the lives of those newcomers who end up becoming new Canadians but makes our country more diverse, inclusive, and fair.

I am sure that all of my colleagues would agree that Canada is strong because of the diversity of Canadians, and that we are diverse because of our country's long-standing embrace, and kind and welcoming nature for newcomers. It is in that spirit that Bill C-6 proposes changes that will remove barriers to citizenship for eligible immigrants. This will encourage their sense of belonging and attachment to this country. We want to ensure that the citizenship process is fair, robust, and flexible, because we place the highest value on Canadian citizenship.

Following third reading of Bill C-6, the Senate has returned three amendments to the House of Commons. These include changing the upper age for citizenship language and knowledge requirements to 59 years; allowing minors to obtain citizenship, as of right, without having a Canadian parent, and without the necessity of applying to the minister for a waiver; and changing the citizenship revocation model so that the Federal Court will be the decision-maker in most cases where citizenship was acquired fraudulently.

I will use the remainder of my time to discuss the government's response to these Senate amendments.

The government does not support raising the upper age limit for language and knowledge requirements to 59. This amendment is not in line with the intent of Bill C-6 to facilitate citizenship to eligible immigrants. Reducing the age range for language and knowledge requirements to 18 to 54 years of age does not weaken Canadian citizenship and its value. In fact, the acquisition of Canadian citizenship contributes to a greater sense of belonging and attachment to our great country. We believe in the importance of having adequate knowledge of Canada's official languages, and a knowledge and understanding of the privileges and responsibilities associated with Canadian citizenship. That is why adults aged 18 to 54 years of age will still be required to show evidence of proficiency in English or French, to demonstrate knowledge of Canada, and to pass a citizenship test.

However, the government understands that for younger and older applicants, this can be a barrier to citizenship. Therefore, Bill C-6 returns the age for language and knowledge requirements back to 18 to 54 years of age. By doing so, Bill C-6 will reduce barriers to citizenship by allowing applicants to achieve citizenship faster and contribute to Canada's economic, social, and cultural growth. Older applicants aged 55 years or older will still be able to access services that will enable them to become more integrated into Canadian society.

The second Senate amendment would make it easier for minors to obtain citizenship, as of right, without a Canadian parent. Overall, we support this amendment. This is consistent with the government's intent to facilitate citizenship for eligible immigrants and with our commitment to remove barriers to citizenship, especially for the most vulnerable.

The government supports this amendment with a technical modification to ensure greater clarity around who can apply and of this concept. The concept of a de facto guardian is unclear in the Senate amendment. Therefore, the government is proposing alternative language to clarify and provide greater clarity to this. This amendment would come into force upon royal assent.

The government also supports, with amendment, the third Senate amendment to enhance the citizenship revocation model. The Senate's amendment provides that all individuals would have the option to request that their case be referred to the Federal Court for a decision. The minister would only decide on revocation cases if individuals do not request that their case be referred to the Federal Court or if the individuals do not respond.

The government's amendments include, first, further narrowing the minister's authority to revoke citizenship to only those cases in which the individual expressly requests a decision by the minister; second, ensuring individuals are able to seek leave to the Federal Court for judicial review of the minister's decision; third, rejecting the part of the amendment that would allow individuals to retain permanent resident status despite having acquired citizenship fraudulently; and fourth, rejecting the part of the amendment that would allow actions taking place after the obtainment of citizenship to be considered in revocation decisions.

For context, since the current revocation decision-making model was introduced in 2015, the minister has been the decision-maker on most cases involving fraud or misrepresentation, especially involving residence, criminality, and identity issues. The Federal Court has been the decision-maker on more serious cases involving fraud or misrepresentation involving human rights violations and organized criminality. Prior to the current model, the Governor in Council made all the decisions in these kinds of cases.

I would also like to point out that individuals who had their citizenship revoked due to fraud or misrepresentation will revert back to permanent resident status if the fraud or misrepresentation occurred during the citizenship process, and will revert to being a foreign national if the fraud or misrepresentation occurred during the immigration process. For those who revert to permanent resident status, which is more than 70% of cases, these people would still be eligible to reapply for Canadian citizenship after 10 years, provided that they continue to meet the requirements.

The amendment to the decision-making model would ensure that there is still judicial oversight of revocation decisions as well as enhancing greater procedural protections. Our government has said in the past that we were open to considering how we can further enhance the citizenship revocation process. My hon. colleagues in the Senate have proposed a model that, with some modifications, will achieve just that.

In terms of timelines, the amendments to the citizenship revocation model would come into force at a later date to be determined by the Governor in Council. This will allow time for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada as well as the Federal Court to put in place the necessary procedures.

To reiterate, the government is committed to building a Canada that is both diverse and inclusive. The story of immigration and the story of citizenship is the story of Canada and we want to continue to make sure that those two stories remain intertwined. Whether newcomers arrive as refugees, family members, or economic immigrants, the contributions that they make to this country, and the generations that follow them, will be important.

We want to encourage our diversity and take steps to ensure that the path to citizenship remains flexible and fair, but also robust, because we want to encourage all Canadians to take pride in being Canadian. That is the guiding principle behind the government's position with respect to the Senate's amendments. We firmly believe that by removing barriers to citizenship and helping newcomers achieve citizenship, our government is contributing to such a future, and by doing that we will be fostering a greater attachment to Canada.

Canadians are proud of our country and of our tradition of welcoming immigrants. We help them settle, integrate, and succeed in Canada. This has been our past, our present, and our future. The importance of diversity can sometimes be taken for granted, but there is no doubt that we are a better country because of it. Our government is committed to building on that success.

We are committed to encouraging all immigrants to take the path to full membership in Canadian society. One of the strongest pillars, one of the strongest indicators of the successful integration outcome is obtaining Canadian citizenship. Bill C-6 would help us ensure that Canada remains the strong, inclusive, and diverse country that it is.

In closing, the government's position is as follows. We do not support changing the upper age for citizenship language and knowledge requirements to 59 years of age. We support, with modification, the amendment that would make it easier for children to apply, as of right, for citizenship without a Canadian parent, and we support, with modification, the amendment to change the citizenship revocation model so that the Federal Court becomes the decision-maker in most revocation cases related to fraud or misrepresentation.

We remain committed to the timely passage of Bill C-6, and as Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, I encourage all members of the House to support the government's position with respect to the Senate's amendments.

I appreciated the opportunity to speak to the Senate amendments today.

A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

In the words of our Prime Minister, our government firmly believes that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate we began this morning on the NDP opposition day motion.

This evening, we will return to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act. Following that, we will begin second reading of Bill C-50 on political financing.

Tomorrow will be dedicated to debating Bill C-44 on the budget.

As for next week, our hope is to make progress on a number of bills, including Bill C-6 concerning citizenship; Bill C-50 respecting political financing; Bill C-49, transportation modernization; and Bill S-3, amendments to the Indian Act.

Finally, next Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday shall be allotted days.

As the member very well knows, I always look forward to working with all members. I look forward to continuing our conversation.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservative's opposition motion. This evening, we will proceed with Bill C-45, the cannabis act, at second reading.

Tomorrow morning, we will commence report stage of Bill C-44, the budget. In the afternoon, we will return to Bill C-45.

Our hope for Monday and Tuesday is to send Bill C-45 to committee, and also to deal with report stage of Bill C-44. Other bills for next week include the Senate amendments to Bill C-6, the Citizenship Act; and Bill S-3, provided the bill is passed by the Senate.

Should time permit, we would also like some debate on Bill C-49, transportation modernization; and Bill C-24, to amend the Salaries Act.

We have had a conversation among House leaders. I look forward to continuing those conversations, and I will do my best to report to this House the information that I have, and we will do our best to work well together so that all members can do the good work that we are sent here to do.

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

First of all, Mr. Chair, I want to express my deep respect for Ms. Kwan. I find that even though we don't agree—and we agree on much actually; I find it surprising sometimes—she always comes to committee very prepared and what she says is well thought out. When she moves amendments on bills or different pieces of committee studies, they're very rational, and it's a nice bridge to where I want to go with my remarks.

My intent was not to misrepresent Ms. Kwan, and I don't think I did, but I'm glad she clarified. It was more to show that the matter that's before us with regard to the Federal Court ruling from Justice Gagné on the appeals process and the amendments that we are going to be dealing with in Bill C-6 that have come back from the Senate have wide-ranging implications both for people who are using our immigration system as well as those who might be impacted by delays in the review process. This is a matter of real import. It's something on which our committee time should be prioritized given the fact that the clock is ticking on this.

One of the challenges we have as parliamentarians is that we only have a finite amount of time in committee. Certainly Atlantic Canadian immigration is one of many issues that come before us, but there are times when the committee has to say.... Certainly with this case, the minister has made no attempt to provide rationale on some significantly weighty matters. Ms. Kwan outlined her rationale for some of the things that she would like to see, and it's her job as an opposition member, just as it is mine, to hold the government to account. I would like to remind government members, as well, that it is their job, if they don't hold a government appointment and are part of the government, to also hold the government to account. I would like to think that we can do something that resembles work with regard to this topic. I would like to see us ask the minister...I'd love for Ms. Kwan to actually ask the minister where he is with some of those points.

The point I'm trying to make today is not necessarily to build an argument one way or another, although I would like to do that at some point. My point is that I don't have the information to be able to do that because I don't understand what the minister has done, for example, in response to the Auditor General's findings. I don't understand or know what advice he's being given in terms of potential appeals grounds. I don't understand the reason there are fundamental system flaws in the IRCC that have not been addressed over the last two years, especially since this amendment is not a surprise, I don't think. Ms. Kwan talked about the fact that she raised it, and it's been a topic of discussion in the Senate for over a year now, since that's come up. Yet we've heard nothing from the minister on this, absolutely nothing.

I know that the minister is new, and I know that he's busy, but this is a matter that Parliament is seized with. This is something that is of immediate and urgent import and certainly—I'm not sure about Ms. Kwan—I'm happy to sit at meetings during the summer if necessary to look at other matters of urgent import, as we did last summer.

There have been allegations, Mr. Chair. When opposition members raise notices of motion, somehow I've heard some of my colleagues say that it is a waste of time. I find that to be such an arrogant comment, and I would like to think that my colleagues in this room are beyond that, because it's very important—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

My colleague is giving a lengthy opinion about the motion, and my name was mentioned a couple of times in her speech. I just want to make sure that my privilege has not been violated, so I want to clarify on the record the points that were made with reference to where my name was mentioned.

On the first point, the issue of an amendment was raised. An amendment was moved with respect to Bill C-6 to ensure that there would be due process for people whose citizenship would be revoked because of misrepresentation or fraud.

I feel very strongly that people should have the right to due process and to appeal that process. My amendment to Bill C-6 was to restore that process, which I fully support. However, my amendment was not supported and was ruled out of order, so I just want to state clearly in reference to that what my position is, which is to absolutely support a process for appeal that takes into consideration humanitarian and compassionate reasons and extenuating circumstances.

As I understand it, through the Senate there is an amendment to Bill C-6 that brings back an iteration of due process embedded in that. When and if that comes before the House of Commons, if the government decides to bring that forward, to be clear, that's something I do support. That's my view on that.

Again, I just want to clarify to make sure that my privilege has not been violated. My second point is on my view on appeals with respect to bad actors in the consulting industry.

Absolutely, when we were talking about the study that we had embarked on, we heard a lot of witnesses who talked about abuses in the system. We heard that there are consultants, ghost consultants or otherwise, who sometimes provide misinformation about their client's application, and sometimes that misinformation is provided unbeknownst to the applicant. They don't even know about it, but when that happens, it is actually the applicant who is penalized for that.

Hence, I would say that an appeal process is absolutely critical, because they need the opportunity to say, “Actually, that's misrepresentation that was put forward for me, unbeknownst to me.” This may be because they are not familiar with the system, because they don't really know how the process works, or because they have language difficulties. It could be for a whole variety of reasons. On that point, it is absolutely essential that we have an appeal system in place.

Mr. Chair, I want to make it clear where I stand on that. It is not the applicant who should be penalized for that. It is the bad consultants who should take the hit on that, and right now our system fails at that, which is what our previous study was all about.

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

I should say, Mr. Chair, that I didn't actually ask for the witnesses to leave. If you had asked me to cede the floor to them, I perhaps would have done that, but I will note that you did ask them to leave. With that, perhaps I will take up a little more time.

In terms of the rationale for appealing this ruling, I'd like to hear the minister's rationale one way or the other. I know the Senate had a very robust debate on whether or not this amendment should be put forward. Ms. Kwan has raised it here. I'm of the opinion that perhaps it shouldn't happen, but the article I'm going to refer to was posted on September 10, 2012, on CBC. The article has the headline “3,100 citizenships ordered revoked for immigration fraud”, and states:

The federal government has started the process of revoking the citizenship of 3,100 people suspected of lying to become Canadians. Speaking at a news conference on Ottawa Monday, [then] Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said the federal government is “applying the full strength of Canadian law” to crack down on individuals suspected of obtaining citizenship fraudulently or falsifying information required for permanent residency. “Canadian citizenship is not for sale,” Kenney told reporters. “We are taking action to strip citizenship and permanent resident status from people who don't play by the rules and who lie or cheat to become a Canadian citizen.”

Further on, the article states:

This crackdown on fraudulent citizenships is part of an investigation into some 11,000 people who may be lying to apply for citizenship or maintain permanent resident status. Of these, nearly 5,000 people with permanent resident status have been flagged for additional scrutiny should they attempt to enter Canada or obtain citizenship, a departmental release said Monday.

Fraudulent applications and misrepresentations are not an anomaly in Canada. My worry is that, if the government does not appeal this ruling, there will be an incentive for this trend to continue. I'd like the minister to come to committee to discuss whether or not he has considered that and what steps he would put in place to ensure that this doesn't continue to happen should the government decide not to appeal the ruling. My sense is that it's going to be very difficult for the government to deal with that particular trend should they not appeal this ruling.

There's another article that came out in 2014. It has the headline “Blatant lying loses family its citizenship — but earns them a $63K bill from Canadian government”. It provided details about a family that was stripped of their Canadian citizenship after they were caught blatantly lying about living in Canada. In this case, as the article states:

The family — a father, mother, and their two daughters — signed citizenship forms claiming they lived in Canada for almost all of the previous four years when they really lived in the United Arab Emirates, a fact even posted online in the daughters' public résumés on LinkedIn.

There's a body of evidence that our former government used to make changes to this process and it shows that instances of lying to gain citizenship are not a rarity.

Now, here's the real kicker. Part of the reason that the minister needs to come to committee is that he has not yet addressed the findings of the Auditor General's report in 2016. For those of you who aren't familiar, what I'm concerned about is that, if the minister doesn't appear before committee before he makes this decision about whether or not to appeal the ruling, he actually also has not publicly addressed many of the findings in the Auditor General's report in 2016 around fraud. I will highlight what some of those were. This is from an article in The Globe and Mail published on Tuesday, May 3, 2016:

Canada's Immigration Department did not properly detect and prevent citizenship fraud, resulting in the review of about 700 cases as of January, according to Auditor-General Michael Ferguson's spring report. The report, tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday, found a number of concerns in the citizenship program affecting the department's ability to prevent fraud, including the absence of a method to identify and document fraud risks. “We concluded that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's efforts to detect and prevent citizenship fraud were not adequate,” Mr. Ferguson said at a news conference on Tuesday. “These gaps make it difficult for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to assess the impacts of its efforts to combat citizenship fraud.”

According to the report, which covered the period between July, 2014, and October, 2015, the most common reasons for revoking citizenship are residency and identity fraud, and undeclared criminal proceedings. The report found that citizenship officers did not consistently apply the department's methods to identify and prevent fraud when dealing with suspicious immigration documents, such as altered passports. For example, in one region, citizenship officers have not seized any suspicious documents for in-depth analysis since at least 2010. It was also found that citizenship officers did not have the information they needed to properly identify “problem addresses” when making decisions to grant citizenship. Problem addresses are those known or suspected to be associated with fraud, and used by citizenship applicants to meet residency requirements. Mr. Ferguson cited an example where one address was not identified as a problem, even though it was used by 50 applicants, seven of whom were granted Canadian citizenship. He said the fact that it was so simple for his office to find that example is concerning. “The steps that we took to try to identify cases of citizenship fraud were not complicated. We're not talking here about indications necessarily of very sophisticated fraud. So it was fairly simple for us to find these 50 cases and fundamentally I think that means it's 50 cases too many,” Mr. Ferguson told reporters. NDP MP David Christopherson questioned how the government missed the 50 cases. “It strikes the common-sense chord in people,” Mr. Christopherson said. “I think the average Canadian would think with the technology we have these days, you have nothing in place at all that raises a red flag with that?” The problem was further complicated by poor information sharing with the RCMP, which provides information about criminal behaviour among permanent residents, and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), which leads investigations of citizenship fraud....

Usually, once a scathing report like this comes out, the minister would issue a response. I did look for that. On the Government of Canada's news web page you can find the following quote from the former minister, John McCallum, in response to the Auditor General's report. He said:

“We have thoroughly reviewed all cases flagged by the Office of the Auditor General to determine if citizenship fraud may have occurred. As a result, we've opened investigations toward possible citizenship revocation from about a dozen individuals.” “IRCC has a number of different ways of detecting and preventing fraud, in addition to those that the Auditor General focused upon. As well, we are continuously looking for ways to improve fraud detection and prevention processes in all of our programs.”

This came out, I think, about a year ago—actually over a year ago. Now we're faced with staring down the barrel of this ruling that has come up from the Federal Court, and with a very fast-ticking clock on whether or not the government is going to appeal it. The problem is, this is the last that I think we've heard from an immigration minister on addressing those fundamental challenges that were identified in the Auditor General's report.

If we are not going to appeal this ruling and allow this appeals process to happen, essentially my concern is that the government has really not done anything to address the prevention of fraud. We risk incenting people to lie on their applications, as they would have a drawn-out appeals process to go through. But we've also done nothing to prevent or ensure that we're detecting cases of fraud at the front end.

To me, the fact that the minister has not answered any questions in this regard and is about to make a decision that's not only pertinent to several levels of government process but also to amendments to a bill that the government has signalled they're going to be debating in the House of Commons, I actually think it's an abdication of responsibility. The fact that we're even here whatsoever and we're still getting pat answers in the House of Commons from the minister or his parliamentary secretary, I'm not sure what that is.

The last thing that I think parliamentarians want to hear, Mr. Chair, is the minister either just letting the time pass and not making any remarks about it or at some point just announcing a press conference down the road that, oh, they went one way or the other. We want to know why, especially in light of these findings, and how the government is going to address it should they choose to allow the ruling to stand.

I think it makes it clear that even the former minister was willing to admit that fraudulent applications were a problem. They continue to be a real threat to the system if proper mechanisms are not in place to stop these incidences. I would really like to know from the minister what he's done to address this prior to making my decision on whether or not to oppose the government's decision to appeal or not appeal one way, or certainly before I take a position in the House of Commons on the amendments to Bill C-6.

I've given you plenty of evidence to indicate that fraudulent applications and misrepresentations on documents is a real problem that exists in Canada. My Liberal colleagues may now be wondering why this Federal Court ruling on the need for an appeals process would incentivize lying on one's application. I've made a fairly strong claim there, and I'd like to walk them through some of the logic for that. I'd certainly like to have the minister come back to committee so that we can ask him how he feels about some of these assumptions.

Think of it this way. If you know that your application as a newcomer to Canada was more likely to be accepted if certain elements of your personal story were negated, exaggerated, or falsified, and if you knew that, even if the government figured this out after you were granted citizenship, there was still an appeals process to make your place, would this appeal option not provide you with some sort of incentive to make the faulty claim? I think we all know the answer to this question, and while we want to believe that everyone seeking to come to Canada is doing it through legitimate and legal means, we must ensure there are mechanisms in place in order to deter actions that could undermine the integrity of our immigration system.

I think that there is enough evidence to suggest that the Federal Court ruling will, to some extent, incentivize lying on one's application. This is a serious issue that the committee must consider prior to looking at the amendments to Bill C-6, but also, looking at our duties—I don't believe that anyone in this room has a government appointment—it's the responsibility of all of us, regardless of partisan stripe, to hold the government to account.

Further on this point, when you talk about the incentivization to lie, my colleague Ms. Kwan highlighted some very good points. When we were debating the original Bill C-6, we heard testimony about people who had been told by immigration consultants to lie on their application. I believe that was the testimony. There were some people who were saying we might need an appeals process if somebody was convicted of a crime, as an example, in a country where they felt that the system was corrupt or there was some sort of corruption involved in their ruling to which they would have no recourse. I'd like to hear from the minister directly on that particular assertion.

My experience as a member of Parliament has been that people who have come to my office in situations like this, where they've said they had an unjust court ruling, is that it's difficult for us as members of Parliament to help them because they lied on their application to begin with, right? We often say it's very difficult for us, and we encourage people to be truthful. What I would like to see the minister's opinion on is how the government plans to incent people to be truthful.

Let's say the person in the situation that I just outlined hadn't admitted the detail of a conviction, but had put what the extenuating circumstances were on their original application. We know that our process looks at extenuating circumstances. While there's no guarantee that somebody is going to be granted citizenship, the point that we want to make is to be truthful and to play by the rules.

I am very worried that the minister has not spoken yet on what this ruling could mean. The minister did at committee—I believe it was at the Senate—say that he was going to entertain this amendment. Now, in light of this ruling, I'm not quite sure what's going to happen.

I would like to talk a bit more about something else I'd like to hear from the minister on. I'd like to continue on the gaps the Auditor General found.

I think this does provide further justification to revoke citizenship from fraudulent applicants and to deter lying. I'd like to know if the minister welcomed the finding of the Auditor General, who highlighted serious gaps in the government's ability to enforce the existing citizenship requirements that are needed to keep Canadians safe and uphold the integrity and value of Canadian citizenship.

I would like to know what the minister has done in terms of working with his colleague the Minister of Public Safety to deal with the particular recommendation around the lack of information sharing between the RCMP and CBSA with IRCC, especially since comprehensive memoranda of understanding currently exist to facilitate information sharing. It would be one thing if the minister came to committee and said, “Well, we already have the legislative mechanisms in place”, or “We need to fix the legislative mechanisms”, but we know that there are memoranda of understanding in place to do that; it's just the process isn't working.

This is concerning, but it's also something that we must discuss with the minister if he gives insight that the government is not planning on appealing the Federal Court ruling. Again, this is one of many reasons that I'm asking for the minister to appear before committee.

In terms of the updates that were made to the Citizenship Act by our former government, it actually had not been updated for over 37 years, which is my ripe old age. We feel and I feel that it strengthened the value of Canadian citizenship by providing a balanced set of reforms that demonstrated respect for rights, duties, privileges, and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. However, without an appeal to the Federal Court on this ruling, the safeguards in place to deter fraudulent applications could be weakened.

There's further commentary on some of the gaps that have been identified by the Auditor General, which I believe the minister should discuss in front of committee prior to making this decision: “People with serious criminal records and others using potentially phoney addresses are among those who managed to secure Canadian citizenship, thanks to a system that doesn't do enough to root out fraud”, the Auditor General has found. Again, this audit between July 2014 and last fall, which was 2016, found that the Immigration department has granted citizenship based on incomplete information or without all the necessary checks, because it's not applying its own methods to combat fraud.

The issue isn't the department's alone. Again, this is where I would want to know if the minister has talked to his colleague in Public Safety. The Auditor General found that they weren't getting timely or enough information from border officials, or the RCMP either, to help flag suspect cases. Mr. Ferguson wrote in his spring 2016 report:

This finding matters because ineligible individuals may obtain Canadian citizenship and receive benefits to which they are not entitled. Revoking citizenship that should not have been granted takes significant time and money.

The problems range from immigration officials not routinely checking travel documents against a database of known fake papers, to a failure by officers or their computers to flag problematic addresses that could point to residency fraud. In one instance, it took seven years for officials to catch on to the fact that a single address had been used by 50 different applicants over different time periods.

There was an Order Paper question submitted by my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola back on December 7, 2016. The response to this Order Paper question is something I think the minister should respond to in light of this decision he's about to make. This response particularly concerns me, as it details how the department does not maintain centralized data on all cases where fraud has been detected. Without this information, I think it's vital for the minister to appear before us to answer whether or not he is appealing the Federal Court decision. Specifically, we need to know this because if the minister indicates that the government is not appealing the Federal Court ruling, then we need to know what the government's plan is to deal not only with these gaps but also with the fact that data on fraud is not even being tracked.

Again, going to the Order Paper question, there were several questions asked. The first one was, “How many cases of citizenship fraud have been uncovered?” This is the response, which is quite shocking:

The Department does not maintain centralized data on all cases where fraud may have been detected, nor can it generate this Information from existing systems.

Should the government allow this ruling to stand and not appeal it, and I think there are grounds to appeal it, how is the minister possibly going to reconcile that ruling with that particular statement? That's a great question for him that he could answer here at committee.

The response to the Order Paper question continues:

Fraud may be detected in the initial citizenship application, at any point after citizenship has been granted, and may be raised by citizenship officers, by other staff in the context of related applications, or by partners as part of large scale investigations, for example. When a citizenship officer discovers that an applicant has misrepresented material facts in their applications, they may refuse the applicant for misrepresentation and the individual is barred from reapplying for citizenship for five years. Since this new authority was introduced in the Citizenship Act in May 2015, at least 100 individuals have been refused on this ground. Where citizenship officers uncover fraud that may be part of a larger organized fraud activity, the information may be conveyed to enforcement partners for further action. In these cases, when the enforcement partners (RCMP and CBSA), take on the investigation, IRCC will assist them and carry out activities....

This is important, especially in light of the testimony that we've just heard on immigration consultants. That particular study is slightly out of scope. The congruency is that there are complexities and silos and a lack of accountability across what are deemed here as enforcement partners, not only on detecting and dealing with cases of immigration consultant fraud, but also fraud on citizenship applications.

Again, my worry is that the minister is just going to let this deadline pass and not say anything about it, and then not speak to the fact that there is a fundamental problem with how these cases are tracked and how that interaction between enforcement partners actually functions.

If we as parliamentarians don't hold the minister to account for that.... We may see significant and additional serious cases of fraud if we're not putting the minister's feet to the fire to ensure that those processes are put into place prior to effectively going out with a whimper.

The question on the Order Paper also asked, “Which country of origin has had the highest level of citizenship fraud?” This is a very interesting question in terms of policy. I'm going to get to that, but this is the response from the department:

Per answer (a), the Department does not maintain centralized data to capture and report on citizenship fraud by country of origin.

The minister needs to come here, because when you think about that, everything we just heard in the immigration consultant study—and certainly processes that would have to be put in place to deter people from lying on their applications to begin with—means that we should be targeting our resources at countries where we see a high incidence of immigration fraud.

We should be going to those countries and working through diplomatic channels, through our embassies, and through officials on the ground there to put together awareness plans to make sure that it's not happening through immigration consultants or bad advice, and to figure out what's actually going on. We need to see why we're seeing that spike, or not, from different countries.

The fact that the department doesn't maintain centralized data to capture and report on citizenship fraud by country of origin, and that we're staring down the barrel of this ruling, doesn't bode well. The minister should come to committee to discuss his plans for that.

The next question was, “What type of fraud is the most common?” The response was:

The most common type of fraud is residence fraud where individuals falsified or simulated their residence in Canada during the relevant period, often through the use of consultant services.

If the minister is not going to appeal the ruling, or if he is, there is a direct intersection between the recommendations that we would be looking at with the immigration consultant study, but more importantly with Bill C-6 coming back to the House. The bill actually shortens the residency requirement in Canada.

The fact that IRCC has flagged residence fraud as probably one of the most common types of fraud.... Think about the math on that. Bill C-6, when passed by the Liberal majority, is going to shorten the residency requirement. We know from this Order Paper question that residence fraud is one of the largest instances of fraud, and then the ruling is going to allow for an appeals process. That is a confluence that one could logically assume would allow and incentivize people to lie on their citizenship application.

I implore you to bring the minister to committee to answer questions around how they're going to deal with that problem should they choose not to appeal the ruling.

My colleague, Mr. Albas, then asked, “How many of these cases have resulted in a deportation order?” The department talked about the process there, but again, what is interesting is that I don't think there is a lot of information in the Canadian public, or certainly in the international community, on what happens should you lie on your citizenship application. I'd like the minister to explain the efforts he's made or plans to make in light of these rulings, to strengthen the international community's understanding of that particular process.

It's very clear. There are gaps in our system that were previously identified by the Auditor General, and that's why it's so important for the minister to appear before our committee to testify on whether or not they will be appealing the Federal Court ruling. If we don't have this information, it will be difficult for us as policy-makers to adequately assess Bill C-6 in accordance with these previously identified gaps and determine whether the integrity of our citizenship process is being upheld.

The other thing I would really like to get the minister's opinion on is how his department officials, or any of the government lawyers that have been advising on this, interpret what is part of the core of the ruling, on the notion that citizenship is a right in this case. I think anybody listening to this today would be very interested.

How I read this and how certain people read Justice Gagné's ruling is that it's predicated upon this notion that citizenship is a right.

Chris Alexander, my former colleague and former minister, said that citizenship is not a right, that it's a privilege. Just to expound upon that, I would argue that—and I would love to see if the minister's lawyers have advised him the same—if you have obtained your citizenship through fraudulent means, it is not a right because you did not obtain it properly to begin with. There have been some quotes from stakeholder groups to this effect.

In May 2014, a spokesperson for Immigrants for Canada said about citizenship, “Immigrants for Canada holds that citizenship in Canada is a privilege. To that end, we believe that it should be available to all, but provided to those who have earned it.”

I think at the core of this ruling we have changed what “earned it” means. I would really like to know if the minister agrees with that particular notion, because it fundamentally changes our understanding of the value of Canadian citizenship.

The same spokesperson, Mr. Paul Attia, said, I believe at that same meeting, “With respect to revocation, in principle and based on our organization's view that citizenship is a privilege, we strongly support the notion of revocation of citizenship...for obtaining citizenship via fraud.” I think this ruling has an impact on that. He also said, “But we at Immigrants for Canada view citizenship like being a member of a team. Everyone has the opportunity and the chance to try out for that team, but you have to meet certain requirements.”

Mr. Chair, I would like to know if the minister agrees with that statement or not. I know we've had very heated arguments on both sides of the issue on whether or not citizenship should be revoked in the instances of convictions of terrorism, but I thought there was near unanimity that citizenship should be revoked in cases where there are clear instances of fraud.

My concern is that we will incent people to mislead or put misleading information on their application, and it could be at the advice of immigration consultants who are not scrupulous. That is not true. I think that actually devalues Canadian citizenship.

I've given many of my own quotes here, but I would to try to persuade my Liberal colleagues with some of the words of their own ministers.

In an article in The Hill Times on October 20, 2016, titled “McCallum doesn't want to let fraudsters 'off the hook' through moratorium on citizenship revocation”, the former minister makes it clear that fraudulent applications are not entitled to citizenship. There's an important section from that article I would like to bring to your attention. In a written statement provided to the The Hill Times, Mr. McCallum's office said that:

the recent increase in citizenship revocations is the result of large-scale fraud investigations led by our RCMP and [Canada Border Services Agency] partners that began under the former Conservative government. These investigations led to criminal convictions of several immigration consultants, and notices of intent to revoke citizenship were sent to their clients who had provided fraudulent documents to suggest they were living in Canada when they were living abroad, in order to gain citizenship. Others changed their identity in order to hide criminal backgrounds.

Here's the close. Here's the big finale for my Liberal colleagues, “These applicants were never entitled to Canadian citizenship.”

Those are the words of our former Immigration minister, John McCallum. Mr. McCallum and I had a boisterous and good relationship. I had the honour of giving him a goodbye speech in the House of Commons. It was one of the highlights of my parliamentary career. I only hope I get one as boisterous as that. I'm sure many people in this room would love to do that at some point.

John McCallum said that these applicants were never entitled to Canadian citizenship. I would like to know if the current immigration minister sees things the same way.

If John McCallum can say that people who have their citizenship revoked due to fraud, he is saying that the fundamental core of this ruling, which is that people are entitled to citizenship, ergo they're entitled to a long, drawn-out appeals process.... There's a dichotomy there. I would hope that Mr. McCallum's understanding of this principle has spread to our new minister and that departmental officials, lawyers from the Government of Canada, are giving him the advice to take the spirit of that statement from the former minister, John McCallum, apply it, and appeal this ruling.

I want to go back to the argument and flesh it out a bit more. Should the government decide not to appeal this ruling, based on the statement that we need to have some drawn-out appeals process and that the appeals process isn't working, I would like to get the minister's feedback on how he feels the current system of appeals is working.

I'm going to use current Minister Hussen's own words from a Senate committee meeting on March 1, 2017. I think there was a line of questioning leading up to the amendment that we now see in amended Bill C-6. He said:

In fact, the whole point of sending the revocation notice to the affected party is to allow the party to gather information and provide any personal circumstances to the decision maker so that the decision maker takes those personal circumstances into consideration, which would include humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

He has, then, already commented on the efficacy of the current process. If he chooses not to appeal this ruling, why, given that statement at the Senate committee?

When asked about whether the person has the right to counsel, Minister Hussen noted:

Absolute right to counsel. The written submissions and the case, you're allowed to use counsel. There's no prohibition...[to] having counsel.

Further, he stated:

You have a right to a judicial review with leave.

If the current minister believes the process is adequate, then first, we need to know, if he is deciding not to appeal the ruling, why, because that would be a significant departure from what he testified at the Senate committee, and we need to receive clarification on his intentions with the Federal Court appeal before voting on Bill C-6. It might be helpful to have him explain what procedural fairness safeguards exist right now in the current process.

From the same committee meeting in which Minister Hussen said this, a Ms. Hubers, director of citizenship program delivery at IRCC, said the following:

First, one division in the department initially investigates cases to see if there is sufficient evidence that may warrant consideration of revocation. Where there is belief that there is sufficient evidence, the file then gets transferred to a different division that will then make the decision whether to proceed with a notice of intent to revoke. The notice of intent provides all the evidence upon which the decision maker would be relying at that point in time to make their decision and invites individuals to submit all factors related to that which they should take into account when making the decision, including personal circumstances, such as the length of their time in Canada, the age [at which] they acquired citizenship, their ties to Canada and those sorts of things. At that point, when that material comes in, the decision maker will decide whether to proceed with the decision.

Essentially what is being presented here is that the department believes the system, as it is, is adequate.

If the government is still of that opinion and then decides not to appeal this ruling, we need to know why, in order first of all, I think, to develop and advocate for a program to discourage people from lying on their citizenship application, but also, frankly—I'm a member of the opposition—to oppose that decision. We've been led, based on this testimony, to believe so far that everything is great—although it's clearly not, according to the Auditor General—and that we have a good system to base things on.

It's been brought to my attention that if the minister doesn't appear, given the timing in this committee, one could make a case around contempt of Parliament. Without this information, it could be interpreted as a breach of privilege, which in House of Commons Procedure and Practice is defined as follows:

Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege” and is punishable by the House. There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its officers.... “The rationale of the power to punish contempts, whether contempt of court or contempt of the Houses, is that the courts and the two Houses should be able to protect themselves from acts which directly or indirectly impede them in the performance of their functions”.

Mr. Chair, to all of us here, given the gravity of this ruling and the huge potential impact it could have on our immigration system, the Senate amendment to Bill C-6 that we are going to be tasked with reviewing, and the fact that we have not received any information from the minister on the Auditor General's finding or whether they are going to appeal this ruling or that rationale, one could make an argument around that particular point in the Standing Orders.

To further validate that, and use this as a rationale for my Liberal colleagues to perhaps support this motion, I will say that actions that can amount to a contempt of Parliament vary but typically include things such as deliberately misleading or lying to the House or a parliamentary committee, refusing to testify or produce documents to the House or a committee—why hasn't the minister come and talked about this to date?—or attempting to influence a member either by bribery or threats. There haven't been any of those. Fair enough.

The penalties for contempt of Parliament can include jail time and, in the case of a minority Parliament, usually result in a vote of non-confidence.

Moreover, a National Post article on February 10, 2017 states:

At least 236 people have been served notice of Canadian citizenship revocation since the Liberals came into federal office—a dramatic increase over previous years that is the result of Harper-era legislation, according to Canada's immigration department.... Decisions are “more efficient” and “timely” since the Conservative government's new laws took effect, according to spokeswoman Nancy Caron. The way the system now works, after receiving revocation notices, people have 60 days to respond by “providing submissions or any additional information” to immigration, including “details of their personal circumstances or ties to Canada”.... Former immigration minister John McCallum had told senators in October he would “certainly welcome” the amendment....

Again, there is a discrepancy between what McCallum has said and then what Hussen is saying on another day, and what this ruling is. There is a lot of confusion about where the Liberal ministers have been on this particular issue. I'll go back to reading the article:

...he would “certainly welcome” the amendment [to Bill C-6] and told the Commons he believed “people should have a right to a proper appeal.” Bernie Derible, director of communications for new Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen, said “it would not be appropriate” for the minister to comment while the Senate deliberates.

That's odd. That's quite strange, but never mind. The article continues:

More than half of Canadians—53 per cent—would rather have kept Bill C-24 as-is, according to an Angus Reid Institute poll from March 2016, which questioned 1,492 people.... Explaining increases in citizenship revocation, Caron said immigration workers have been prioritizing “the most serious cases such as those involving serious criminality or organized fraud.” Examples include assuming a fraudulent identity, producing doctored documents to conceal criminality, or falsifying residence records. Since November 2015, 14 people have had citizenship revoked for hiding crimes they committed while they were permanent residents of Canada, and another five had citizenship revoked for hiding crimes committed before they immigrated. In the former case, if their citizenship is revoked, people revert back to being foreign nationals, while in the latter case, people revert back to being permanent residents. Revocation doesn't necessarily result in a deportation order....

Look, there are many things under this section that we need to question the minister on. The point I am trying to make when using the issue of privilege or contempt is that as parliamentarians, we do have the right to hear from the minister. Should he choose not to appear before this committee, or should colleagues not vote to have him here, it will be very difficult for us to do our jobs, especially on matters of such great import as this ruling.

I will speak to one more issue that has come up. It's a bit of a hot topic in legal circles right now as it pertains to Justice Gagné's ruling. A chunk of the ruling is predicated upon an interpretation of the Canadian Bill of Rights. This is something I'd like to hear from the minister on, as well as any advice he might have received from government lawyers.

The Federal Court ruling on the appeals process for citizenship revocations cited that the current legislation is in violation of the bill of rights. Obviously, the bill of rights is an important document.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To all three of the witnesses, thank you for your presentations. I think it's very important for us to consider, as was just mentioned, long-term economic growth in terms of the context of sustainable immigration.

The TFW issue, I think, is one that's very pertinent and relevant. Frankly, I think it's probably worthy of another study at some point in terms of reform and certainly in terms of the tourism industry. That's one of the potential bright spots for long-term economic growth.

The unfortunate thing with parliamentary committees, however, is we have limited time to review certain issues. There has been an issue that has arisen in the House of Commons very recently that I think actually begs our committee's attention.

With that, I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship to appear on the subject of the Federal Court ruling regarding citizenship revocation appeals, to obtain information on whether the government intends to appeal the ruling, and associated rationale, and that this meeting take place on an urgent basis given the 30-day time limit on appeals.

For my colleagues who are here today who aren't familiar with what I'm talking about, on May 10, Justice Gagné issued a ruling that materially impacts some legislation that, in my understanding based on media reports, will be before the House in a very short period of time, and those are Senate amendments to Bill C-6.

What's happened here is the judge has made a ruling that would have substantive changes to our immigration system process. I will actually note at this point in time that my colleague, Jenny Kwan, from the NDP, moved an amendment at the House of Commons committee when we were originally studying Bill C-6. I believe the amendment was rejected, but I'm not sure. I can't remember. My understanding is this is something that is going to be of material import.

My concern and my desire to have the minister appear in front of the committee stems from the fact that a few weeks ago, I asked in the House of Commons whether or not the government had the intention to appeal the ruling, because if the government was going to appeal the ruling or not, either way depending on how you feel about it, that would actually materially impact a few things, first of all, the committee's and the House's deliberations on Bill C-6.

If these amendments are to be read in the House of Commons before we rise for the summer, all of our parties and members will want to develop their positions on that particular issue, but if we don't have the minister here giving the rationale or in the House.... The response I received in the House was wholly inadequate. It was, “Don't worry; we'll get back to you in due course.”

By my count, if this ruling was issued on May 10, and there's a 30-day appeal period, that time period would be up on June 9. Then after such time, we really only have a few days to debate Bill C-6. I'm not certain what the government's agenda is to get it through committee or not, but this is a confluence of information and activity whereby I feel parliamentarians need to have the minister before committee on an urgent basis in order to proceed with the appropriate amount of diligence on the bill.

In terms of the rationale one way or the other for the minister to actually appeal this ruling, and the reason why I believe he should come to committee, is that the amendment in Bill C-6 says the court hearing is given to people facing citizenship revocation on the ground of false representation or fraud. The immigration minister would be required to inform them of their right to appeal that decision in the Federal Court. The circumstances under which this amendment was introduced raised a lot of questions regarding whether the amendment was pushed by the PMO, although supposedly independent senators moved it.

I think that's something that's valid. It's a question I would like to ask the minister prior to debating this bill in the House and certainly have the public and Canadians have a better understanding of prior to the minister announcing or letting the clock run out on the appeals process for this particular ruling.

In the same vein, the Federal Court ruling argues that everyone has the right to appeal citizenship revocation. In the 62-page ruling, Justice Gagné found the new provisions violate the Canadian Bill of Rights, which some have characterized as a quasi-constitutional document.

The decision affects more than 200 individuals who have lost their Canadian citizenship since May 2015 under the shortened administrative process, and many will now be entitled to full hearings and may be able to get back their revoked citizenship.

This decision addresses eight test cases that challenge the constitutionality of the changes made in May 2015 over the alleged lies on their residency or citizenship applications. The changes also barred them from reapplying for Canadian citizenship for 10 years after revocation. Again, the government has 30 days to appeal these rulings.

I've asked the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship questions in the House in this regard. To further convince my colleagues that this is something we should do, there are several areas of unanswered questions that I believe the minister should explain before the committee.

First, in regard to the existing backlogs, I would like to know if the minister is going to appeal the ruling one way or the other on the issue of judicial backlogs. An argument could be made that, if this ruling was not appealed and came into force, there would be an immediate burden on the court system. Unfortunately, this is a problem, given where the government has been in its appointment of judges.

If this Federal Court ruling is implemented and not appealed by the government, the Federal Court system could face challenges in resources because, in a Federal Court ruling allowing for an appeals process, there could be an increase in appeals that the Federal Court system would hear.

I would like to know from the minister how he feels this jibes with the current process in place. Right now, the Federal Court will examine appeals if IRCC erred in the interpretation and application of the IRPA, which is an act that covers our immigration processes in Canada.

From the IRCC website, the current process surrounding citizenship revocation is as follows:

The Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (SCCA) introduces new grounds for revocation of citizenship and provides for a streamlined revocation process. Previously, the citizenship revocation process generally involved three steps: the Minister, the Federal Court, and the Governor in Council. Under the new revocation process, the Governor in Council will no longer have a role except for some transitional cases. The new process has two decision-making streams: the vast majority of revocation cases will be decided by the Minister—

So the minister does, in fact, have discretion in these cases:

—certain complex cases will be decided by the Federal Court.

I'd like to know from the minister whether or not he feels that the ruling essentially jibes with his already existing ability and discretion to make decisions in these cases.

I should note that the case management branch handles all cases considered for revocation of citizenship. Local staff are not involved in these types of cases, other than to alert the case management branch should information come to their attention regarding a case that should be investigated for possible revocation.

As this makes clear, under the current process, some special cases are sent to the Federal Court. The cases that currently go to the Federal Court are examined if IRCC erred in interpretation and application of the IRPA. This is an important caveat as it ensures that the errors of the department do not lead to revocation. It also maintains that people are not incentivized to lie on their application.

In terms of the minister's appearance before our committee, I'd again ask my colleagues to have him come here. If he chooses not to appeal this ruling, these two elements could materially affect the process in which citizenship is revoked in cases of misrepresentation or fraud.

I'll speak a little bit about why I think the minister needs to talk more—as do departmental officials—around the fact that people may or may not, under this ruling, be incentivized to provide fraudulent information on their applications.

In respect of the IRCC website, I would like to see the minister give a clearer picture of this actual process. When I read through the ruling, I found that the process has been interpreted in certain ways. The testimony was quite interesting. The website states:

A person under revocation proceedings remains entitled to all rights and privileges of Canadian citizenship until the person’s citizenship is revoked. Under the new model, the date the person’s citizenship is revoked is either the date of the Minister’s decision to revoke citizenship or the date of the declaration by the Federal Court. For transition cases that still require a decision from the Governor in Council, the person’s citizenship is revoked on the date of the Order in Council.

Returning to my point on the Federal Court ruling, which allows for an appeals process that is much broader in scope than the current mechanisms I've described, I would like to know how the minister plans to reconcile those two things should he decide not to appeal a ruling, and again what impact that would have on the Senate amendment in Bill C-6. I think it's important to consider what we already know: that the courts are facing serious challenges in existing backlogs in hearings.

Again, I would be interested to know from the minister, should we decide to bring him here, if he has had any consultation with the justice minister specifically on the issue of backlog. Many people have said the backlogs exist due to the fact that under this government, there is a growing number of judicial vacancies, which have contributed to a large number of serious criminal cases being thrown out of court. If we do not hear from the minister at this committee as to whether he plans to appeal the Federal Court ruling, then we must also think about what this ruling will do to add to the existing backlog of cases in light of the government's inability, so far, to fill judicial vacancies. As I've alluded to, this appeal would put extra strain on the courts, which are already strained by the judicial vacancies.

So many articles have been written on the impact of this, but again, I think it's so important for the minister to come to committee. I'm going to draw on a Toronto Star article from last year with the headline “Urgent need for judicial vacancies to be filled promptly”. In it Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin linked the number of empty seats on federally appointed court benches across the country—44 at the moment—to unacceptable trial delays, especially in the criminal courts.

I would hope that at this point, going into our deliberations on the Senate amendments to Bill C-6 as well as the potential decision to appeal or not appeal, the minister would have reconciled the words of Chief Justice McLachlin with his action one way or the other. As well, I think many of my colleagues here would like to know how that is going.

I'm looking and can't even believe this. So many articles have been written. I'm tempted to read them all to bolster my case. I might do that. We will see. Wow, so many cases have been thrown out because of judicial appeals, really a lot.

Going through another rationale for this, I have talked to a few legal experts on the ruling, and I think one of the concerns many of us share is that if this ruling.... First of all, going back to the basis of this ruling, I think a legitimate argument could be made that perhaps contradicts Justice Gagné's ruling that citizenship that was obtained through fraud—the provisions she alluded to in terms of rights for citizenship—don't apply as that person was never entitled to citizenship in the first place.

In many cases throughout the history of Canada we've seen massive citizenship fraud, and I believe that's the rationale for why these changes were put in place to begin with. I'm looking for the actual numbers.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate we began this morning on the Conservative opposition day motion. Tomorrow, we will begin debate on Bill C-46 on impaired driving. Next week, members will work in their ridings.

When we come back, we will proceed with Bill C-6 on citizenship.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-46.

Thursday, June 1, will be an allotted day.

I would like to underline the fine work that took place in committee of the whole yesterday evening. It was productive, with many good exchanges that elevated the quality of the debate in this place. I would like to sincerely thank all hon. members and their respective staff, and also the House of Commons staff, for their hard work, which went late into the night. The next committee of the whole will be the Monday we return to this place.

Finally, as has been done in the past, I will be giving notice of a motion today to extend the sitting hours until the summer adjournment in June to midnight from Monday to Thursday, which I will be moving upon the return from constituency week. I trust that the opposition parties will support this motion.

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.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Collectively, we know there has to be a government legislative agenda. The opposition's job is always to react to what the government is doing. You set the agenda. You, in a sense, are the executive—not you as individual members—because you are members of the government caucus. It's about ensuring balance, and about understanding which bills are considered controversial, which ones need more debate, which ones could use less debate, and how we can afford additional debate. What are the mechanisms by which both the government and the opposition can let it be known that they choose to have more debate on a particular issue, or want to have that debate? If you introduce the kind of programming that this proposal has in it without sufficient review, without sufficient study, and I believe without sufficient witnesses coming in, then I'm afraid you will not strike that right balance and you will lose as parliamentarians, not as members of the government caucus. It may not be in this Parliament, but in the Parliament after this one, and the one after that.

There are bills that are not controversial. We have seen our ability in the House to quickly pass bills, such as the Marrakesh treaty bill, because we were in agreement. We agreed with the contents and the principles. When we do that, we move it forward. Likewise, debate has collapsed at times on particular pieces of legislation, such as Bill C-6 in the House of Commons, because no member chose to rise and speak to it or debate it further. It simply proceeded to the next stage in the House.

We don't have to be geniuses to realize that a single member can cause a lot of havoc for any government or opposition on any bill. What we do need, though, is a sense of co-operation. We can build that co-operation at the committee level especially. That's why we didn't simply vote against the motion. We proposed a reasonable amendment that would improve the original motion, one that we could move forward with in terms of its contents. I still believe it's reasonable. The contents of our amendment are pretty reasonable.

We saw with Bill C-14 that the government used time allocation several times. On that particular bill, I disagreed with time allocation being used, because it was an issue of conscience for many of us. Our constituents, or many of them, thought it was an issue of conscience. That bill in itself was a response to a Supreme Court decision, so we as parliamentarians were being asked by the government to respond to it. That was their proposal, to implement what they thought would be a means of abiding by the strictures of the Supreme Court decision. We were free, then, to deliberate to the fullest extent possible on behalf of our constituents. I think it was an error to use time allocation in that situation. Again, that was the government's call to make.

There was some debate, and in my opinion not enough debate. At the committee stage, I'll give great credit to Mr. Housefather, the chair of the committee at the time. He made it possible for every member there to have their amendments considered. I know that he gave me consideration for my amendments that I proposed at committee. To his credit, he allowed me that opportunity.

I don't know what the outcome will be of this report, nor should I know. There should be a study of some of these ideas here. Our ideas on the changes to the Standing Orders have been debated before, but I would caution you about changing the way in which committees work too readily, too quickly, and surrendering your rights as parliamentarians to be heard at committee. We moved it from the House of Commons in 1969 into the committees to have freewheeling debates, to move from generalists to specialists on specific issues. If you allow the types of rules that exist in the House of Commons to be moved into committee, you will lose on that. You will lose the ability to differ with your party when you need to, to be independent thinkers in general, because potentially there could be limits on the type of debate you could have. There could be limits on the types of motions you could put forward. They could program the committee so that it works a certain way, so that when every member has spoken, it simply moves on to the next stage. I don't think we win when we do that.

All of us were elected within a political party. There are no true independents in this House. Even Mr. Tootoo was elected as a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, although now he is free to pursue whatever objectives he has as a parliamentarian. That is his right.

I don't think it suits us to so readily and so quickly change the way these committees work without getting unanimous agreement among ourselves.

I see that Mr. Garrison is here for the New Democrats. I know they would agree with me that we fight hard at committee for the other members of our caucuses who may not be able to sit through the committee because of scheduling reasons. We do this on their behalf, not just for our constituents. There are also our fellow caucus members who may have an interest in a particular issue. We need mandates from our caucuses, because when we speak there, we don't speak just for ourselves and our constituencies. We also speak on behalf of our fellow caucus members.

Again, from the Debates, at one point, one of the members said, “Trust me, if a debate collapses on a particular bill, it might be because there is no one who wants to talk about it.” That is very true.

When we are allotted our 10 minutes in the House of Commons, you don't need to use the full 10 minutes. I've seen members use less than that. They rise, make an excellent point, sit down, and then do a Q and A with a member who chooses to pursue a line of questioning or make a commentary. If we policed ourselves more often, we could find opportunities like that to be faster and more efficient, but you won't achieve that by changing the rules just because sometimes people don't police themselves.

Here's what we should do. Let's try to get some substantial rule changes in our Standing Orders without resorting to forcing it past the opposition. We are opposed to making changes without being sufficiently consulted and without being able to say to not do A, B or C, because it will constrain us as an opposition from being able to fulfill our constitutional obligation to loyally oppose.

As I mentioned before—and will now, maybe for the benefit of some of the members who have joined us this afternoon—you are not my adversaries. You are not my enemies. You are fellow parliamentarians. I am not here to win political points at your expense. I am here to debate you and to deliberate with you. You will disagree with me and I will disagree with you. At the end of the day, in terms of your political affiliation, you will likely vote with your caucus. I accept that, but we can have that deliberation between us. Don't take away all the tools I have to make a point on behalf of my constituency, or on my behalf if I have an issue of conscience I need to raise, or on behalf of my caucus members who may not be able to sit around the table.

There are proposals in here to add members of other parties as ex officio members so they could question witnesses. Right now, we have two hours. Typically, most committees meet over a two-hour period. I've actually asked why the meetings are two hours. I don't know if anybody has ever wondered why we have two-hour committee meetings. Why are they scheduled in two-hour blocks? Is there something about three hours or two and a half hours that doesn't work? In the business world, a two-hour meeting would be called a two-hour waste of time, typically. It would have to be pretty substantial business to have a two-hour meeting with multiple presenters. Engineering companies may do it if there's a complicated project with drawings on the table.

What I have been told—maybe this is apocryphal—is that the two-hour scheduling was done before we gained the buildings that were added to the precinct, and the two-hour windows allowed for every single committee to be scheduled during the day. They would schedule them all in a row. There weren't as many committee rooms as there are now, so they scheduled them one after another and the two-hour blocks made it all work.

Do we need two-hour committee meetings all the time? I know that at times the chairs have finished meetings early. Chairs obviously have longer meetings at times. Small changes to the rules like that are worthy of consideration, but we should come to them by unanimous agreement.

Making this place more functional doesn't require us to surrender our ability as parliamentarians to keep the government accountable, which you want to do also. I've been told by many experienced members, veteran members, and even members of the government and previous governments, that sometimes when considering the main estimates, and even during debates on supplementary estimates, they have discovered things in the documents that they didn't even realize were contradictions or errors.

I remember doing estimates at the provincial legislature in Alberta. Sometimes there would be inaccuracies. There would be typos that would have to be explained. Sometimes the civil servants had not removed a certain thing that they had specifically been asked to remove because it was no longer part of the agenda of the government, and it was only realized through considering the main estimates. The committees are the opportunities to review those estimates. If we program the committees to limit how much we can speak, we'll lose that opportunity. We really do very little of it in the House.

There is a provision that the estimates are automatically passed at a certain point, debated or not and considered or not. There, we have already surrendered part of the core job of a parliamentarian, which is to review how the government spends money.

The President of the Treasury Board is proposing changes to when and how the estimates are considered, so I know that it's already being considered by the government in its proposals to Parliament. This is something that parliamentarians have talked about in the past. The main estimates are done on a cash accounting basis. The government does accrual accounting. The fiscal years don't match.

I remember being at the chamber of commerce when we invited the deputy parliamentary budget officer to come to Calgary and explain this problem to us. He made a fantastic presentation to our tax and economic affairs committee and really convinced the people who were there, business people, about the errors and mistakes that could occur and the difficulty in tracking how government spends money.

Earlier, I mentioned the second chamber. I am moving on to page 5571 of the Debates. I won't go through all of them, because I'd like to move on to a few more articles and the debates from 1991, when there was an attempt to force through changes to the Standing Orders without unanimous agreement, and go through how adversarial it became at that time between members of the government and members of the opposition.

There are two last points I'll make on the debates. This concept of a second chamber, like they have in the United Kingdom, I think is unnecessary. What we need to do is fill the chamber with the members we already have. The best debates I have seen have happened when there were more members in the chamber who got engaged because there was an engaging speaker making a point that perhaps someone hadn't made, who was perhaps doing it in a tongue-in-cheek way, or who perhaps grabbed the attention of another group of parliamentarians. Then there is an easygoing back-and-forth, a flow of conversation and debate.

I don't believe that we need a second chamber. I know that it was mentioned by some members in the debate on October 6, and I know that part of this original motion is to consider what members have mentioned.

Here's what I signed up for. No one forced me to run. I wasn't forced into this by my wife—definitely not my wife—and I wasn't forced into this by constituents or by the local Conservative association. We've all signed up for a job that involves gruelling travel. We have all heard people talk of working 15-hour days and working on weekends. For some of us, it's a very long trip back home. We all campaigned for 78 days in the last election for people to grant us this: to earn the privilege to sit here as parliamentarians and serve in the House. I try to keep my complaining about the work-life balance to a minimum.

I campaigned vigorously against New Democratic and Liberal opponents in my riding who wanted to do exactly the same thing. They were signing up for exactly the same type of job. What I don't want members of the cabinet to say is that to save our work-life balance they're going to reduce our sitting time by 20% and reapportion the hours to another time. I don't think that would help this place work. I don't think it would improve debate. I don't think it would improve work-life balance. How about they let parliamentarians decide about their work-life balance?

If I remember correctly, it was this committee that did not pursue recommending doing away with Friday sittings, but it reappears here for consideration. I know that Mr. Simms has offered a different perspective, which is to do a full normal day on Friday. I've offered my perspective that perhaps what we could do is bring back committees of the House to take their debates to the House for a day. They would be automatically pre-scheduled so that everybody would know that the foreign affairs committee would come in for three hours and the members of the committee would be expected to be there, perhaps on a motion to debate a report or an issue.

It's an option, but I haven't studied it enough. I haven't considered it enough to understand the ramifications of doing that. I don't think you have enough time to complete a report by June 2 and get consensus at this table without passing our amendment to the motion. You will need that done in order to get that across.

There are many people who work in different occupations, such as the military, or who work in Fort McMurray, who travel quite a bit, are away from their families, and don't get a say in their work-life balance. It's imposed upon them by their employers. Our employers are our constituents, the taxpayers of Canada. In a group, they pay us to be here to work on their behalf as parliamentarians first, not members of our caucuses first.

I defend the interests of my constituents because nobody else here exists to do that. As I've mentioned, I have the second largest riding in Canada. Nobody else is going to represent it here but me. That's the best I can do on their behalf. Within five years—and likely within four years, because that's the law—there will be an election, and I will be held to account for my performance in the House. A great thing about our democracy is that individual voters can use whatever metric they want to rate us. They can ask us if we have missed a lot of votes, if we have been present in the House, or if we have spoken enough. I hope they will feel that I have spoken enough.

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

I'm not asking about Bill C-6. Just to clarify for the minister, and perhaps his departmental officials would like to show him this, it says that following the royal assent of Bill C-6 there would be “corresponding updates to the Citizenship Regulations”.

Can he please tell the committee what these updates would be?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Once Bill C-6 passes, we will be able to look at whatever corresponding changes that we need—

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I can't speak to the anticipated costs. What I can speak to is that Bill C-6 remains a priority for us because it removes the obstacles to citizenship that were implemented by Bill C-24.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

On Bill C-6, we anticipate and are hopeful that the Senate will pass C-6 so that we can move very quickly on removing obstacles to citizenship brought in by Bill C-24. Whatever is in C-6 that would require changes to the regulations is something that we will also move very quickly in the—

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much.

We're not really here to defend either this government, or the previous government, or criticize the previous government, or this government, we're hear to listen. I just want to clarify that Bill C-24 was passed in the last Parliament. The House of Commons has now passed a new law that would undo those parts of it called Bill C-6. I don't believe it's passed yet this week. It's in the Senate now, and this committee is looking at the whole framework to see how we can improve.

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Not right now there isn't, but we could look at it.

I just want to say a couple of things.

We have become a little more lenient than the previous government on Bill C-6, when we said that the language test would not apply to those 55 to 64, whereas previously it did; on the grounds that, while language is really important, older people don't always come the country with perfect English, but their children and certainly their grandchildren do have perfect English. We were a little more on the liberal side, shall we say, the small-l liberal side, on the language issue on that. Although, I have to acknowledge that there's a whole lot of evidence suggesting that skill in English or French is a critical determinant of economic success in Canada, so we haven't really changed too much of what the Conservatives did on language or what the previous Liberal governments may have done. We've changed a little bit, but we accept the premise that success and competence in language is an important criterion of success. We don't apply that to spouses, but when we're talking about economic immigrants, whom we expect to make a contribution to the economy, we have to take an account of the factors that we think will make them successful. Language is one of them. I don't really see how it's discriminatory. The same consideration applies to any group whose first language is not English.

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

On a question of privilege, Mr. Chair, the proceedings of an in camera meeting are deemed to be confidential and certainly the review component of Bill C-6 was conducted in camera.

The minister has just divulged the proceedings of an in camera meeting. I don't believe the minister was in attendance at that meeting, so there seems to be a breach of information and confidentiality that is now in a televised meeting. So I do raise a question of privilege and a breach of confidentiality of an in camera meeting.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Just by coincidence, I was asked exactly the same question in the Senate question period about half an hour ago, and I said we would look into it. The basic point I made was that I think citizenship should be revoked for people who misrepresent, if that's the situation, but I also think that people should have a right to a proper appeal. Right now, the system is such that there is a review or some appeal. I think it was you who put forward an amendment to Bill C-6—correct me if I'm wrong—to strengthen that appeal process, but it was declared out of scope.

Senator Omidvar is now proposing an amendment to strengthen the appeal right, and I have said that I'm open to that and I like the idea. We don't know yet whether the Senate will rule that to be in scope or out of scope. In the House they said it was out of scope, but the Senate rules are different, so I don't know.

I would certainly welcome that, if she makes that amendment, if it's in scope, and if the Senate accepts it. I said I would look at it, but I don't think we would have a moratorium. I think we have a system that could be improved—as I have just acknowledged—but it has been going for some years. I am hopeful we will have an amendment of that kind accepted in the bill.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister and his staff for coming before the committee.

First I would like to ask the minister why at this time the ministry is continuing to revoke the cases of up to some 60 individuals each month who have been found to have misrepresented their citizenship application. The minister acknowledged publicly that there isn't procedural fairness for processing these cases because they don't have that under Bill C-24 and it has not yet been fixed under Bill C-6, so an individual family could be impacted including children who may have, through no fault of their own, been caught up in the situation through the misrepresentation. Will the minister agree that a moratorium should be put in place with respect to revoking citizenship applications based on misrepresentation until such time as the process has been addressed?

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:

Motion M-39

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)

Citizenship Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am also puzzled by the same situation. I had a call two weeks back from somebody in Scarborough. The person claimed that somebody had made a minor mistake on an application for citizenship 25 years ago. That individual has kids and grandkids and has been told that he has to leave the country.

The member talked about balance. Bill C-6 has no balance. Is committing fraud worse than committing a crime against humanity or a crime against the country?

I talked to another colleague who said that nothing has changed in Bill C-6 compared to Bill C-24. Before the Conservatives took office, the citizenship application fee was $1,500. We brought that down by $500. The Liberal government has not brought anything down.

There are many other issues—

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that those who have committed treason or terrorism and are convicted of doing so face tough punishment and should be punished. There is, however, a problem under Bill C-24. That is why Bill C-6 seeks to revoke the two-tier citizenship.

Does the member opposite subscribe to equality before the law? Does he believe that in the eyes of the law each and every person should be treated the same way, should be put through due process, and should have fairness and justice under the law?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my serious concerns about Bill C-6.

Canada is the greatest and the most generous nation in the world. Our diversity is our competitive advantage, and having strong evidence-based immigration policies is vital as we continue that tradition.

We must have the right policies in place to ensure that Canadians and new Canadians can take pride in their citizenship for generations to come. However, the Liberals have literally ignored this fact, despite their commitment to transparent evidence-based policies. The Liberal government has consistently demonstrated the exact opposite since coming to power. They are recklessly politicizing Canada's immigration policy, despite the important role it plays in safeguarding the future security and prosperity of all Canadians.

The bill before us would reverse changes to the Citizenship Act enacted by our previous government, with the most notable changes being the ability of the government to revoke the citizenship of a dual national convicted of a terrorist act and the requirement that new Canadians sign an oath declaring that they intend to reside in Canada.

We believe that new Canadians enrich and strengthen our country. Their experiences and perspectives make us stronger. Immigration is an important part of who we are as a nation and of the strength of our nation's future. We want newcomers to Canada to have every opportunity to succeed, with opportunities for economic success, the experience of our many freedoms, and the experience of safe communities.

However, I am concerned that the Liberals' first priority, when it comes to tabling immigration and public safety legislation, is to effectively give back citizenship and protect the rights of a convicted member of the Toronto 18, Zakaria Amara. Bill C-6 would overturn the previous rule of stripping Canadians of their citizenship if they are charged with plotting against their adopted country. These charges include treason, acts of terrorism, and armed conflict against Canadians. As members can see, these are very specific instances.

It is baffling to me that the Liberal government would prioritize restoring Canadian citizenship to Zakaria Amara. Mr. Amara has so far been the only individual whose Canadian citizenship has been revoked under the changes made by the previous Conservative government.

To provide some context as to why this is important to me and to Ontarians, Mr. Amara had been previously sentenced to life in prison for his role in a bomb plot against a number of high-profile targets in Toronto and southern Ontario. This included a plan to rent U-Haul trucks, pack them with explosives, and detonate them via remote control in the Toronto area. Police thwarted the plot when they arrested Amara and 17 other people in the summer of 2006.

For many families, including mine, the news of the plot was very unsettling. Why would the Liberal government make these changes and not consider the opinions of Canadians in the GTA and how it would impact them, given what happened a decade ago? Other experts in the field have similar views.

Ms. Sheryl Saperia, director of policy for Canada for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies does not believe the provision should be repealed. In committee testimony, she stated that in cases where the crime is not just a crime under the Canadian Criminal Code but a crime against Canada as a national entity, by virtue of a person's actions, this might forfeit the right to Canadian citizenship. She said:

This has nothing to do with discrimination. This has nothing to do with putting up roadblocks, certainly not for any particular community. This is about people's actions. What they choose to do has certain consequences, which may include the revocation of citizenship.

She continues to claim, “I believe that, when people commit a crime against the country itself, then they are potentially forfeiting their right to that citizenship.” She also believes that it is not unreasonable to revoke citizenship for someone who is convicted for crimes of treason, espionage, armed conflict, and terrorism against Canada.

Finally, she states:

I don't believe that Canadian citizenship should just be so easy to receive. I believe it is truly a privilege and a gift. Canada is the most wonderful country in the world to live in. I don't believe it is unreasonable to create minimal standards for what it takes to retain that citizenship. I stand by my defence of the ability to revoke citizenship for those crimes against Canada....

Furthermore, when Mr. Shimon Fogel, chief executive officer of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, last appeared before the committee to testify regarding the previous Conservative government's Bill C-24, he articulated a position in support of the revocation of citizenship from dual national Canadians who have committed certain offences including terrorism offences. This position was a reflection of his belief that in the case of certain particularly heinous political crimes, the perpetrator is actually guilty of two distinct offences. First, they are guilty of the particular crime they have committed. Second, they are guilty of the fundamental betrayal of the core values on which Canadian citizenship is based.

To quote Mr. Fogel:

Our support for this provision [to revoke citizenship] reflects the desire to address not just the crime but also the grievous insult to Canada and Canadian identity that has taken place.

There is only one class of Canadian citizen and all Canadians deserve to be protected from acts of terror. It is also extremely worrying that under the bill a dual national's citizenship cannot be revoked for committing a terrorist act, but can be for simple fraud.

Bill C-6 also removes the requirement that an applicant intends, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada. Applicants for Canadian citizenship will no longer need to intend to remain in Canada upon gaining citizenship.

I believe that new Canadians enrich and strengthen our country. Their experiences and perspectives make us stronger. Immigration is an important part of who we are as a nation and the strength of our nation's future. We want newcomers to Canada to have every opportunity to succeed: opportunities for economic success, the experience of our many freedoms, and the experience of safe communities.

The “intent to reside” provision likely does not restrict mobility rights guaranteed under the charter and instead reinforces the expectation that citizenship is for those who intend to make Canada their permanent home. We hope that those seeking Canadian citizenship intend to bring their personal experiences and contributions to our country and enrich it by residing here.

In addition, Bill C-6 seeks to reduce the number of days during which a person must have been physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship. Under the existing Citizenship Act, the physical presence requirement was fulfilled if an applicant resided in Canada for 183 days in the four out of six years prior to making a citizenship application. The Liberal government proposed changes to reduce the physical presence requirement to three out of five years before the date of application.

We want newcomers to Canada to be successful and experience all that Canada has to offer. The longer an individual lives, works, or studies in Canada, the better connection that person will have to our beautiful and special country. I believe that strong residency requirements promote integration and a greater attachment to Canada. Participation in Canadian life for a significant period of time before they become citizens helps enrich both their experience and our country's future.

Finally, Bill C-6 limits the requirement to demonstrate a knowledge of Canada and of one of its official languages to applicants between the ages of 18 and 54 from the current ages of 14 to 64.

I cannot emphasize enough my belief that an adequate knowledge of either French or English is a key factor in successful integration into our communities and the labour force.

When I arrived in Canada, I began working in a factory. At the time, I was shy and spoke limited English. I have said this before and I will say it again. As a result, I had to rely on those around me to help me communicate with both my co-workers and supervisors. One day I needed help to ask my supervisor for some nails to complete the project I was working on. The young man I asked for help responded by demanding that I buy him lunch first. In this way, I was made to purchase lunch for this young man every day just to keep my job.

This is a situation that I hope other new Canadians never have to find themselves in. For myself and many others, learning the language allowed me to move past this difficult situation, further my own career opportunities, build a number of successful businesses, provide for my family, and support my own children as they pursue their hopes and dreams.

It is because of this experience that I support the immigration language requirements as they currently exist within the Canadian Citizenship Act. To change these provisions without thoughtful evidence-based research is both reckless and irresponsible. As I have repeatedly said, we want newcomers to Canada to have every opportunity to succeed, opportunities for economic success, and the experience of safe communities. Adequate knowledge of either English or French is a key factor in successful integration into our communities and labour force. Language proficiency promotes integration and a greater attachment to Canada. Proficiency in our official languages helps enrich both their experience and our country's future.

Does the Liberal government not value immigration and new Canadians enough to prioritize their successful integration? Are new Canadians simply a number in a politicized immigration levels plan, tabled without thought to what their lives will look like once they receive Canadian citizenship?

Part of successful integration is the opportunity to pursue meaningful employment. When questioned by committee members if any quantifiable consultation had been done into the economic implications of reducing language requirements, the Minister of Immigration answered that his government had not done so. My caucus colleagues and I demand the government implement sound, well-researched policies. The changes to the Citizenship Act as outlined in Bill C-6 fail on all fronts.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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 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.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleague for all of her hard work and dedication. It is a wonderful thing to work with people who are so dedicated to making a difference and looking after these issues that are so important to the people we serve.

I am glad to rise in the House and speak on Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

As a former executive director of an immigrant-serving agency in my riding, I want to convey to members here the sense of betrayal that the former Bill C-24 had on our sector and on the people we served.

In my role as executive director, I spoke at many citizenship ceremonies and worked with people as they prepared for their citizenship here in Canada. I was constantly overwhelmed by the immense sense of pride and dedication people felt as they prepared and finally became Canadian. It was events like this that really made me the proudest to be a Canadian citizen.

However, Bill C-24 created a second class of citizen. In fact, it institutionalized systemic discrimination. It was a bill that was so unconstitutional that it had no place in our democratic foundation.

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all Canadians are equal. It will be good to see this idea begin to be reflected in our legislation again. As our leader said in the 2015 campaign, “...a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”.

During the last election, the NDP promised to repeal Bill C-24, and I thank so much again my colleague from Vancouver East who worked so hard to really make that happen. I was very sad when all of those amendments were not heard.

Bill C-6 in its current form aims to rectify these missteps, but the bill does not do it entirely. After reflection, I am mindful that the bill is not ideal but it will repeal some of the harmful and unconstitutional changes to citizenship made by the previous government. Therefore, I will support its passing in the third reading.

While this is a step in the right direction, there are also many challenges that remain for immigrants. We call on the government to take urgent action on lengthy wait times and huge backlogs, on family reunification, and on the barriers to citizenship that still remain in place.

In the last session of Parliament, the NDP firmly opposed Bill C-24. We called on the Conservatives to withdraw it from the very beginning, but the Conservatives refused to listen.

While some of the changes implemented by the former bill were, in some cases, overdue and addressed some of the deficiencies in the system, others were so draconian that Bill C-24 was widely opposed by respected academics and experts in the field of law, including the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and UNICEF.

During the time of canvassing across my riding, and in the work I did previously, I met many members of the communities I served. I heard stories of people who were choosing to not venture toward becoming citizens, because they were very hurt about this second class of citizenship, and many parents were very concerned for their children.

One parent told me that his children had dual citizenship. He was choosing not to get Canadian citizenship, but he had married a Canadian woman and they had children who had both the citizenship of his first country and hers. Now he is worried about how much their Canadian citizenship actually means. He said to me that his children live here, that they will be raised here, and that this will be the only country they will ever know as home. What if they do something and Canada decides to take away their citizenship? Where will they go?

Other people said to me that it felt as if the government did not want them to become a citizen. They felt that they were a potential risk simply because they were born in another country.

These stories illustrate the real fear that people are feeling and the total disregard for their dedication to this country of Canada.

Bill C-6 begins to make some of those changes, but it still leaves that hesitancy. It still has so many barriers to citizenship. It still provides too many things that create fear for members.

I hope the government will listen and make the amendments in the fall that my hon. colleague suggested. Let us move forward in a positive way in this country.

I am glad that these provisions will no longer be law. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that Bill C-6 does not go far enough. It would still allow the minister to revoke someone's citizenship without the right to a judicial hearing. No matter how good their intentions, ministers simply should not have secret discretionary powers.

Prior to Bill C-24, individuals who were accused of fraud and risked having their citizenship revoked could request a hearing before a Federal Court judge. A final decision would be made by the Governor in Council. Bill C-24 allowed the minister to make a decision based on a review of paperwork, with no right to a judicial hearing. The Liberals' failure to address this feature in Bill C-6 means that there may still be a constitutional challenge to the Citizenship Act.

The NDP believe that a citizen facing revocation should always have the right to a hearing before an independent and impartial decision-maker as part of a process that considers humanitarian and compassionate factors.

I remember that the Prime Minister, during the campaign, talked about decentralizing the powers purposely accumulated in the PM's Office. The last government concentrated power in its different omnibus legislation. What happened to the right to a hearing and to due process?

In my last job, I served many newcomers to Canada. Some of the stories I heard were sad, and the commitment to becoming Canadian, in a country seen as free and inclusive, was tangible. The fact that the minister had the power to give or take away citizenship was a level of power that many people came to Canada to escape. Having a fair, transparent process is absolutely imperative.

When the bill was studied at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, New Democrats proposed a total of 25 amendments. Only two of them were eventually passed, and I am so grateful that they were: the duty to accommodate for individuals with disabilities, and adding statelessness as a factor to be considered when granting citizenship based on exceptional circumstances. The remaining amendments were voted down and the Liberals did not give a reasonable rationale for opposing them.

The Liberals need to do more. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has repeatedly acknowledged the considerable shortcomings of his ministry. He promised to take action on the long wait times, but we have still not seen a concrete plan.

Now that this legislation is at third reading, let us start to have this discussion in terms of how to reform it correctly.

The minister should disclose the reasoning for and the frequency of discretionary grants of citizenship. There must be action on cleaning up the mess at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, including speeding up family reunification, putting an end to lengthy backlogs, removing the cap on parent and grandparent sponsorship, and speeding up processing times for immigration and citizen applications, especially in light of the high fees paid by applicants who receive very poor service in return. The challenges I faced in my last job would have tested the patience of any normal human being.

The narrow scope of Bill C-6 prevented many amendments recommended by expert witnesses, including the Canadian Bar Association, from being admissible at committee stage. The minister has acknowledged this and suggests that the Liberals will need to introduce another immigration bill in the fall to address these shortcomings. I certainly hope to see it.

I would like to conclude today by urging the minister to work with us to table a truly comprehensive bill that will improve the Canadian citizenship process. It needs to happen, and it needs to happen soon.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good colleague for those very kind comments. That is very encouraging.

Indeed, Bill C-6 failed to bring forward proper due process for those who face losing their citizenship. In a normal set of circumstances, people who are given a parking ticket or a speeding ticket could appeal that process by going to court. Under this system, with the Bill C-24 changes by the Conservative government and the failure of Bill C-6 to rectify them, those who lose their citizenship would not have the opportunity to appeal this process. That is simply wrong. The Canadian Bar Association and many organizations came forward at committee to say that this needed to be changed. In fact, when Bill C-24 was debated in this House, the current Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship also said that was wrong.

Therefore, it is a mystery to me how the government neglected to include that important change in Bill C-6. However, that is exactly what happened. I tried to advance a series of amendments related to that. Unfortunately, they were deemed to be out of the scope of Bill C-6, and therefore not before us. However, I did get a commitment from the minister that the government would rectify this, and I look forward to it bringing forward a government bill in the fall to adopt those amendments I tabled at committee.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver East for her contribution at committee and to this debate on Bill C-6, which I think is an incredibly important part of the commitment we made in the last election to roll back what we thought were many of the oppressive elements of Bill C-24 that had been passed in the 41st Parliament.

I would like to ask, given the contributions that my friend from Vancouver East made at the immigration committee with respect to some of those amendments—and I noted that some of her amendments were not accepted by the government—whether the member will still be supporting the overall intent of Bill C-6, including some of the amendments she had proposed that were carried at committee.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for North Island—Powell River.

At the Standing Committee for Citizenship and Immigration, I had the opportunity to hear witnesses from across Canada and they offered their expertise on how we could make Canada's immigration laws better.

As a result of those important testimonies, I tabled 25 amendments to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act. Significant amendments were required because Bill C-6 failed to remedy many of the problems created by the Conservatives' Bill C-24.

One gaping hole in Bill C-6 is that it failed to address the lack of procedural fairness and safeguards for individuals facing citizenship revocation. This is because Bill C-24 eliminated the right for an independent and impartial hearing. Furthermore, Bill C-24 also eliminated consideration of equitable factors or compassionate and humanitarian factors that could prevent a legal but unjust outcome.

The system we have defies common sense. How could it be that individuals fighting a parking ticket are afforded more procedural fairness than the person having their citizenship revoked? Yet this is the case.

On June 9, 2014, the minister, 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.”

Fast-forward to today, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has further reconfirmed that the lack of judicial appeal and review rights for those in the citizenship process still needs to be addressed, yet this concern was not corrected by the government in Bill C-6. Because Bill C-6 failed to address this, I tabled substantive amendments to ensure individuals who face citizenship revocation have the right to a fair and independent hearing and an appeal process.

If passed, the amendments would have created a system modelled after the current process being applied to permanent residents who are subject to deportation on the grounds of misrepresentation. This system, which uses the immigration appeal division, would not only have provided the rights to an independent appeal process, but is also considered more cost effective and efficient than the old system.

Despite broad support to achieve this goal from experts that appeared at the committee such as 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 others, the narrow scope of Bill C-6 resulted in these important amendments being ruled inadmissible.

I have asked the minister to adopt my amendments in a government bill in the fall and I hope that happens.

In the meantime however, the unfortunate reality is that some individuals currently in the citizenship system faced with revocation will still lack the judicial fairness provided to people in Canada fighting a parking ticket.

On the issue of procedural fairness, Bill C-6 also failed to address the minister's ability to indefinitely suspend citizenship proceedings. The former Conservative government under Bill C-24 added section 13.1 to the Citizenship Act, which permits the minister to suspend citizenship applications and other proceedings indefinitely while additional information or evidence is gathered.

Under this process, someone could literary die before a decision is made about their citizenship application. I know that recent Federal Court decisions demonstrate the need for a statutory time frame for making decisions to avoid inordinate and unexplained delays. Again, I had attempted to resolve this issue through amendment at committee, and again, the narrow scope of Bill C-6 prevented me from doing so, and the amendment was deemed inadmissible.

Another misstep of Bill C-24 was to place all justice systems around the world on equal footing. This was done by barring individuals from citizenship if they have been charged with or convicted with offences equivalent to indictable offences in Canada.

While this might sound reasonable, it is incredibly important to remember that not all justice systems in the world are equal. Most importantly, some countries deal with corruption at various or even multiple levels of the justice and political system, from local police to lawyers and judges to national leaders. This can, and does lead to unjust charges and convictions. In my view, these situations should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

In its submission to the committee, the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic wrote:

Implementing additional immigration and citizenship penalties for individuals being charged or with convictions is inherently dangerous in that it leads effectively to situations of double jeopardy—that the individual will be punished once by the criminal justice system and then a second time through the immigration and citizenship system.

There are many countries around the world where rule of law is underdeveloped or completely inadequate, or where individuals are charged and convicted for purely political reasons.

While those appearing at committee used the example of Canadian citizen Mohamed Fahmy as an example of how not all justice systems reach the same verdicts as ours, I would also like to draw to the attention of this House that, in 2001, the House voted almost unanimously in favour of awarding Nelson Mandela honorary Canadian citizenship. Under the current laws, if someone like Mr. Mandela immigrated to Canada, he would have been automatically barred from applying for citizenship to Canada through the regular channels.

At the committee, the issue of minors coming to Canada without parents or legal guardians was highlighted to members as an area of significant concern. Unless applying for citizenship as part of the application with parents or guardians, individuals must be 18 years of age or older to become Canadian citizens. While the government argued that there is already a remedy in place to address this, at issue, as explained by Justice for Children and Youth, is as follows:

Section 5...allows for an applicant to make a request to the Minister on humanitarian grounds for a waiver of the age requirement. ...this humanitarian exemption poses a generally insurmountable barrier for children wishing to access citizenship and is not a reasonable limitation or a satisfactory solution to issues raised by the age requirement provision.... The provision in effect restricts access to Canadian citizenship for children—solely on the basis of age—who otherwise meet all the requirements. It restricts access to citizenship for the most marginalized children, i.e. unaccompanied minors, children without parents or lawful guardians, and children with parents who do not have the capacity to meet the citizenship requirements or do not wish to apply.

My proposed amendment would have provided a pathway to citizenship for youth under 18 years of age without a parent or guardian who is, or is in the process of becoming, a Canadian citizen. Addressing this issue was supported by organizations such as Justice for Children and Youth, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and UNICEF Canada, among others. Unfortunately, the amendment was not adopted by the Liberal members on the committee.

While we are on the subject of minors in the citizenship process, in a brief submitted by Justice for Children and Youth, it was noted that the citizenship process fails to adhere to the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It states:

Youth criminal justice records and ongoing proceedings before the youth criminal justice court cannot and should not be considered for the purpose of citizenship applications because to do so is contrary to the Youth Criminal Justice Act..., specifically violates the privacy protections afforded to minors by the YCJA, and is inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of the YCJA.

Once again, the narrow scope of Bill C-6 deemed this amendment inadmissible.

On the theme of pathways to citizenship, another issue that was brought in when Bill C-24 was tabled and was not rectified by Bill C-6 is the issue of double-testing in language. There is no doubt that acquiring skills in one of Canada's official languages is an important aspect of building a successful life here. However, under changes made by the Conservatives, the knowledge test of Canada required to obtain citizenship now amounts to a double-testing of language skills.

Prior to the Conservatives' changes, individuals had the ability to take the knowledge test with the aid of an interpreter. Due to the changes, the interpreter is no longer provided, and this amounts not only to second language testing, but to a language test that, as we heard from experts who appeared at committee, is arguably more difficult than the actual level of English or French someone must have to pass the actual language test.

My amendment to address this problem and go back to the old system, which would have been the case had the Liberals followed through on their election promise to repeal Bill C-24, was rejected by the committee. I do think this is most unfortunate, as the current rules only serve to maintain the barriers for the pathway to citizenship.

I am pleased that I was successful in advancing and passing two amendments to Bill C-6, which will now enshrine in the law the duty for reasonable accommodation, ensuring that the citizenship process adheres to the principles of the Canadian Human Rights Act for those with disabilities. This will make disability accommodation a right, not something provided out of mercy or on the basis of compassion, as it formerly was.

My amendment clarifies the requirement of the duty to accommodate those with disabilities as they navigate through the citizenship process. Currently, vague words of required “proof” and discretion around accommodation can lead to individuals, who would otherwise be able to become Canadian citizens, being denied due to a lack of disability accommodation.

There is much more to—

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of the motion that 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.

Business of the House

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

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.

Citizenship Act

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand and speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party to this important piece of legislation.

During the 41st Parliament, the previous Conservative government brought in Bill C-24 that made a number of changes to the Citizenship Act. The most controversial of those changes, Canadians are well aware, was the change that effectively created two classes of citizens. There was one in which naturalized Canadians, or Canadians who were born abroad but became a Canadian citizen here, were treated differently than a Canadian citizen who is born in Canada. The Prime Minister expressed it quite eloquently when during the campaign he talked about a Canadian being a Canadian being a Canadian. That resonated with Canadians as well. However there are many other parts of that bill that also were seriously flawed and problematic. Many experts pointed out that the bill was in a number of ways unconstitutional and/or did not respect international law.

From a political point of view, the bill was ill conceived. It was conducted in haste, and in many ways proposed changes to the law where there had been no demonstrated problem. It was a repeated attribute of the previous Conservative government to make decisions not based on evidence but based on ideology. Bill C-24 was a classic example of that. The bill turned out to be very unfair, divisive, was ideologically driven, and most important it was unfair.

The NDP opposed Bill C-24 from the very beginning, and we called for it to be withdrawn and amended. We proposed dozens of amendments, all of which were rejected by the previous Conservative government. The bill before us today, Bill C-6, would amend that flawed and very damaging piece of legislation, so the New Democrats are very happy to support this bill at third reading.

Bill C-6 will amend Bill C-24 in a number of ways, but not in all of the ways that we think it ought to be amended. I will cover both of those.

I will start with where it would amend Bill C-24 in a positive fashion.

Bill C-6 will remove the ability to revoke citizenship based on certain specified grounds. It will remove the obligation for a new citizen to declare the intent to reside in Canada. It will restore the length of time that a permanent resident must actually be present in Canada to qualify for citizenship. It will restore it back to the three-year period over five years, from the desire of the previous government, which wanted to expand that to be permanent residents of Canada for four years out of six years. This bill will restore the right to count up to two years of temporary residence before one becomes a permanent resident toward the amount of days that someone has to be resident in Canada to qualify for citizenship. It will eliminate the requirement that an applicant must have been present in Canada for 183 days in four of the last six years. It will remove the requirement for the language and knowledge examinations, which the Conservatives broadened to apply to young people aged 14 to 17, and seniors aged 55 to 64. I will expand on that.

Bill C-6 would also add to Bill C-24 by preventing offenders from counting time served for conditional sentences—that is a sentence served in the community with conditions—toward the calculation of required presence in Canada. That was a very large gap in the bill that the Conservatives missed. Bill C-6 will also give citizenship officials the power to seize fraudulent documents, which is another important provision that would allow our administrators of citizenship to be able to do their job.

This bill, as I said, is not perfect, and we would like to see additional changes. Bill C-6 does not address certain provisions of Bill C-24 regarding the following: the power that Bill C-24 granted to the minister to revoke citizenship based on a paper review with no judicial hearing; and it does not address provisions in Bill C-24 that provided a prohibition on citizenship for people charged with or serving a sentence for a criminal offence abroad, which also has to be an indictable offence in Canada. This bill also would leave in the minister's discretion to privately grant citizenship to individuals, which is another power that the New Democrats do not believe ought to be exercised in such an executive and non-transparent manner.

The New Democrats are pleased to support the bill because it repeals many of the harmful and unconstitutional changes to citizenship made by the previous government. We are disappointed that the bill does not go quite far enough in the ways that I just mentioned and we also point out that the narrow scope of the bill did prevent many amendments recommended by expert witnesses, including the Canadian Bar Association, from being admissible at the committee stage.

The Minister of Citizenship has explicitly acknowledged this and suggested that the Liberal government will need to introduce another immigration bill in the fall to address those shortcomings. We want to encourage the minister to keep his word on that and we look forward to working with the minister as he tables a truly comprehensive bill that will improve the Canadian citizenship process and comprehensively restore proper, sound, and fair law to this very vital part of Canadian political life: citizenship.

I am going to talk about the background to the bill. It was introduced by the Conservative government in February 2014, so essentially within a year or year and a half of the last election. The reason I point that out is that the previous Conservative government tended to act on ideological and political wedge reasons, not on sound evidentiary-based reasoning. We think that the bill was motivated politically as Conservatives tried to speak to a base and intolerance in Canadians by creating wedges between people. I will talk about that in a few moments because we think it is always a very unsound way to create legislation in this place.

At second reading in the last Parliament, the NDP tabled a broad amendment calling on the government to withdraw that bill and we also asked the government to send that bill to committee before completing second reading to allow that bill's obvious flaws to be addressed before continuing debate.

Not surprisingly, the Conservatives refused and despite our opposition, they adopted Bill C-24 without amendment. Bill C-24 received royal assent in June of 2014. Since then, the New Democrats have been asking for the bill to be revoked, especially regarding the provisions that increase the powers in the hands of the minister, including the authority to grant or revoke citizenship in executive fashion without a judicial process, the provisions to eliminate the recognition of time spent in Canada as a non-permanent resident, the parts of the bill that prohibit the granting of citizenship to persons who have been charged outside Canada with an offence, and the provisions that increased the residency requirements and the knowledge and language requirements in the bill.

Once again, the Liberals have addressed most but not all of those issues in this new bill. I am going to drill into some of these important issues. First, let us examine the provision that we support in the bill about repealing the national interest grounds for citizenship revocation. Legislative changes of that former bill that came into effect created a new ground of citizenship revocation that allowed citizenship to be taken away from dual citizens for certain acts against what was described as the national interests of Canada. These grounds included convictions for terrorism, treason, spying offences, and for membership in an armed force or organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada.

The bill repealed those grounds. I want to say at the outset that the New Democrats and I think every member in the House acknowledge the seriousness and unacceptability of those crimes. There is no question about that. Treason, terrorism, spying, acting in a foreign army engaged in conflict with Canada, these are all crimes that I think every Canadian would condemn in the most strenuous way possible.

However, the issue becomes what the proper remedy for that is. What the New Democrats, many members, and obviously the new Liberal government have now acknowledged in the bill is that the proper response to anyone who commits those acts is to be dealt with harshly and appropriately by the Canadian legal system. That is the proper way to deal with citizens, not to strip a citizen of their citizenship rights, which hearkens back to the old medieval concept of a king in the 12th century banishing a citizen from the kingdom as punishment.

That is the kind of spirit that infused the Conservative government with this law. Instead, any person who believes in modern democracy and modern concepts of statecraft, would agree that once people become citizens, they are citizens. Citizens should be dealt with together.

Here is the rub. I have heard the Conservatives say the word “equality” in the House before. They have never been able to satisfactorily explain this to anybody. If a Canadian citizen born in Canada committed a terrorist act, or a Canadian citizen born in Canada spied against Canada or a Canadian citizen born in Canada fought for an armed forces against the Canadian Armed Forces, why he or she would not be stripped of his or her citizenship, but a naturalized Canadian who committed exactly the same act could be stripped of his or her citizenship.

This was the essence of the objection to that provision. It created two tiers of Canadian citizenship. I will stand in the House, and all MPs will stand here, and condemn each one of those heinous crimes, but we will equally stand in this place and say that it is a Canadian value to treat Canadian citizens equally before the law.

I am very happy to see the Liberal government enforce that very important concept.

I want to talk about repealing the intent to reside provision. Since June 2015, adult applicants must declare on their citizenship application, because of the Conservative law, that they intend to continue to reside in Canada if granted citizenship. This provision created concern among some new Canadians who feared that their citizenship could be revoked in the future if they moved outside of Canada. The Liberal government is proposing to repeal this provision, and I congratulate them on that because it is absolutely the right move.

All Canadians are free to move outside of this country and live where they wish. Again, we have another example of discrimination in law by the Conservative government where I, who was born in this country, could move to France if I wanted to and never have to worry about my citizenship being revoked. However, someone who was born in a different country and was naturalized here would have to worry. That is discriminatory. I am glad to see the government repeal that discriminatory provision.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

I would like to begin with a list.

This list includes Afghanistan, Argentina, China, Germany, Grenada, Haiti, India, Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Somalia, South Africa, Switzerland, Tanzania, Trinidad, Uganda, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

What do these countries have in common? They are all nations from which members of the House hail. Forty-one members of the chamber, spanning four different parties, are citizens of Canada who were born outside of this country. I am one of that group of 41 members. I was born in Uganda and arrived here as a young refugee in 1972.

Bill C-6 says to me and 40 of my fellow MPs that our citizenship is no different than that of our Canadian-born colleagues. In fact, Bill C-6 says to millions of Canadians who naturalized here after arriving from overseas that their citizenship has the same value and is accorded the same respect as the citizenship of those born in this country. It tells them that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. Allow me to explain.

Bill C-6 would reverse the divisive legacy of legislation enacted by the previous government. Under what was then Bill C-24, the previous government enacted legislation that allowed persons born abroad to be stripped of their citizenship on the basis of acts against the national interest—treason, spying, terrorism—but this applied only to those born abroad. Therefore, if someone was born in Canada and committed the exact same criminal act against the national interest, their citizenship could not be stripped. Canadian-born individuals would be dealt with by the criminal justice system alone, whereas foreign-born Canadians were subject to a double penalty: punishment under the criminal justice system, together with revocation of their citizenship under the Citizenship Act.

The old legislation, enacted by the previous government, was wrong for two reasons. The first is that it was unfair and unequal. We heard about the unfairness of the old Conservative legislation from strong immigration advocates, such as Legal Aid Ontario's refugee law office and Romero House in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. The inequality of the old legislation was laid bare by the litigation it caused. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers brought a charter challenge to Bill C-24 contending it created two tiers of citizenship.

The second and more important reason is that the old Bill C-24 was flawed because it sent the wrong message to newcomers. People like me, who fled their homelands to make a fresh start in Canada, are thankful for the opportunity to be here, but ultimately, we all seek the same thing: full and final integration. The previous government's Bill C-24 failed such Canadians, precisely because it rendered them more vulnerable. It told them that they are citizens, but citizens with an asterisk. By retracting the odious legislation the previous government passed, I and millions of Canadians who came here from other countries are being told that the politics of division are over and that they do, indeed, belong.

That is enough talk about the old legislation. I now want to talk about the merits of Bill C-6.

Bill C-6 meets what we like to call the triple-E test. It is evidence-based, it makes economic sense, and the bill is ethically sound. Allow me to address each of these points in turn.

The first point is that Bill C-6 is evidence-based. Our government campaigned on a commitment to return to evidence-based policy, and that is precisely what Bill C-6 represents. Studies demonstrate that facilitating a path to not only obtaining but maintaining citizenship promotes a better integration of newcomers and their sense of belonging. This point has been reinforced to me time and time again by settlement and community groups doing important work in Parkdale—High Park, such as Ukrainian Canadian Social Services, the Four Villages Community Health Centre, the Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society, and the Canadian Polish Congress.

The second point is that Bill C-6 is good economics. These very same studies show that the bill would have clear economic benefits for Canada. Immigrants who are given a path to permanence through citizenship have higher educational and economic outcomes. This point has also been communicated to me in my riding by terrific organizations on the front lines of settling newcomers in Toronto, like the Parkdale Intercultural Association, the Parkdale Community Recreation Centre, CultureLink, the Parkdale Community Health Centre, and Polycultural Immigrant and Community Services.

Bill C-6 is also ethically sound. Until the previous government's decision to enact the old Bill C-24, we never had two tiers of citizenship in this country. It is not morally justifiable to divide citizens among those fortunate enough to be born here versus those who naturalize after arriving from overseas.

Our new bill does a lot more than just eliminate the two classes of citizenship created by the Conservatives. As I said, Bill C-6 also makes it easier to obtain citizenship in several important ways, which I will now address.

The barriers to citizenship that would be removed by this bill are many. I propose to address four.

The first relates to the length of time required to qualify for citizenship. Our legislation will require an applicant to be present in Canada for three years over a five-year time span, rather than the current four-year requirement over a six-year time span. Therefore, the bill would expand the pool of potential citizens and allow them to apply earlier.

More specifically, Bill C-6 is more flexible. It does not require a person to be in Canada for at least 183 days per year over each eligible year. Instead, one needs simply to be here for 1,095 days over a five-year period. What does that mean? It means flexibility. If one's job takes one overseas for an extended period, this would not make one automatically ineligible for citizenship.

Second, Bill C-6 would restore the knowledge and language testing requirement to the previous age range. The previous government passed legislation indicating that testing would be required for any applicant aged 14 to 64. We are restoring that age range back to the previous norm, which is age 18 to 54. This change would improve access to citizenship for the very young and for those 55 and over, thereby helping to speed up their formal integration.

Third, the intent to reside provision is being removed. Bill C-6 would no longer make it a requirement to declare one's intent to reside in Canada before becoming a citizen. That requirement was unmerited. All Canadians have mobility rights. More importantly, the old requirement created a great deal of confusion. Over 200 applications were returned to individuals who failed to complete the intent to reside portion of the application, because they did not understand it. They feared their citizenship could be revoked if they moved abroad. It cannot.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, Bill C-6 would allow time spent in Canada prior to becoming a permanent resident to count towards one's three-year requirement to become a citizen. This provision allows for a 50% credit for time spent in Canada prior to becoming a permanent resident, up to a maximum credit of one year.

Who will this help? It would help temporary foreign workers, international students, and protected persons by speeding all of these groups on their path towards citizenship. This makes sense. These people have already spent time here. They have already worked and studied here. They have already built an attachment to Canada.

I turn now to one of the criticisms we have heard about the bill, which is safety.

Allow me to be crystal clear. Bill C-6 would not imperil the safety of Canadians. Our government's commitment to safety is unwavering. We have a place for terrorists and it is called “jail”. We have a place to prosecute terrorists and that is called the “criminal justice system”. When one commits a crime in Canada, one is prosecuted by the criminal justice system. We do not need a Citizenship Act tool to address a Criminal Code problem.

However, there is also a broader more philosophical underpinning to Bill C-6. When we boost integration and put in place mechanisms for success, we strengthen ties and loyalty to this country. This does not threaten our safety. It is part of a host of initiatives, such as our response to the Syrian refugee crisis, which demonstrates Canada's openness, our inclusivity, and our compassion. These efforts counter radicalization and reduce threats to our safety. In fact, I would say we do this better than any country in the world, and I am proud to be part of a government that is restoring this reputation both here and abroad.

It is also important to understand that Bill C-6 is not an outright rejection of all aspects of its predecessor, Bill C-24, passed by the previous government.

What, from Bill C-24, have we decided to keep? There are provisions we have kept, but there are also provisions we have actually improved.

For instance, we have kept the physical presence requirement rather than the term “residence” because physical presence is easier to verify.

Revoking citizenship based on fraud and misrepresentation has existed since 1947, and this power remains in Bill C-6. Bill C-24, passed by the previous government, facilitated fraud detection, which is very important, and we have kept provisions that make this possible, as well as provisions that permit government to strip people of citizenship quickly when they have committed fraud. More importantly, we have also enhanced some of these provisions. For example, we have added a section that allows us to seize documents used in the commission of fraud. Finally, we have also committed to implementing all of the Auditor General's recommendations regarding preventing citizenship fraud.

Another improvement relates to conditional sentence orders. If convicted, time served in the community on a conditional sentence order can no longer count toward the three-year residence requirement and if one is on a conditional sentence order, one cannot take the oath of citizenship. Again, these are improvements on the predecessor legislation.

Let us talk about the committee. The bill has just returned from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We are also a government that believes in working across the aisle. At committee when amendments were proposed that made sense, that conformed with the policy direction we are pursuing with this legislation, that improved the bill, we did not hesitate to accept those amendments. Those amendments help us create a more diverse and inclusive Canada.

One of the amendments by the NDP added the term “statelessness” as a ground on which citizenship may be granted at the discretion of the minister. Another NDP amendment requires the minister to consider reasonable measures to accommodate the needs of citizenship applicants with disabilities. Those are amendments proposed by the opposition that we accepted on their merit and we welcome them as part of this new bill.

In conclusion, I want to return in my remarks to where I began.

When I provided a list of the 22 different nations that make up the homelands of members of the House, it was simply to provide a snapshot of the diversity of this chamber. This chamber serves as a proxy for this country, a country that is made up of literally millions of individuals whose provenance extends to every corner of the globe. To that diverse group, Bill C-6 says, “Your citizenship is no less valuable, no less respected, than that of a citizen born in this country”.

I believe one of the lasting attributes of the bill is one that has been rarely discussed. In facilitating pathways to citizenship, Bill C-6 also facilitates pathways to participation. Only citizens can cast votes in this country. Only citizens can stand for election to this chamber. By breaking down barriers to citizenship and putting in their place opportunities to obtain and retain citizenship, Bill C-6 promotes the highest level of engagement possible, engagement in our democratic process.

The ultimate job of any government, regardless of its political stripe, is to promote an engaged citizenry. That is precisely what Bill C-6 would do. I am proud to endorse the bill as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

moved that 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.

Business of the House

[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.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Ms. Biguzs, you touched briefly on Bill C-6, which gives officials new powers to seize documents that they suspect may be fraudulent. It is unusual that this provision was more explicit before. Can you please discuss in a little bit more detail how these new powers will help combat fraud in the citizenship program?

[Anita Biguzs]

Yes, that's right.

Under the citizenship legislation, our officers currently do not have the authority to seize a suspicious document. Bill C-6, which is before Parliament, actually includes that authority now. If that were to be approved, then our officers could do so.

Under the immigration legislation, officers have the authority, or under Canada Border Services under the immigration legislation, we can seize documents, but if a citizenship officer suspects that a document has been altered or is fraudulent, they can't actually take control of the document. That has led to inconsistencies in terms of our citizenship officers and what to do in those kinds of cases when they suspect that a document actually has been altered. We have updated our guidance to officers, and now, if an officer suspects there is a problem with a document, there are procedures. They can actually go to a CBSA officer or to an immigration officer in the same office. Basically, if it is an immigration document, then in fact the authority under the immigration legislation can be used to seize the document.

In the absence of an immigration-type concern, in fact, what we have now done to make sure there's consistency across the regions is that we have given guidance to our officers. Basically, they can in fact look at the document, and if they suspect there is an issue with the document, they can ask a client whether we could take control of the document.

If a client refuses, the procedures require that official copies be made of the document. We make official photocopies of the document. We alert our case management branch that is responsible for following up on issues of this nature. We put a red flag in our system, and we do not continue processing that particular applicant for citizenship until we have actually been able to verify that in fact there is no issue with respect to an identity document or a travel document that has been submitted.

As I say, we're hoping that if the legislation is passed this clarity of the authority for citizenship officers will be in place. Otherwise, we have other procedures that we've tried to put in place to address that concern.

[Anita Biguzs, Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Good day, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to appear before the committee to discuss the Spring 2016 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada.

As you've indicated, I'm here with several colleagues. From my Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, I have Mr. Robert Orr, assistant deputy minister of operations; from the Canada Border Services Agency, Denis Vinette, acting associate vice-president of operations; and from the RCMP, chief superintendent Brendan Heffernan, director general of the Canadian criminal real time identification services, and Inspector Jamie Solesme, officer in charge of the federal coordination centre, Canada-United States.

Let me open my comments, Mr. Chair, by saying that my department, IRCC, completely agrees with the Auditor General's report and recommendations. These will help us to continue to improve our processes, and departmental officials are already working quickly to effectively implement them. In fact, we have already made many improvements. We have introduced new procedures for dealing with applicants using addresses flagged as high risk. We have already provided better guidance to citizenship officers, and work is under way with the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP to improve information sharing.

Bill C-6, which is before Parliament now, also proposes amendments to the Citizenship Act that will include new authority to seize documents. We have a new framework in place as well to identify and manage fraud risks in the citizenship program.

I would like you to know that the department has thoroughly reviewed all cases that the OAG flagged to determine if fraud may have occurred. As a result of this review, the department has opened an investigation into 12 cases.

In addition to the controls examined in the Auditor General's audit, IRCC has several other fraud controls that are an integral part of the program. For example, all citizenship applicants aged 15 and a half and older must pass a criminal and security clearance check in order to be granted citizenship.

The immigration history of all citizenship applicants is thoroughly reviewed to determine if concerns, investigations or law enforcement actions have been noted in our Global Case Management System.

Applications with identified risk indicators are given closer scrutiny. Citizenship officers review CBSA information on passenger travel history and examine original documents during in-person interviews. Centres of expertise deal with complex cases to better detect fraud patterns and trends.

In addition, recent legislative changes have already strengthened our ability to deter and deal with fraud. These include increased penalties for fraud and the requirement that consultants be members in good standing of a regulatory body.

A new citizenship revocation model has also been effect since June 2015, which is more efficient and less costly to the government.

I'd like now to very quickly review four specific areas identified in the Auditor General's report.

The Auditor General 's report drew attention to cases of potentially fraudulent addresses. These are addresses known or suspected of being associated with fraud, based on information from the CBSA, the RCMP, or our own citizenship officers. The department has already issued better guidance to citizenship officers in inputting information into our databases so that these problem addresses can be identified more reliably and appropriate action taken.

It is also important to understand that having a problematic address does not necessarily mean an applicant is committing fraud. There is often a valid reason why many applicants would have provided the same address.

Second, IRCC has clarified the authorities relating to document seizure and provided detailed guidance to officers on the process to seize suspicious documents.

Recent changes to the Global Case Management System mean that citizenship officers now have access to Canada Border Services Agency's lost, stolen and fraudulent document database.

In addition, Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, which the government introduced in February, contains amendments that would provide new authorities for the seizure of potentially fraudulent documents.

The IRCC routinely receives information from its passport program and other government departments, such as Public Safety Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, and the RCMP.

We are actively working with our security partners to ensure that the department has the most up-to-date information possible. We have engaged the RCMP to review the optimal timing for conducting criminal screening, while bearing in mind the need to process citizenship applications in a timely manner. We are also establishing processes for the RCMP to share information on criminal charges impacting citizenship applicants with the IRCC after the initial screening.

The IRCC and the CBSA have also clarified the legislative authority supporting the required information sharing needed by our department for Citizenship Act eligibility decisions, and will develop processes for sharing information on immigration fraud, and this will all be completed by December 2016.

Fourth, as part of its ongoing efforts to improve program integrity, the department developed a systematic, evidence-based approach to identifying and managing the risks of fraud. This includes establishing baselines and monitoring trends. Under this framework, the department evaluates risk indicators to verify they are consistently applied and that fraud controls are working as intended. This analysis will help us make changes, if changes are needed.

I would like to thank the committee members for your attention, and we will be pleased to answer your questions.

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 calender. 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 colleague's 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?

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about maybe a quarter of the members who had the opportunity to speak at second reading. A lot of people expressed reservations. A number of amendments were made in the committee, as well as a number of amendments that we will vote on tonight with no time to discuss them.

I have some simple questions. When did this come back to the House? What did we debate on Monday? What did we debate on Tuesday, at the government's request? It was not this legislation. The Liberals could have called it anytime they wanted and they refused to do that.

We offered to debate until midnight each night. Instead, we debated Bill C-6 and Bill C-11. Therefore, the Liberals should not talk to me about time frames in getting it back.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member of the House I am extremely disappointed with respect to the government's actions. Like all new members in the House, the expectation among my residents in supporting me to come to this great place was that I was going to be able to extend my voice in the debates. As we have seen by the actions of the government, what amounts to effectively a basic dictatorship, debates have been stifled in the House.

I want to remind Canadians and I want to remind the government exactly what it said, what it handed to the Governor General in the throne speech. It is proving not to be worth the paper it was written on now. The throne speech said:

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.

Further on in the throne speech, it says:

And to 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.

Four times now, with Bills C-6, C-10, C-15 and now C-14, we are seeing debate thwarted. Why the hypocrisy on the part of the government? All Canadians deserve to know.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today as a member of Parliament who takes this job and this decision for Bill C-14 extremely seriously.

I ask both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice, recognizing that we have had time allocations, because this is such an important bill to so many Canadians, why could they not voice their opinions when we were debating Bill C-6 and Bill C-11, so that members on this side of the House, including members from their own side, could debate something that is so sensitive?

I, myself, hosted town halls, took letters out to constituents, and spoke to a variety of different physicians and stakeholders throughout this country. Our voices, I feel, are not being heard, regardless of whether we are for or against the bill.

Similar to our member down the aisle, I, too, voted for this to go to committee. I am proud of that because I believe we need to have this open discussion. However, the opportunity for this open discussion has been closed in our faces and I find that extremely frustrating, especially when I am trying to honour my constituents' wants and needs.

Why have the members on the other side not stepped forward to the fact that Bill C-14 is important to Canadians. They should have fought for Canadians when discussing the bill.

Copyright Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this subject. I will be splitting my time with the member for Lethbridge who also serves as our party's critic for disabilities. She is doing a phenomenal job in that role, standing up for vulnerable people.

This is a great bill. It is a bill that all parties as well as unrecognized parties agree on, but it is important to express some disappointment about the reality of the process and how this debate has come up today. We had Bill C-14 on the Notice Paper. Then we had a vote to concur in Bill C-6. Then we had closure on Bill C-10. Now we are on to Bill C-11 without notice.

I say this precisely because of the importance of the bill. It is a bill that we should all be coming together not only on substance but on process. Had we the notice, had we been able to plan this debate at a time when all parties were ready and organized for it, we would have been able to get so much more out of this conversation. There would have been an opportunity to bring in stakeholders perhaps, to listen to and to observe this debate. This would have given all parties the opportunity to ensure that those who really wanted or needed to speak to this were in a position to do so.

Instead, this very important substantive legislation is being used as a procedural weapon, it seems. The government tabled the bill on March 24. As much as the minister has mentioned the urgency of moving this forward, the Liberals could have at least given notice that they were going to do it today. We could have had the bill debated earlier. This is a missed opportunity.

In the previous timeslot, my colleague from the NDP, the member for Windsor West, wanted to split his time and a government member blocked that from happening. We have these missed opportunities of collegiality, missed opportunities to work together to put our best foot forward as a House. It is unfortunate, because we agree with the issue and can work together on it. Yes, there are times for partisanship in this place, but the bill should not have been one of those times.

I do not blame the minister for this. I have spoken to the minister at committee and I know she is committed to working across party lines on important issues. However, this speaks to the House leadership on the government side and how it views absolutely nothing it seems as beyond partisanship.

I want to get that out of the way because it is important to put on the record.

Let us talk about the bill. I am very proud to be speaking in favour of it.

Just to highlight for those who may be just joining the debate, the bill has three substantive different parts to it.

The bill would allow not-for-profit organizations acting on behalf of a person with a disability to convert books and other works into an accessible format without first seeking the permission of the copyright holder. It would instantly allow books that were currently not in accessible format to be converted into those formats. That is an important change, one that would make a positive difference.

Also, as part of the treaty that the bill would operate under, the Marrakesh treaty, which was signed in 2013 and would now through this legislation be ratified, it would allow the sharing of those works between different countries participating in that treaty. There is the domestic element of allowing people to have access to this important information. There is also that international element, encouraging sharing between different countries of this vital material.

Finally, the bill would make important related amendments to digital lock provisions.

Obviously we are going to support the bill. It is getting a lot of consensus. This is the conclusion of a prior process of which the previous government was certainly a part. Budget 2015 set out a plan to implement this treaty. Page 286 of budget 2015, stated:

The Government will propose amendments to the Copyright Act to implement and accede to the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled.

The ability to access printed information is essential to prepare for and participate in Canada’s economy, society and job market. According to Statistics Canada, approximately 1 million Canadians live with blindness or partial sight. The Government will propose amendments to the Copyright Act to implement and accede to the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled (the Marrakesh Treaty).

Aligning Canada’s copyright limitations and exceptions with the international standard established by the Marrakesh Treaty would enable Canada to accede to this international agreement. Once the treaty is in force, as a member country, [Canada] would benefit from greater access to adapted materials.

It is worth nothing that this process has been in place. Certainly, this was the plan laid out in Canada's economic action plan 2015. However, we are very pleased to see the new government continue on with this important work. This work needed to be done.

I would like to specifically motivate the philosophy behind the bill. It is essential that every person has access to books. Books are a major part of all of our lives, and they are an important part of every child's life.

My daughter, Gianna, and I read books all the time. I read books to her on Skype when I am in Ottawa. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have a child who has a visual impairment and who is unable to get books which he or she can read. My daughter is a voracious reader. I brought four books with me and we went through them all in one evening. I need to bring more books with me next time I come to Ottawa, clearly. It is great to see how important books are to us all, especially kids. We need to ensure that people of all ages, including children, have access to reading material of all kinds.

As has been discussed in the House, people's reading decisions are not limited by the availability of books.

Again, I cannot imagine what it would be like to really want to read a particular book, whether a novel or a work of non-fiction, and be told that because of a disability, I cannot read that book, that the book is not available to me, that the knowledge is not available to me. I think that would be a very difficult thing for anyone to deal with. That is why this legislation is important for ensuring that everyone has access to books, that there can really be the full sharing of knowledge that takes place.

Everyone in every situation should have access to as much knowledge, as many books as possible. There can be nothing but good that would come from more access to books for more people.

I also want to talk about the international dimension of this. One of the things we know about Canada is that many people maybe have come here from other places or maybe were born here, but who like to read books in other languages. They might be more comfortable in a language other than English or French, or they simply enjoy reading works from a range of different languages. Specifically, the international dimension of this treaty would allow Canadians to have greater access to books in other languages that may be in a better format which they can make more use of.

Some of the countries that have signed the treaty so far are Argentina, El Salvador, India, Mali, Paraguay, Singapore, UAE, and Uruguay. In a multicultural Canada that likely means more access to materials in languages like Hindi, Punjabi, and Spanish. It is important that through those international sharing takes place for all Canadians, not just those who want to access things in English or French, have access to them.

Noting the countries that have signed the treaty so far, it does not look like there are that many Francophone countries. In addition to us ratifying this, there is a lot of value in Canada playing a role, encouraging other countries to ratify and, in particular, seeing if we can use our relationships through the Francophonie to encourage more Francophone countries to ratify this and therefore ensure we have good access to more French-language materials.

We need to get to 20 countries. It is important that we get those 20 countries ratifying. I understand from the minister that we only have three more to go. This is an important leadership role Canada can play and the continuing advocacy we have to do.

I mentioned this during questions and comments, but I have had a constituent raise with me the importance of ensuring those tools people access that allow them, as people with disabilities, to operate in the world, to read, and to do other things, it may be an iPad or a speech app on a phone, are tax deductible. I see measures that address those issues as aligning well with the measures in this legislation.

I look forward to supporting the bill.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what the bill does is kill thousands of aerospace jobs in this country.

The government should not be proud of bringing forward the bill, but I have to comment on the absolute chaos we have seen from the government this morning. In 60 minutes, we have now gone through three pieces of legislation. We were told today was to be reserved for Bill C-14. That was what was placed on the projected order of business. We arrived this morning and the government said no, it would bring in Bill C-6, and then it switched rapidly to Bill C-10.

We know why the Liberals are bringing in Bill C-10. They are trying to provoke closure and bulldoze this through, because yesterday parliamentarians tied in their vote on Bill C-10. The bill is so bad, the legislation is so destructive to aerospace jobs in Canada, as you know, Mr. Speaker, you had to break the tie. It was 139 to 139. That has only happened 11 times in Canadian history, and in fact, it is the first time that a majority government and a government bill has seen a tie vote broken by the Speaker.

Is that not the real reason why sunny ways have turned into dark ways and why the Liberals are trying to bulldoze the bill through? It is because they are embarrassed by the results from yesterday.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to make a ruling in relation to Bill C-6, which is an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-6.

Motion No. 1 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee.

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

Citizenship Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the projected order of business for today, and it says very clearly that Bill C-14 is up for debate. I am surprised that the government is refusing to bring that forward when it is on the projected order of business.

I hope, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that the order of the day not be Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, and that the House proceed to the consideration of report stage of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying).

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for raising this important issue in the House and for her continued advocacy on the part of immigration issues as the opposition critic.

This is an important debate on cessation issues in the former Bill C-31 enacted by the previous government, and the impact it has on permanent residents.

The hon. member for Vancouver East has asked a very important question, and has raised this previously with our government. In fact, the government is in absolute agreement with the hon. member for Vancouver East on the need to review this very important piece of legislation and its impact since it was enacted under the former Bill C-31.

We have, in this country, a long and proud tradition of providing protection to those in need. We have one of the fairest and most generous immigration and asylum systems in the world. Our immigration laws are applied impartially, they are based on facts, and they are meant to accord with due process.

The authority of the independent and quasi-judicial IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board, to determine whether an individual's refugee protection has ceased is not itself a new provision. It actually predates the 2012 asylum system reforms. As well, it is important to specify that the authority to revoke permanent resident status, including the permanent resident status of a refugee, also existed before Bill C-31.

However, what is very troubling about Bill C-31 is that under the 2012 reforms enacted by the previous government, cessation of protected person status was added as grounds for losing one's permanent resident status. That effectively meant it was double-barrelled. That meant that both protected person status and permanent resident status now end simultaneously once a refugee in Canada has demonstrated that they are no longer in need of protection.

The minister, himself, has said in the House that he agrees that the legislation, which has been identified by the member for Vancouver East, is part of a long legacy of matters inherited from the previous government that our government desperately wants to review, and will review.

As members know, we are not at liberty to discuss particulars of a specific case due to privacy considerations, but the minister has expressed public sympathy with the point the hon. member is raising. I can assure the House that the government is reviewing policies and legislation introduced in recent years with a view to developing proposals to improve them.

In a relatively short time, and I will demonstrate to the House a number of measures we have taken in short order to address the legislative initiatives of the previous government that were very problematic.

For example, in terms of the government's respect for the rulings of the Federal Court, the Federal Court had found in December 2011 that the policy requiring the removal of face coverings to take the oath of citizenship was unlawful. We agree with that decision; the previous government did not. We dropped the appeal of that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the case of Ishaq v. Canada.

Another example of us being more than willing retract and retrench on legislation by the previous government is rescinding the legislation that came in under Bill C-24. We have introduced amendments to the Citizenship Act that members of the House will be familiar with. Bill C-6 makes it easier for applicants to meet citizenship requirements and helps encourage their sense of belonging and connection to Canada. It also eliminates the two classes of citizenship that were perpetuated by the previous government, which we stood fundamentally against and campaigned against.

Another example of our government's review of existing procedures that help to promote greater openness and better processing is our response regarding Haitian and Zimbabwean nationals. On February 4 of this year, the Government of Canada announced that Haitian and Zimbabwean nationals in this country would be provided another six months to apply for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds—

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to thank the minister and the officials for joining us today. I want to specifically thank you, Minister, for all the work you have put into Bill C-6.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Minister McCallum, welcome once again before this committee. Obviously, as you can appreciate, every time you make yourself readily available to us, that actually assists with the work of this committee.

In addition, I want to congratulate you on Bill C-6. As you alluded to in your opening remarks, we did go through a clause-by-clause review of Bill C-6. As you're well aware, there were a number of amendments that were suggested either by members of this committee or witnesses who appeared before us. Those amendments fell beyond the scope of the bill.

Just in terms of clarification, you did suggest that your department would be very interested in making additional changes. Could you kindly elaborate on that point and perhaps inform us whether your department is currently considering any amendments to the Citizenship Act?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everybody. It's a pleasure to be back.

I will have a few remarks, but I want at the beginning to thank all of you for your work on Bill C-6. I understand that you did all the clause-by-clause consideration in one meeting, so congratulations to everybody on that. I understand that we had two amendments accepted. That's good.

Also, I made a commitment some time ago that we would move forward in the fall on a proper appeal right on the issue of citizenship revocation. I know you heard from various witnesses.

I have said from the beginning that we would do it, but we also don't want to delay this bill unduly. To do it will require certain legislative changes and possibly even machinery-of-government changes, which don't happen overnight. We therefore couldn't include it in this bill, but we are clearly committed to move forward on it in the fall, working with you, who have been listening to witnesses on the subject and I'm sure have some ideas on the best method of going forward on that issue.

I turn now to the estimates.

I'm very pleased to be here today to present Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's main estimates for fiscal year 2016-17.

I think you've met my officials before, but I should say who they are. We have the deputy minister, Anita Biguzs, and David Manicom, Robert Orr, Dawn Edlund, and Tony Matson, who are all here to possibly answer some questions or give me advice. We're all pleased to be here.

I will focus on some of the most significant allocations we're requesting to help our department meet our goals. As I said in a previous appearance before this committee, these goals are in service of our government's commitment to strengthen our generous and welcoming country through the immigration system and to open Canada's doors to those who want to contribute to our prosperity and to the success of our country.

I can report that our department's main estimates have an overall net increase of $186.2 million from the previous year. Most of that increase—the great majority of it, $179.3 million—is for funding to implement our response to the Syrian refugee crisis.

As you know, we achieved our goal of resettling 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of February, and we will continue to welcome refugees from Syria throughout this year, as our efforts focus more and more on settlement and integration.

On that issue of integration, I can report that the latest numbers state that 97% of the refugees are now in permanent housing. I think that's good news. We still have 3% to go, but we're almost there.

That doesn't mean everything is solved. There is still the question of jobs, and there is still language, but housing is a big part of the trip.

The majority of the funds we are requesting in these main estimates for Syrian refugee resettlement will be in the form of grants and contributions. This grants and contribution funding will be used for resettlement assistance through income support for newcomers to cover items such as food, clothing, and shelter, or to fund NGOs for the many critical services they provide during the resettlement process.

Grants and contributions funding will be used, for example, to support third parties who provide settlement assistance, such as language training, orientation to life in Canada, and counselling.

Another notable increase in these main estimates is $29.3 million requested to continue to implement and administer reforms to the temporary foreign worker program and the international mobility program. Most of that comes in the form of operating expenditures in order to implement the changes that were introduced in June 2014. These expenditures are related to initiatives and activities that will help to balance our interest in attracting international talent with existing labour market needs.

Mr. Chair, my department's main estimates for 2016-17 also include an increase of $17.9 million in funding for the passport program, and an increase of $14.9 million in funding related to the expansion of biometric screening in Canada's immigration system.

There are a number of other items I could mention but I think I'll come to a close to leave more time for questions.

I would conclude by saying that welcoming newcomers and helping them to settle and integrate well into Canadian society is critical to our country's future and has always been an important part of our history.

The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring the success of the immigration system, and the main estimates that we are discussing today reflect that commitment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to answer any questions committee members may have.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and I would like to thank the Auditor General and his officials for joining us today.

I'll be focusing my question on report 2, regarding detecting and preventing fraud in the citizenship program.

For me and for all of us, I think, Canadian citizenship is something that is valued and sought after by people all over the world. We have an obligation to protect its integrity. If Bill C-6, which is currently before this Parliament, becomes law, then fraud or misrepresentation will be the only grounds under which we would revoke anyone's citizenship. This speaks to how seriously we take this as a country.

I was disturbed to read that you found the department was not able to adequately detect fraud in the citizenship program. Based on the samples you evaluated for this report, are you able to estimate the scope of the problem? Can you quantify it? What percentage of approved applications may be fraudulent or suspect?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On this amendment, I would actually support it. To do a review five years hence is not a bad thing. In my understanding, it does not mean that the changes made in Bill C-6 would come to an end, so that is to say it is not a sunset clause at all. The laws that have been passed accordingly after receiving third reading in the House will continue to be the law. It only means that it should come back as a bill to be reviewed by the committee and to determine or have an evaluation of how the changes have been.

This is the reason I support this. For example, I raised a number of amendments, though few of them were within scope, and the majority of them were defeated by the government members. The government members' argument is that we already have provisions in place. The ministers already have those authorities, and this is not an issue, and so on. But in reality is it going to turn out like that to say really, it's not an issue?

From my perspective, it is worth looking into it to see five years hence am I right, or are the government members right? If my concerns are not valid, it would be really good after five years to come back to indicate that, and then I could say that I didn't have to worry about that and it was all going to be okay and those issues were in fact addressed through different provisions, etc.

To that end, I would support this review, which is all it is. It's just a review and it does not create a sunset clause for the act itself, nor does it preclude the government from bringing forward additional amendments that we talked about at this committee meeting, which I suspect and hope will be forthcoming in the fall.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is simply unnecessary. It essentially establishes a sunset clause on Bill C-6. As this committee well knows, the committee has the authority and power to conduct any study at any given time on any citizenship or immigration program in this country. Passing this amendment to ensure that after a five-year period an automatic study and review is carried out is simply not necessary. In fact, the committee may wish to look at some aspect of the legislation and its effects before the five-year period is up. I think that simply by the nature of the authority this committee has, this amendment is not needed, so I will not be supporting it.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Essentially this amendment proposes a five-year review clause. It would add a five-year review clause to trigger a parliamentary review five years after the coming into force. The text of the clause is before you, but I would like to read it.

At the start of the fifth year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, the provisions enacted by this Act are to be referred to the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the provisions.

Proposed subclause 26.1(2) says:

The committee to which the provisions are referred is to review them and submit a report to the House or Houses of Parliament of which it is a committee, including a statement setting out any changes to the provisions that the committee recommends.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it's reasonable that this committee review the progress and the state of this legislation from time to time. Asking for this sunset type of clause is not unusual. Five-year review clauses are not uncommon here or in other committees. It seems that this is an appropriate piece of legislation to contain one. Our immigration patterns over the past quarter of a century have shifted, and that shifting is unlikely to change. It seems prudent, Mr. Chairman, to include a five-year review clause to monitor the health of one of Canada's most precious commodities, and that is our citizenship.

Bill C-6 is making some substantial changes to the law, and I think it's fair, Mr. Chairman, that we need to monitor. We've heard witnesses make some submissions. The committee hasn't agreed with some of them; we've agreed with others. I think it's prudent that this committee pass this proposed new clause to give us an opportunity in five years' time to review what we have done.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that ruling. This amendment is another important one related to process. Perhaps it was an oversight at the time when the government brought in Bill C-6 that didn't address this, and it makes a better process. It makes for a more efficient process and a less costly process for individuals who are faced with such a circumstance. I hope the government will take this into consideration for potentially a fall piece of legislation around this issue.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On a point of clarification on clause 3, Mr. Chair, if it passes—and it will, accordingly—that means we keep the system intact as it is under Bill C-6 and as it is proposed with all the flaws, accordingly.

Am I correct in that understanding? I want that on the public record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Bill C-6 amends the Citizenship Act and another act in consequence. The amendment seeks to amend subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act. The bill seeks to repeal subsection 10(2) of the act. Whereas in subsection 10(1) of the act the minister has the power to revoke a person's citizenship, the amendment brings forward a new concept by giving the immigration appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board the power to decide the revocation of someone's citizenship.

This would go beyond the scope of the bill as agreed by the House at second reading. As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading...is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

Consequently, it's the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. This amendment deals with the second generation “born abroad” issue as well. As I stated earlier on some of the concerns with respect to that, this aims to remedy the situation in which a person born outside of Canada was adopted by a parent, as referred to in paragraphs 5.1(a) and 5.1(b) of the act, and is either a citizen under prior legislation or the former act or was granted citizenship under paragraph 5(2)(a) of the act as it read before April 17, 2009. In that respect, as committee members may know, the amendments that were brought forward around April 17, 2009, abolished the provision for those born outside, prior to their turning 28, but those who turn 28 after that period are actually now in a state of statelessness or are, as some would call them, lost Canadians.

This is another way to address this for those born in the second generation by bringing forward a provision such that all these individuals are Canadians so that they're not lost in the system per se. There was actually a really good submission from the Lost Canadians, on two small categories in need of better remedies, that was presented to all committee members, which outlines the history of this, and the rationale of calling for this change so that we can prevent a situation in which people are somehow lost in the system.

I'd just like to also point out comments made by the Canadian Council for Refugees. They actually stated that there are no measures in Bill C-6 to address the unfair situations created by the 2009 amendments, and that by denying citizenship to the second generation born abroad, Canada is creating a new set of lost Canadians and making some children born to Canadians stateless. Avvy Go, in her presentation as a witness, gave a really clear example of why this is a problem. She said:

Yes, I think that's an area that needs to be improved.

For instance, I have relatives where the husband was born in Canada and the wife wasn't. They're both citizens. I was advising them to make sure, when the kids are born overseas, that it's the father who applies for their citizenship, because if they apply for citizenship under the mother, their children may not become Canadian citizens. I think that example highlights the unfairness of the situation. I would certainly recommend that this provision be amended.

This illustrates the flaws of the current act as it stands, and this amendment is proposed to remedy that, Mr. Chair. So to that end, I move my amendment NDP-7, reference number 8213690.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Similar to my previous ruling, the amendment seeks to amend in this particular case section 2 of the Citizenship Act, which is not being amended by Bill C-6, and it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment, NDP-3, is also an amendment to address the issue of statelessness. In particular, this amendment is attempting to prevent individuals from becoming stateless.

Again, a number of organizations have presented to us and raised their concerns around this and felt there needed to be action taken with Bill C-6 to fix the problem. These include the Canadian Centre on Statelessness, the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, Dr. Patti Lenard, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and Legal Aid Ontario.

The issue, as I indicated, is trying to address the concern to prevent individuals from being stripped of their legal status in Canada, resulting in their being stateless. The notion of statelessness is not considered as a factor in the assessment of granting citizenship by subsection 5(4), as it applies to cases of special and unusual hardship. The unique circumstances of statelessness present a challenge with respect to applying for subsection 5(4) grants. It challenges one's legal existence by nationality, citizenship, or birth certificates. This amendment is attempting to fix that problem accordingly.

One of the issues that has been raised, which I thought was particularly useful for consideration in this regard, is from the Ontario Legal Aid Association. Andrew Brouwer actually said, and I quote:

We are certainly hopeful that the new government's renewed recognition of the importance of international law and global engagement will result in our signing the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, but there is something that we can do right now with this act to make sure that we are better protecting stateless persons and coming into better compliance with international law and norms.

To that end, three recommendations were made to which these amendments speak. Those were to provide a definition of statelessness within subsection 2(1) of the act. Then it also asks to include both a de jure statelessness as well as a de facto statelessness.

Practically speaking, the whole point of dealing with statelessness and assisting stateless persons to get protection is to make sure that every member of society has a connection to a state. There are concerns that have been expressed by various people, including those in a case in the United Kingdom that shows the problems when we have an overly legalistic and narrow definition of statelessness.

That's what these amendments are aiming to fix. Again, this is an issue I think that crosses all partisan lines because those constituents are everywhere in every part of the community.

I move the NDP-3 amendment in my name, Mr. Chair, reference number 8223108.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

In regard to NDP-2, the amendment seeks to amend section 3 of the Citizenship Act. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states the following on pages 766 and 767:

...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since section 3 of the Citizenship Act is not being amended by Bill C-6, it's therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is not admissible.

[Mary-Ann Hubers, Director, Citizenship Program Delivery, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to correct my response to Mr. Tilson's questions during my April 12 appearance about the new seizure of document authority in Bill C-6. Mr. Tilson asked about the grounds under which the new seizure authority could be exercised. During that exchange, I responded that in the act it says that there have to be reasonable grounds to believe that the document is fraudulent. The regulations would prescribe the factors that could go into that and then in dealing with the detained document.

I want to clarify that officers will rely on the authority in the act, and not the regulations, to seize fraudulent documents if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the document is fraudulent.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Good morning. I call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference received by the committee on March 21, 2016, the committee will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

Before clause-by-clause consideration begins, we have department officials here who would like to make a short clarification of some earlier testimony.

Go ahead, Ms. Hubers.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be splitting my time with Mr. Tabbara.

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before us today.

My question is directed to you, Ms. Go and Mr. Wong. I want to first congratulate the work of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic for their advocacy on immigration and other related issues. I'm aware that the majority of your clients are of Chinese descent. I speak as a member of this committee but also as a Chinese Canadian to say that I know how two-tier citizenship doesn't work. We know that Chinese Canadians arrived in Canada in the late 19th century and were subject to the Chinese head tax, the Chinese Exclusion Act, and were treated as second-class citizens. I always say that we use history to learn from the mistakes of the past and to guide us moving forward.

My question is related to what you believe can be done to better support marginalized groups that come to Canada. The Chinese were in Canada to help build the railroad, a job that Canadians at the time were not prepared to do. As we all know, the House issued a formal apology 10 years ago. The last spike, which was presented to the Prime Minister at the time, was lost, and most recently found again. This symbolizes how the Chinese were not given a pathway to citizenship and were not treated as equal citizens.

We know that many people come to Canada as live-in caregivers, as temporary workers. Do you believe Bill C-6 goes far enough to provide them with a pathway to become full citizens?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

In the case where minors are without a parent—for a whole variety of reasons—they are precluded, under Bill C-6, from making an application for citizenship. Other witnesses have come forward to say that we should have provisions to address that issue, along with that of people with disabilities.

I have probably less than 30 seconds now, so I'm splitting that among all of you.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

If a group of individuals are deemed to be stateless and are in that situation for a whole variety of reasons, I wonder if you have any suggestions as to whether or not an amendment should be brought forward under Bill C-6 to address these groups of individuals.

I'll open it up to all the presenters.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask a question to Mr. Green and Mr. Kurland, in particular, and it has to do with subclause 1(8) of Bill C-6, which repeals the requirement that a person intend to reside in Canada if granted citizenship. This was established in Bill C-24. Are you concerned that Canadian citizenship might be sought by those looking for a citizenship of convenience, without the intent of living in Canada once it's obtained?

It appears there are many citizens who get their citizenship and then they're gone. They go to Saudi Arabia and make a lot more money there. I don't mean to pick on Saudi Arabia, but they go to another jurisdiction where they make substantially more funds than they do here.

One of the witnesses in the first round gave the example of Lebanon. In July of 2006 there were 34 ship evacuations of Canadian citizens who left Lebanon. That's ships; that's not individuals. There were 34 ship evacuations and 65 air evacuations. It's interesting to know that many of the people who had the air evacuations, even though it was paid for by the Canadian government, wanted the travel points. That amounts to approximately 15,000 Canadians at a cost of about $75 million. Many of those people returned to Lebanon when things settled down. That's just one example.

That section is gone. I think it was raised by Mr. Wong about this whole issue of citizenship by convenience. It's a great thing to have a Canadian passport. Many people on this planet would love to have a Canadian passport.

Those are my questions for Mr. Green, and then Mr. Kurland.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to thank all the witnesses. I've had the opportunity to go over all your statements, and it's quite obvious that each of you brings a lot of expertise to bear, and you've had the chance to actually go through the legislation, through the various provisions to ensure that we do have a good Bill C-6, to ensure that there are no shortcomings or gaps, things of that nature.

I was wondering whether I could ask each and every one of you whether you agree that insofar as the revocation provision is concerned, there isn't enough procedural oversight or mechanisms. Do you agree with that particular statement? What would you envision to ensure that we can strengthen that particular area of Bill C-6? I'd like to ask all three of you to answer that question.

[Avvy Go, Clinic Director, Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic]

Thank you.

My name is Avvy Go. I'm the clinic director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, which is a not-for-profit, community-based organization providing free legal services to low-income people in the greater Toronto area. With me is Vince Wong, who is a staff lawyer at our clinic. We're very pleased to be here and we thank you for the opportunity to comment on the bill.

For us, the Citizenship Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation in our country. Citizenship defines who we are as a people and therefore what Canada is as a nation. Being able to become a Canadian citizen is important, particularly for many immigrants, because our legal system reserves certain benefits, rights, and privileges to those with citizenship status, and of course, the most important, which is the right to vote.

Citizenship also gives immigrants to Canada a sense of belonging and it reaffirms their place in the country they call home. It's important for many of our clients at the clinic—many of them are racialized, many are non-citizens—to be reassured that our Citizenship Act does not promote injustice and exclusion. In fact, I will argue it's in the interests of all of us in our country that our citizenship law signals to all of our immigrants that Canadian society is a welcoming place for all people, regardless of their race, gender, socio-economic status, and so on.

We are pleased to see that Bill C-6 repeals many of the provisions that previous Bill C-24 had put in, for example, resetting the language and knowledge requirement so that they only apply to applicants aged 18 to 54, repealing the intent-to-reside provision, and reinstating a half-day credit for time spent prior to acquiring permanent resident status. These and others are positive changes, but many serious problems still exist with the current framework, and I'm going to turn to my colleague to address some of those problems.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fogel, you cited historical examples to demonstrate your support for citizenship revocation, and as you know, under Bill C-6 citizenship can still be revoked for reasons of fraud or misrepresentation. You seem to be satisfied that these grounds should remain for those that willfully, as you put it, commit fraud. How do you determine willful fraud?

Some critics have argued that under the current legislation a single immigration officer is empowered with making that decision of whether or not to revoke citizenship on these grounds. It seems to me it's quite a subjective decision. What are your thoughts on this?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

In the same vein, might this argument not also apply to those with a criminal record abroad? As it stands right now Bill C-6 did not make any changes relative to Bill C-24 in that if you have a criminal record abroad for an indictable offence, you are automatically exempt from consideration. You will not become a citizen here in Canada.

We have seen situations like Mr. Fahmy's, whereas in other jurisdictions the judicial system might be different. There might be other factors that should be considered. I wonder what your thoughts are on that issue, and whether or not there should also be a proper process to deal with that as opposed to an automatic decision.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Winter.

My next question is for Mr. Fogel. I am confused by your support of the intent-to-reside provision of Bill C-24, which is being proposed to be repealed in Bill C-6.

I think we all dislike the concept of the so-called citizens of convenience. As you know, the Charter of Rights grants all Canadians mobility rights. That is part of the Charter of Rights. The intent-to-reside provision would seem to be unenforceable symbolism.

How do you reconcile it with the charter?

[Professor Elke Winter, Associate Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you.

It is a great honour to be in this House again, so thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-6.

I am a sociologist who looks at citizenship legislation as a part of the government's effort of nation-building. My testimony is based on past and ongoing research, and today I would like to emphasize three points.

First, I commend the minister for proposing to repeal subsection 10(2) of the Citizenship Act, which provides the grounds for revoking citizenship related to national security. I would like to make three points to support this.

First, from a nation-building point of view, the revocation of citizenship is not a solution for a social problem, because it means exporting potential criminals to countries that cannot handle these individuals any better than Canada. Perpetrators may be either submitted to the death penalty, incarcerated in inhumane conditions, or most likely, the countries they are exported to may not be able to prevent them from committing terrorist acts from abroad. None of these are desirable, I believe, from a Canadian point of view.

Second, research suggests that perpetrators seldom refrain from heinous crimes due to drastic penalties. Not even the death penalty deters them, and potential terrorists rarely feel discouraged by the threat of citizenship revocation.

Third, and probably most important, our research has shown that past legislation, maybe unintentionally, contributed to the stereotyping of Canadian Muslims. Supported by a grant from Public Safety, researchers at the University of Ottawa have studied the media and social media coverage of the terms of revocation for Canadian dual nationals convicted for the threat of committing treason, espionage, and terrorism.

You will be interested to hear that the revocation measure was discussed skeptically by the media. Although the media was skeptical of it, their way of reporting also supported the idea that it is among Canadian Muslims, as well as dual Canadians more generally, that we are most likely to find terrorists. This, I would argue, is not conducive for multicultural nation-building.

I now come to my second substantial, larger point. In my reading of Bill C-6, as it's proposed, this legislation will bring Canadian law back in line with the idea that naturalization, becoming a citizen, is not an end point or reward of integration, but rather an important step toward immigrant integration.

Comparative research shows this approach is much more conducive to making immigrants not only part of the country's socio-economic fabric, but also to winning their hearts and minds, which is the ultimate goal when building a nation.

Once again, let me make three points to support this. Language skills are important to facilitate participation in society, but so is formal citizenship. Restoring the previous age limits for language and knowledge testing, and adjusting the language level in the application kit, will reduce barriers to the less educated, non-European-language speakers, and the economically vulnerable.

As we well know, at universities testing is a stressful undertaking, specifically for older persons and accompanying family members, often women.

As the previous speaker has already noted, restoring the pre-permanent resident 50% credit toward citizenship is an important incentive to those with Canadian experience: students, refugees, and former temporary workers. It highlights the interpretation of formal citizenship as a step within the longer journey to becoming fully integrated.

Third, changing the residence requirement to three out of five years, I believe, is conducive to retaining immigrants who are highly skilled, and highly mobile, the so-called best brains in the world that Canada and other countries want to attract. This measure enables these individuals to also become citizens, even though they may have to work outside of the country for some time and not be physically present. It gives them more flexibility.

My larger point is not part of Bill C-6 as it is presently proposed, but I urge the government to consider implementing a recommendation made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, namely to revise the citizenship oath to include the respect of treaties between the crown and indigenous people.

Interviews that I conducted with new Canadian citizens show for them the citizenship ceremony and the oath are very important and meaningful elements of the naturalization process. Since the current government has already pledged to value the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations, from the perspective of building a nation, this may be a good moment to strengthen the relations between our new Canadians and our oldest ones.

In summary, Canada has a long history of selecting immigrants who make an economic contribution to this country. For this it is envied in the world. This rationale, however, needs to be complemented by a warm welcome of new Canadians. I believe that this bill as it stands will move the legislation closer to that end.

Thank you.

[Shimon Fogel, Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs]

Thank you. I am grateful to be here representing the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the advocacy agent of the Jewish Federations of Canada, to discuss Bill C-6.

As I noted in my testimony before this committee regarding Bill C-24, Canadian citizenship is one of the most valuable and highly respected commodities in the world, but it is far from being just a prestigious status one acquires. Citizenship in this country is an unparalleled package of balanced rights and responsibilities based on a set of core values designed to ensure dignity, freedom, and equality for all. I am certain that everyone around this table agrees that immigrants are among the proudest patriots and shapers of this country, a source of cultural vitality and economic strength.

Despite the dark era of Canada's “none is too many” immigration and refugee policy for Jews, we have come here from all corners of the globe for more than 200 years. Our community has made a positive contribution to the Canadian story, like so many others whom we join in appreciating the extraordinary opportunity and privilege of being Canadian.

We are glad that Bill C-6 will once again allow time spent in Canada as a temporary resident to count towards the residency requirement for citizenship. This will be particularly beneficial with regard to retaining talented international students who come to this country to advance their education and skills while simultaneously integrating with Canadian peers. They would seem to be ideal candidates for citizenship, and there should be no unnecessary obstacles in their path.

As this committee considers the merits of repealing many of Bill C-24's other provisions, I would like to highlight some elements that Bill C-6 quite correctly will leave in place, the importance of which cannot be overstated.

Retaining a physical presence standard in determining residency requirements for citizenship is an important principle that can enhance integration and decrease marginalization of new immigrants and, as Minister McCallum has mentioned, can also help counteract the problem of citizens of convenience. Bill C-6 will also maintain basic language and knowledge testing requirements for citizenship applications. Coupled with physical presence, this can make a significant contribution towards counteracting the importation of anti-Semitic and other extremist views, which, though marginalized here in Canada, are unfortunately still prevalent in many parts of the world.

We are very pleased that Bill C-6 does not seek to repeal Bill C-24's streamlined provisions for revoking citizenship from those who obtained it through fraud or misrepresentation. These provisions consolidated a process that has been routinely abused by those who hid their Nazi past when coming to Canada. The ongoing case of Helmut Oberlander is a timely example. Oberlander was a decorated member of the savage Nazi mobile killing unit responsible for the murder of more than 90,000 Jewish men, women, and children. When he applied for entry into Canada in 1954, he misrepresented his wartime past and fraudulently obtained Canadian citizenship. Oberlander has avoided the final revocation of his citizenship and removal from Canada by exploiting a flawed system for more than 20 years.

This ongoing experience demonstrates the need for Bill C-24's revocation provisions to be retained, and the government's commitment in this regard should be universally supported.

In this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the government for seeking leave to appeal the latest Federal Court of Appeal's decision regarding the revocation of Oberlander's citizenship to the Supreme Court.

There are other components that Bill C-6 seeks to repeal that we believe merit further consideration. We supported the introduction of measures to ensure that those who apply for Canadian citizenship actually intend to maintain a meaningful connection to Canada. The intent-to-reside provisions that Bill C-6 will repeal are an important element in this regard and could continue to have an impact on reducing the problem of citizens of convenience.

That said, the current articulation of this provision does indeed create a potential for abuse. Safeguards are needed to preclude a minister from commencing a revocation proceeding for someone who declared intent to reside but then went abroad to study, work, or tend to an ill relative. People should not fear being penalized for such eminently reasonable actions, even if the chances of a minister actually doing this are remote.

In reference to this provision, Minister McCallum when he was a member of this committee in the previous Parliament noted, with regard to:

...the question of citizens of convenience. We want measures in place to deter that. I sympathize with that goal, in principle. We want measures in place to deter that. I sympathize with that goal in principle.

Instead of repealing “intent to reside”, the existing law could be amended to more closely align this provision's substance with its principle. This could be achieved with a check on ministerial discretion, a requirement for the minister to seek a court declaration in cases of misrepresentation of intent to reside, similar to the requirement included for other cases of fraud.

When I last appeared before this committee to testify regarding Bill C-24, I articulated a position in support of the revocation of citizenship from dual national Canadians who commit certain offences, including terrorism offences. This position was a reflection of our belief that in the case of certain particularly heinous political crimes, the perpetrator is actually guilty of two distinct offences. First, they're guilty of the particular crime they have committed; but second, they're guilty of a fundamental betrayal of the core values on which Canadian citizenship is based.

Our support for this provision reflects the desire to address not just the crime but also the grievous insult to Canada and Canadian identity that has taken place. This is why we advocated for the revocation provisions to be expanded to include those convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I would like to call the meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference received by the committee on March 21, 2016, the committee will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

We have three witnesses before us. The witnesses will make opening remarks in the order in which they appear on the notice. The first witness is Mr. Shimon Fogel, chief executive officer of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

The second witness will be Ms. Elke Winter, associate professor of sociology, department of sociology and anthropology, University of Ottawa, as an individual.

The third witness will be Mr. Peter Edelmann, lawyer, Edelmann and Company Law Offices, and he is here as an individual as well.

Mr. Fogel, you have seven minutes, please.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank all the witnesses. All the testimonies have been very helpful.

I was wondering if I could ask Ms. Dench about her comments on counting time in Canada before becoming a permanent resident. First of all, it's incredible how lengthy your submissions are. They're very helpful.

I note in the recommendations you make here, first of all, you state, “We support the proposed residency eligibility period of three out of five”, which is great, as it's reflected in Bill C-6. There's also another recommendation, which in principle you're saying you agree with providing credit for people who've been here previously. You say, “We support allowing applicants to count at least one year in Canada before becoming a permanent resident.”

In your opinion, would it make any sense to provide more credit than a year? Would there be any advantages to doing so?

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

By your own admission, you've just stated that the Conservative Party was also courting votes.

However, with respect to this piece of legislation, we heard from a University of Ottawa professor earlier today who stated that it's quite convenient when the law is made to ensure that perceived criminals are punished.

Don't you agree, then, that Bill C-6 in particular is more about doing what's right rather than what's convenient, and would you then withdraw or reconsider your previous claim that this is about getting votes?

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all I'd like to also thank all of the witnesses who came to our meeting today, especially those who are now from another province.

My remark first is that we believe new Canadians enrich and strengthen our country. Their experiences and perspectives make us stronger. Immigration is an important part of who we are as a nation and the strength of our nation's future. We want newcomers to Canada to have every opportunity to succeed, opportunities for economic success, the experience of our many freedoms, and the experience of safe communities.

My first question is about the intent to reside. It does not restrict mobility of new citizens.

My question is directed to Mr. Collacott. Could you please comment on the fact that now the intent to reside provision is going to be repealed under Bill C-6?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

You touched on another issue in regard to appeal. With regard to providing better procedure rights for loss of citizenship based on fraud or misrepresentation, could you expand on the elements you would like to see included in the decision and appeal process in this area in this proposed Bill C-6?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

My next question is for Mr. Pagtakhan.

In a March 4 article for CBC.ca, you wrote that for family-class immigrants and refugees, “language abilities and education levels are not relevant”, as the “intention of these immigration categories is to reunite families or protect people from persecution”. Given that the people at the upper and lower ends of the age ranges for language- and knowledge-testing who would be excluded from testing under the changes being brought by Bill C-6 largely fall into this category, do you see the changes to the age range having any negative effect on the ability of the new citizens to integrate into Canadian society?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Okay.

With regard to changes to language and knowledge testing in Bill C-6, you were quoted in the Vancouver Sun on February 10 as saying that this change was designed to increase the pool of Liberal voters, adding, “They’re more concerned with getting votes and not so concerned that they (new Canadians) will integrate socially and economically”.

Can you share with this committee what if any evidence and research you have to support this theory? It seems unlikely, given that Bill C-6 returns to the previous system under which the previous government won a majority government.

Also, is there any evidence you can cite to support the idea that fourteen-year-olds have integrated more successfully into Canadian society since Bill C-24 came into force?

[Martin Collacott, As an Individual]

Thank you, Chairman.

I've appeared before this committee more than a dozen times in the past, but I think Mr. Tilson is the only one who's heard me before. I'll just mention as background my interest in this area.

I was a citizenship adviser to the Ontario Ministry of Education early in my career. Then I served as head of mission, ambassador, or high commissioner in Syria, Lebanon, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka, where we had very substantial immigration or refugee flows at one time or another. Since I retired from government, I have concentrated on reforms needed to immigration, refugee, and citizenship policy. That's the basis on which I appear before this committee, as well as Senate committees and U.S. congressional committees.

As for the specifics of the proposed legislation, I have a problem with shortening the residence requirements for citizenship. It will make it one of the shortest in the world. In Australia it's four years, but in the U.S., United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Ireland it's five. It's seven in Norway, Germany, and Switzerland. Clearly, all these other countries think it takes longer to establish whether someone is going to make a good citizen. Sometimes those who want citizenship in a hurry are only going to park their families here, work overseas, and pay taxes overseas—not most, but some.

Other provisions of Bill C-6 that will further erode the formation of newcomers' close links to this country are that in addition to the bill's reducing the number of years of permanent residence required before applying for citizenship, they will be required to spend fewer days in Canada during each of these years and they will furthermore no longer have to declare the intent to stay in this country after being granted citizenship. I think all of these erode the commitment.

The plan to reduce the age range for which competency in one of our official languages is required I think is particularly ill-considered. While most Canadians would agree with not requiring people of age 65 or over to have a working knowledge of English or French, those between age 55 and 64 for the most part will still be working, and lack of competency in at least one of our official languages will severely limit their employability and earning potential.

Lack of language ability, in fact, has been identified as one of the main reasons that immigrants who have come here in recent decades have been costing Canadian taxpayers a very substantial amount of money. Because their earnings are considerably lower than those of either immigrants who came earlier or the Canadian-born, they receive far more in benefits than they pay in taxes. While we're constantly told of the economic benefits to Canadians from immigration, the fact is that research shows that immigrants who arrived in recent years cost us around $30 billion a year.

I am not opposed to everything in Bill C-6, but the parts I've cited above I think will significantly diminish the value of Canadian citizenship.

I find particularly unacceptable that it will no longer be possible to take citizenship away from dual citizens convicted of treason or terrorism. We have one of the most generous systems in the world, when it comes to granting citizenship. I don't think it's in the least unreasonable, when we welcome newcomers into the Canadian family of citizens, to let them know that they can lose that status, if they subsequently commit treason or acts of terrorism. Using the pretext that revocation of citizenship establishes two-tier citizenship, and repeating the mantra that “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”, will not convince most Canadians, who made it clear in a survey not long ago that 80% support the loss of citizenship for those convicted of treason or terrorism.

I think it's worth notice that eroding requirements for citizenship can be used for a political gain. This was illustrated in the 1996 presidential election in the United States, when the Clinton administration rushed through citizenship for more than a million people so that they could vote Democrat. It's been very well documented. Many of them didn't meet the requirements.

Chairman, in closing I'd like to make a recommendation. Canada needs a total review of what is required in terms of immigration and who benefits from it. We have greatly benefited from immigration at certain times of our history when we needed a larger population and when Canadians in general gained from immigration in economic terms, and we have a much more interesting society than just a few decades ago because of the diversity brought by immigration.

However, what is abundantly clear is that our current high immigration levels and the policies on which they are based are not serving the interests of most Canadians and are driven by special interest groups who benefit from having a larger labour force that keep wages down, by sectors of the economy that benefit from a constantly growing population, and by political parties who think they can expand their voting base. Current immigration leads to a larger economy and population, but not to a higher standard of living for Canadians in general.

Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, it costs taxpayers $30 billion a year, and in the case of those living in large cities such as Vancouver and Toronto it has a negative impact on the quality of life because of greater congestion, longer commute times, and housing prices that are beyond the reach of most younger Canadians, particularly in cities such as Vancouver and Toronto.

Thank you very much, Chairman. That's all I have to say.

[R. Reis Pagtakhan, Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The first thing I would like to address today is not what is in Bill C-6, but the major item that is missing from Bill C-6. That is an amendment to the citizenship oath that was recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Late last year the commission released its report on Canada's residential schools and made 94 recommendations. Their very last recommendation was for the government to change the citizenship oath to include a commitment that new Canadians faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including treaties with indigenous peoples. Presumably, with the Prime Minister committing to implement all of the recommendations of the commission, the failure to include a provision in this bill was an oversight. This being said, the time for action, I would submit, is now.

Some of the proposed changes in this bill, such as the reduction of the residency requirement to apply for citizenship from four to three years and the reinstitution of half-time credit for certain temporary residents, will likely cause a spike in citizenship applications when the bill becomes law, and new Canadians should be able to look at this oath and take this oath.

As a Canadian born and raised on Treaty 1 land, I would recommend that the bill be amended to adopt recommendation 94 of the commission in its entirety before the influx of new citizenship applications.

With respect to what is in the bill, my first recommendation is that Canadian law should continue to allow citizenship to be taken away from terrorists, treasonists, and spies. However, I believe that amendments must be made to the existing law to ensure fairness in this process.

The reason I believe that citizenship revocation should remain for these very narrow circumstances is that Canadians convicted of these offences are convicted of offences designed to undercut our society or to overthrow our government. It should be kept in mind that before any individual is convicted of any of these offences they are, one, presumed innocent; two, guaranteed legal representation; three, afforded all of the rights under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms; four, afforded all protections of our common law and civil law systems; five, given the opportunity to offer a vigorous defence; and after all that they must, to be convicted, be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

After being convicted, these individuals then have the right to argue how their sentences should be mitigated. In pronouncing sentences, judges must under the Supreme Court's rulings take into account the immigration consequences of their sentences. Surely revoking citizenship for these types of offences after a citizen is afforded all of these protections is proper.

This being said, changes to the current law regarding citizenship revocation are needed.

First, the ability of the government to take away citizenship for non-Canadian convictions should be totally eliminated. One only has to look at the case of Mohamed Fahmy, the Egyptian-Canadian journalist initially jailed in Egypt on trumped-up terrorist charges, to see how problematic the existing law is with respect to foreign convictions. In Mr. Fahmy's case, the government chose not to take away his citizenship. Unfortunately, the process that led to this decision seemed to be political, and taking away citizenship is serious business that should not come from a political or an administrative decision. Because Canadians tried in foreign courts do not receive the protections of our charter, taking away citizenship in these situations is improper.

When the bill that enacted the current law was proposed in 2014, I indicated that revocation of citizenship for Canadians convicted abroad could be allowed if there is a workable equivalency assessment. After the situation of Mr. Fahmy, it is clear to me that Canadian citizenship should only be revoked for convictions in Canada.

Secondly, the existing punishment threshold to revoke citizenship for terrorist offences is too short. While any conviction for terrorism is serious, and I think we'll all agree with that, revocation should only occur for individuals sentenced to stiff penalties.

Thirdly, revocation should not be automatic. Canadians should be given an opportunity to appeal, to prove that they have changed their ways, before citizenship is revoked. While most terrorists will not walk the path of Nelson Mandela, Canada should certainly leave the door open for these types of individuals.

With respect to some of the other changes in the act, my comments are as follows.

The proposal to eliminate the intention to reside in Canada is a good idea. While there is nothing wrong with wanting Canadians to live in Canada, Canadians should not be discouraged from contributing but encouraged to contribute on the world stage.

Asking Canadians to reside in Canada while our government negotiates free trade agreements that allow Canadians to work abroad is hypocritical. We cannot promote trade agreements that allow Canadian-born citizens to work abroad while telling our naturalized Canadian citizens that they must live here.

Second, the proposal to allow certain temporary residents to count the days they live in Canada before becoming permanent residents toward a citizenship application is also good. Foreign students and temporary foreign workers should get some credit for their contributions to society before they became permanent residents. I don't believe, however, that this credit should be extended to tourists. While it's important to promote tourism, I don't believe foreigners here for a vacation should get any credit toward citizenship for the vacation days they spend here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Jennifer Stone, Secretary, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to make submissions to you.

To continue on equal access to citizenship, I wish to bring your attention to three additional recommendations from the CCR.

First, no one should be excluded from democratic civic participation—i.e., citizenship—because of an inability to pay. The increased citizenship fee, up from $200 a few years ago to $630 presently, and the 2012 upfront “proof of language proficiency” represent a disproportionate burden for refugees and others who are overrepresented among the working poor and those in chronic low-income circumstances.

The CCR proposes that these burdens could be alleviated first by introducing a process such as exists in the U.S. whereby recipients of social assistance can request a waiver from the citizenship fee; and second by reintroducing oral language testing for those who are otherwise unable to provide documentary proof of language proficiency.

Second, provide better accommodation for applicants with disabilities by right. People with disabilities, including cognitive or learning disabilities, can presently only ask for a waiver from the language or knowledge eligibility criteria on compassionate grounds. This is a backwards framework that is at odds with well-established human rights principles. The CCR recommends that Bill C-6 introduce language confirming the need for accommodation for people with disabilities who, but for the disability, would meet the eligibility criteria.

Third, the CCR supports reverting to the pre-Bill C-24 ability for applicants to challenge a citizenship refusal directly to the Federal Court without having to hire a lawyer effectively to request leave.

Further, the CCR supports the equality and equally fair treatment of all citizens. As such, we are glad to see in Bill C-6 that people cannot lose their citizenship in cases of criminal offences such as treason or terrorism and that applicants for citizenship do not need to show an intent to reside in Canada.

We believe that Bill C-6 could go further to ensure equality of all citizens in Canada, and as such we have two further recommendations.

You heard from several witnesses last week how troubling the current citizenship revocation process for fraud or misrepresentation is from a procedural fairness point of view. We appreciate that Minister McCallum has indicated he is open to amendments on this point. The CCR recommends that full appeal rights be introduced for citizens facing loss of status.

Despite the welcome measures introduced earlier to address the so-called “lost Canadians” cases, the CCR proposes restoring the right to citizenship for second-generations born abroad, reverting back to the pre-2009 rules. In the alternative, the government should at least provide the right of citizenship for those who would otherwise be stateless.

Finally, we commend the government for making this a priority piece of legislation so early in its mandate.

Thank you. We look forward to your questions.

[Janet Dench, Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Canadian Council for Refugees, I thank you for the invitation to appear before you as part of your study on Bill C-6. I will be sharing my speaking time with my colleague Jennifer Stone, member of CCR's executive committee.

We have submitted a detailed brief and we would also like to draw your attention to a document that summarizes our concerns.

The CCR is an umbrella organization for about 180 organizations from all across Canada. Most of those organizations work with refugees and other newcomers, whose experiences on the ground form the basis for our comments on the bill.

As a general comment, we want to highlight the importance of citizenship for the mental health of newcomers, especially refugees. Our members see on a daily basis what a difference it makes to people once they become citizens. They are finally secure.

This is particularly the case for refugees who have been forced to flee their own country. Until they become Canadian citizens, they face not only practical problems because they have no passport, but also the psychological stress of not having anywhere they can definitively call home, of still having the fear that they might again be forced out. Facilitating access to citizenship plays a vital role in promoting good mental health. Conversely, barriers in access to citizenship and measures that call into question the security of citizenship have negative impacts on mental health.

Our comments on Bill C-6 can be summarized in two points. First, we support early access to citizenship for newcomers without discrimination, and second, we recommend that the law guarantee the equality of all citizens.

We are glad to see several amendments in Bill C-6 that advance the objective of early access to citizenship without discrimination. Refugees and others can count time spent in Canada before becoming a permanent resident toward the three years required for citizenship.

Many refugees wait years in Canada before they become permanent residents, through no fault of their own. Thousands of people who made claims before December 2012 still haven't had a hearing on their cases—the so-called legacy cases—and for those who are accepted as refugees, the processing time for permanent residence was two years, until recently. For live-in caregivers, the published processing time for permanent residence after they have met all the criteria is 49 months.

Second, we welcome the proposed residence requirement of three out of the past five years to qualify for citizenship.

Third, Bill C-6 proposes reverting the application of language and knowledge tests to people aged 18 to 54. Youth under 18 are in school when they learn English or French and are educated about Canada, so we never understood the logic of imposing tests on youth.

Regarding the older age group, while we know that many are fully capable of passing the tests, some older people struggle with learning a new language and with doing tests. This is certainly the case for people who have suffered many losses and hardships as refugees.

Despite these changes, there are still important gaps in access to citizenship, and we recommend for your future attention the need to, one, create a right to apply for citizenship for youth under 18 who do not have a parent or legal guardian in Canada; two, prevent long wait times by requiring the government to process applications within a reasonable time; three, introduce an option for applicants to request a waiver from the strict physical residency requirement when compelling facts exist; and four, prevent citizenship applications' being used to launch a process to strip status from former refugees through cessation.

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

Part of Bill C-6 is also about language requirement. How important is it for the new Canadians, who take the oath to become Canadian citizens, to learn English or French so they cannot be discriminated against or taken advantage of by the people who speak the language?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It made a change with respect to the age. That's one aspect of it, but there remain outstanding concerns. For example, others have presented in the other committee meetings on the issue around offering proof of your language capacity. You have to have certification to prove that you have level 4 language capacity. That didn't exist prior to Bill C-24, and Bill C-6 does not address that. That's one example.

[Dr. Patti Tamara Lenard]

In general my understanding of Bill C-6 is that it goes back to the prior status quo about language requirements. Is that mistaken?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

There are people who, for a variety of reasons, are not able to establish their country of origin by birth, and through that process they're unable to make application for Canadian citizenship. Therefore, they're stateless, right? In that instance it's a very challenging situation for those individuals, because without citizenship obviously there are many rights to which they cannot have access. I was particularly interested to hear your points of view on how we should address that issue and whether with Bill C-6 we should find a way to address this issue by way of amendments, because it does not address it at this current time.

With respect to Bill C-6, there are other provisions that address the issue of citizenship, particularly barriers to access to citizenship. There are two areas related to that. One is the citizenship test by way of language, and then the other piece related to it is, of course, the fee. I wonder if you have any thoughts with respect to the language aspect. There's a two-level test at the moment, which creates barriers for people to access citizenship.

I'll go to Ms. Lenard.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On the question around statelessness, there are individuals here in Canada who are stateless. Bill C-6 does not address this issue. Those were provisions that were brought forward by Bill C-24 as well.

I wonder whether you have any comments with respect to the issue of statelessness and if there should be remedies put in place to address this.

Ms. Lenard.

[Bernie M. Farber]

I have just a very brief comment.

There does remain in place, as I understand it, judicial review on revocation of citizenship. For example, I was talking earlier about an individual who has now gone through 20 years of having his citizenship removed because of his work as a translator in a Nazi death squad. That began in 1998, and he's still a citizen here in Canada because he was able to avail himself of reviews and judicial reviews all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I'm not exactly sure where the situation lies in terms of Bill C-6 and Bill C-24 and the issue of protection, but it is clear to me that judicial review is permitted because it's permitted under fraudulent access to citizenship. There is still a way to ensure that justice is being done and is being seen to be done.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for their presentations.

I'd like to focus on the process after grounds have been established, or perhaps categories of individuals whose citizenship would be revoked.

In our previous presentations from other witnesses, the issue around process and due process was key. None of you has really touched on this, so I'd like to inquire whether or not, with the change of Bill C-24, the process is also altered. Bill C-6 does not bring back the process prior to Bill C-24, which is that for the persons whose citizenship is being revoked to go before the Federal Court for a decision, to be assessed on a case-by-case basis in terms of the due process to be followed.

I'd like to ask this question to you, Ms. Lenard, to see what your thoughts are with respect to that aspect of it.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All three of you have addressed the issue of the revocation of citizenship, and there are obviously different views among the three of you. The comment, of course, that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian seems to be the justification for Bill C-6 in repealing the relevant section of Bill C-24.

Ms. Saperia and a witness on Tuesday morning raised the issue of the oath, which says:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true 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.

That's important for dealing with the statement that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, because if you're born in Canada, you don't take that oath. If you're a new Canadian, you have a choice. The law, notwithstanding Bill C-6, still allows revocation for fraud and for misrepresentation.

I would like all of you to comment on that. Perhaps we'll start with Ms. Saperia, although most of what I've said has been in her statement.

Maybe I'll go further, however. Is it really proper to repeal the clause in Bill C-24, or should it be amended?

We'll start off with you, Ms. Saperia.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a few questions.

First of all, I'd like to ask Mr. Farber a few questions. Allow me to start off by saying welcome back to Ottawa. We are very happy to have you here, given your rich experience that has obviously informed your work at the Mosaic Institute.

I was going over the testimony that you provided back in 2014, I believe it was, and you were very articulate. At one point, when you were considering Bill C-24, you did say that Bill C-24 will, “make citizenship not a rewarding end to their long and difficult journey, but an unreachable destination filled with roadblocks and diversions.”

I was wondering if you could kindly explain to us if you've had the opportunity to review Bill C-6, and if there was anything in particular that stood out for you and is of interest to you.

[Sheryl Saperia, Director of Policy for Canada, Foundation for Defense of Democracies]

Good morning, distinguished members of the committee.

On behalf of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a think tank focused on national security and foreign policy, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today.

My comments will focus exclusively on the provisions in the Citizenship Act that revoke citizenship for treason, terrorism, and armed conflict against Canada, which Bill C-6 seeks to repeal.

As I explained in my testimony on Bill C-24, I believe it is reasonable to predicate Canadian citizenship on a most basic commitment to the state that citizens abstain from committing those offences considered most contrary to the national security interests of Canada. Treason and armed conflict against Canada are actions clearly intended to damage the country as a national entity and political community. It seems fitting that one consequence of these crimes might be the loss of citizenship to the country the offender seeks to harm.

However, there are areas where the current law could be improved. Rather than repeal outright the provisions allowing citizenship to be stripped on national security grounds, I would propose several amendments. For instance, I recommended in my previous testimony, and in various newspaper publications, that the law should be amended to stipulate a tighter connection between the terrorist crime and the consequence of losing one's citizenship. Specifically I suggest the stripping of citizenship for terrorism be triggered only by terrorist offences in Canada, against a Canadian target, or when committed in association with a listed entity. Listed entities have been publicly designated by the Canadian government as terrorist organizations and are in effect public enemies of the state. Committing a terrorist act that meets one of those three criteria is, to my mind, a clear attempt to damage Canada, for which loss of citizenship is appropriate. If the terrorist act has nothing to do with Canada, the revocation of citizenship should not be the consequence.

I would also suggest an amendment with regard to foreign terrorist convictions. I can understand Canada giving credence to a terrorism conviction from a like-minded country with legal standards similar to our own, but while the original legislation was clear that the substance of the foreign offence would be examined to ensure its equivalence to a Canadian Criminal Code terrorist act, the law failed to require an assessment of the fairness of the process by which that conviction was achieved.

I would like to take a moment to address Minister McCallum's most vociferous objection to the current law, namely that it creates two classes of citizens: those with dual or multiple nationalities who are at risk of having their Canadian citizenship stripped, and those with only Canadian citizenship who may be punished in a variety of ways but cannot lose their citizenship.

First, that distinction is not arbitrary. It only exists because there is a law that prohibits rendering a person stateless. Second, for dual nationals who have chosen that status, often because of personal connection to, or benefit from, more than one citizenship, this is not a compelling argument. Dual citizenship was not forced upon them, and they are not being subject to discrimination as a result of any inherent trait. It is a choice they have made, just as they can choose to renounce their other citizenship, so as to be solely Canadian and therefore not subject to these provisions.

In cases where a Canadian citizen is also citizen of a country that does not enable renunciation of that citizenship, that's a different story. In that case, the minister or department could use their discretion to assess the extent of what I call the active relationship to that second citizenship. Does the individual maintain deep ties to the other country? Has the individual invoked any of the rights of that citizenship? Has the individual travelled with the passport of that country, or served in an official capacity only open to citizens? The less active that second citizenship, the weaker the argument the Canadian citizenship should be revoked.

In short, it is simply not always true that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. It is not an absolute category. Naturalized Canadians are Canadians only so long as they are not found to have lied on their citizenship application. Those who have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide can have their citizenship removed as well. Consider also that naturalized citizens must pledge an oath of allegiance to the Queen as the personification of Canada. By committing treason, armed conflict, or terrorism against Canada, are they not renouncing that oath through their actions?

Canadians with more than one nationality have a very easy way to retain their Canadian citizenship under this law, do not commit criminal acts of treason, armed conflict, or terrorism that are directed at Canada as a country.

Lastly, if the government believes that our national security interests are better served by keeping dangerous terrorists in Canada where we can watch them properly, rather than potentially letting them loose in another country, I urge them to follow that commitment through. The safety of the Canadian public demands that if those involved in terrorism are to remain in this country, they need to be closely monitored while they are imprisoned and afterwards. Canada must develop a strategy for preventing convicted terrorists from radicalizing and recruiting members of the general prison population. The threat of Islamist prison radicalization is an important feature of modern counterterrorism, with prison being a unique incubator for violent radicalization. As more terrorists are incarcerated in this country, the related threat of prison radicalization will also rise. This issue is all the more potent now that there are Canadians who have travelled abroad to wage jihad, and whose narrative might be more compelling than that of a foreign recruiter.

If indeed we are going to keep in Canada those who have demonstrated their allegiance to the destruction of Canada, we cannot hide from developing the necessary strategies to protect the public from the consequences.

Thank you again for inviting me to appear before you today. I look forward to your questions.

[Bernie M. Farber]

Historically, immigrants and refugees who adopted Canada as their country of choice contributed to the development of Canada and its social, economic, and civil fabric. Today we stand on their shoulders.

To conclude, my work with the Mosaic Institute has proven my belief that Canadian citizenship is valued, earned, and that our diversity is indeed a source of our great strength. For these reasons we support Bill C-6 and the amendments put forward.

Thank you very much.

[Bernie M. Farber, Executive Director, Mosaic Institute]

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak about Canadian citizenship and Bill C-6. I'm honoured to be here in my capacity as the executive director of the Mosaic Institute.

The Mosaic Institute is a think and do tank that was founded in 2007. Our mandate is to create platforms for learning and dialogue amongst diverse Canadian communities to advance justice and peace. Our initiatives are a combination of dialogue, research, education, and action, and all of our activities are community-grounded with an empirical approach.

Our work strengthens Canadian civil society through emphasizing respect for each other, respect for human rights, good global citizenship, and community development.

Today, my friends, I hope to de-sensationalize some of the ideas about those seeking Canadian citizenship and what it means to be a Canadian.

Before I do so, I'd like to share a bit of my family history, which has served as a backdrop for my work in the field for the last 30 years. I have a visceral understanding of the refugee and immigration experience simply because I was brought up in its shadow. I understand in the heart of my hearts the value and power of Canadian citizenship. Both my parents left their ancestral homes not because they wanted to, but as a result of anti-Semitism and persecution.

My late mother, Gertrude, was brought to Canada as a child, driven from her village of Zaslav in Ukraine by violent pogroms. Canada then was a welcoming home. Arriving at Pier 21 in Halifax must have been a daunting experience for a six-year old child fleeing violence, who spoke no English and knew nothing about Canada.

She took well to her new home. Ottawa in the late 1920s was a hodgepodge of diversity. Made up of recent refugees and immigrants, their familial Jewish home in Sandy Hill, not far from this very place, was not uncommon. The spoken language was Yiddish. My mother never really lost her accent, since she spoke Yiddish at home and only learned English when she went to public school. My mother and the rest of her family thrived in Ottawa, working at the small vegetable stall opened by my grandfather in the Byward Market.

My father, Max, and his family were not so fortunate. Just prior to World War II, a young man from a small Polish village saw what many others refused to see, the real possibility of a war in which Jews would be targeted by the Nazi regime. Wanting to live, he took matters into his own hands and through stealth and luck he managed to stow away on a boat headed to the United States.

Velvel Farber, my father's oldest brother, made it across the Atlantic. However, like many others before him, he was apprehended upon arrival and was returned to Poland. Velvel was murdered in the death camp of Treblinka. Indeed, my late father suffered the brutalities of the Holocaust. At its tragic conclusion he had to face the tragic fact that he was the sole Jewish survivor of a small Polish village. Murdered in Treblinka were his first wife, two young children, and seven brothers and sisters.

Once again, this time following a heartless closed-door immigration policy, made infamous by Harold Troper and Irving Abella in their book None is Too Many, Canada finally reopened its borders to the stateless people of Europe, amongst them thousands of Jewish survivors like my father.

Both of my parents' immigration experience and the work I am involved with today at the Mosaic Institute have informed my life. I have learned much that may be helpful to this committee.

First, people love being Canadian. Whether they arrived yesterday or have been here for generations, there is something about this country that simply inspires. Our work has proven that our diversity is one of the reasons people quickly ascribe to and adopt Canadian ways of life.

In 2014 the Mosaic Institute received a grant from Public Safety Canada's Kanishka fund to conduct a study titled “The Perception and Reality of 'Imported Conflict' in Canada”. This research was conducted as part of Public Safety Canada's efforts to shed light on terrorism and how best to address it in Canada.

We asked this question. To what extent, if any, do Canadians with connections to countries in conflict import that conflict to Canada? After surveying 5,000 Canadians across the country and speaking to more than 220 Canadians connected to countries in conflict, we determined that, for the most part, Canadians do not import their conflict here.

In fact, one-fifth of the people we surveyed told us that they were no longer as one-sided about their conflict, that being in Canada had helped them to be empathetic and recognize larger factors driving these conflicts.

One of the reasons given for this attitudinal shift is that people were able to connect with others who have experienced conflict. Essentially they realized that they were not alone. The shared element of being Canadian gives people a common ground and the foundation upon which to build their lives.

We have also found that when citizenship is achieved, it is treasured and harnessed. I say harnessed because it becomes a vehicle by which people's lives are improved, work is rewarded, people are safe, and access to education and other social services is available.

Comparatively, Canadians are fortunate and new Canadians are the first to recognize this; 94% of people we surveyed feel attached to Canada, with 78% considering themselves first and foremost Canadian. This is almost eight in 10 of those surveyed. More new Canadians supported this statement than second- and third-generation Canadians. This is resounding evidence that the majority of those seeking Canadian citizenship do become personally connected to this country and in doing so, decide to contribute richly to Canada.

Some will dismiss my statements because of recent tragic events in this country. To them, the fact that a person perpetrated such acts in a manner connected to other acts around the world must mean that the person came to Canada with the intention of harming this country. To those with this view I would respectfully disagree. However, our research indicates that while people do not import their conflicts, they do import their trauma. When this trauma is left unchecked, it can lead to social isolation and a dissociation from Canada, particularly when it is exacerbated by other barriers, such as discrimination and economic exclusion.

But when Canadians are able to fully participate in society not only do their lives improve, but they also help improve Canadian society as a whole.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Good morning.

Pursuant to the order of reference received by the committee on March 21, 2016, the committee will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

We have three witnesses before us. I'd like to remind the witnesses that you have seven minutes for opening remarks. We will follow the order appearing on the notice.

Hence, Mr. Farber, you have the first seven minutes.

[Debbie Douglas]

The 14- to 18-year-olds are enrolled in our school system. If they came in at that age as new immigrants without either of our official languages, they are often enrolled in English as a second language. But for us, the majority of these kids actually have been in the school system for a number of years and do have English.

The problem is about having to pay for a test to prove they have that language ability, which we find problematic. Also, there is no evidence for why that requirement was put in place through Bill C-24. If parents are applying for citizenship and including their 14- to 18-year-olds and they go in and write their tests, we hope that our school systems are teaching our kids enough civics that they would understand how our country operates. As for the fact that now parents have to take on this extra cost of proving language, we never did understand why that was necessary. That's why we support the changes that are happening in Bill C-6.

Also, as you've heard me talk about, on the other end of the age spectrum we do have permanent residents who come into Canada and who have had such traumatic experiences, especially our refugee seniors, that there is absolutely no way that they will ever acquire enough language skills or be comfortable in writing in either of our official languages, and especially when literacy is an issue. We've heard from Ms. Kwan, whose mother had a grade 6 education. That's not unusual with some of our older immigrants and refugees.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

My next question is for you, Ms. Douglas. I would like to focus on the changes to the age range for the demonstration of language proficiency as proposed in Bill C-6, which is under discussion, and discuss the work of your member organizations with immigrants and permanent residents on a path to achieving citizenship, which I am sure has included language support and services.

First, with regard to teenagers between the ages of 14 to 18, what has generally been their experience with gaining a knowledge of English or French?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and I would like to thank our witnesses for their patience today.

My question is for Mr. Gardee. Your organization, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, includes as one of its objectives “protecting the human rights & civil liberties of Canadian Muslims (and by extension of all Canadians), promoting their public interests, building mutual understanding and challenging Islamophobia and other forms of xenophobia.”

In this context, could you discuss the impact that the two-tier citizenship aspect of Bill C-24, which Bill C-6 seeks to revoke, has had on the Muslim community in Canada and its perception by other Canadians?

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

In your estimation, what evidence would be necessary in order to precipitate such a change as we see here in Bill C-6?

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

Great. Thank you.

Mr. Gardee as well, I'm just wondering if your organization has any affiliation or ties to the caregiver class of immigration and if you would like to comment on that particular program or any of the changes that have been made, which will be affected as well by some of the changes to Bill C-6.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My apologies to witnesses. This happens from time to time when we're checking out the routine motions, and whatnot, in a committee.

Mr. Gardee, I want to thank you for your time here today and for your comments.

Ms. Douglas, I want to thank you for the work you do with newcomers to Canada in ensuring they have a successful experience here and they overcome obstacles they may face in terms of social inclusion. Sometimes we get caught up in the heat of legislation, but at the end of the day, regardless of political strife, that is something we all seek to maintain. When we ask questions about how to do that best, sometimes that's with legislation and sometimes that's with programming. Certainly I appreciate it. At some later point in time, I'd like a meeting with you to discuss that.

I also want to thank Mr. Bissett for his time here today.

On that, Mr. Chair, I move:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee study the 2016 Immigration Levels Plan; that the study include an examination of planned reductions to the Caregiver Class; that the study investigate whether or not these reductions will result in increased backlogs; that this study be comprised of no less than two meetings to be held prior to May 1, 2016; that departmental officials be in attendance for at least one meeting, and that the Committee report its findings to the House.

I think this is a very important study to look at, given the changes to Bill C-6. We've heard over and over again of the backlogs that certain classes of applicants to Canada come into, especially the spousal sponsorship stream.

I think this study is important. The immigration levels report that was tabled significantly reduces the amount of caregiver class spots available in Canada. We've heard a lot of concern about this. I don't think there was a lot of consultation done, and I think this would be a study that is completely worthy of the committee's time. I also think it would be of interest to a lot of people, including those in the spousal sponsorship class.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

With respect to that statement, and in light of your other comments around Bill C-6, there was an article dated March 1, 2010, by Mr. James Bissett stating that the charter had in effect undermined Canadian sovereignty. This article also asserted that all prospective immigrants of Muslim faith should be interviewed to determine if they hold extremist views.

Could you indicate whether you are the same Mr. James Bissett? If you are, do you hold those same views that were written in this article?

[Debbie Douglas]

With the elimination of the need for upfront testing, that will take care of the financial barriers, but we're also concerned that citizenship went from $200, to $400, to $630. Imagine large families having to pay that significant amount of money. This is not in Bill C-6, but this committee should be recommending a reduction in citizenship acquisition fees.

[Debbie Douglas]

We've asked, and that was the conversation I wanted to have about issues of disability. There are folks who do have disabilities who may not be able to write, or even speak, or sign about the test. With the introduction of Bill C-24, we were active in advocating, together with some of our agencies who work with folks with disabilities, and then had processes put in place for those who are hard of hearing as an example. There are other folks with disabilities who may also need a waiver. It is certainly something that Bill C-6 is silent on and that we want this committee to take a look at in terms of the barriers that exist for folks with disabilities in being able to meet language requirements or being able to pass the citizenship test.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

To that end, Bill C-6 makes the change for the aged. The elderly, in Bill C-6 in that context, would be exempt from this process. In my experience, there are a lot of people who may not be in the elderly bracket. Would you suggest this change should also be applied to all the categories?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their thoughtfulness. There may well be some elements where I do not agree with some of the witnesses' presentations. That being said, I do appreciate the effort and the time they have taken.

I would like to direct my question to Ms. Douglas. I was particularly intrigued by the experiences that I know your organization brings and the number of people you are in contact with, your on-the-ground knowledge of reality. You mentioned that the issue and concern around the upfront proof of language in obtaining citizenship should be eliminated. I understand that. I can tell you that my mother, for example, has been a citizen for close to 50 years now, but if that test were to apply to her today, she would likely fail. In fact, she would fail it in her first language as well, because she has only a grade 6 level of education from China.

That being said, I wonder if you can elaborate on the point about the importance of the issues around barriers to citizenship in language and in finances. Why should it be changed, and what should be done in Bill C-6?

[Debbie Douglas]

For a very long time, we had the age of requirement for writing the Canadian citizenship test between 18 and 54. The changes to lower the age to 14 and to increase it at the upper end to 64 were an arbitrary decision that was made. We flagged at the time that there were a significant number of folks—particularly refugees, and particularly refugee women—who would not be able, regardless of how many English or French classes they took, to acquire the language for them to be able to pass a citizenship test. What I am suggesting is that Bill C-6 is actually going back to what has been proven in the past.

[Debbie Douglas]

We have a robust language training system here in Canada. Resources are always a problem because of scope and scale, more so than content and quality. It is interesting that you are asking the question, because that was exactly what our concern was when the changes were made to Bill C-24—that it was not based on any evidence, given the many years when we had the language requirement and the writing of the test for those between 18 and 54. The fact that Bill C-6 goes back to a proven system is why we support the changes that were made.

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

Okay.

Mr. Gardee, I would give you another chance to answer the question. In terms of lowering the language requirement as per this bill, would your organization have a position in terms of what has been proposed in Quebec as it would relate to the changes under Bill C-6?

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

Mr. Chair, I believe, on a point of order, I do have time to direct the questions along my own lines. But thank you.

My question would then be related to a discussion that's come up in the Quebec legislature. There was an article written in the Montreal Gazette earlier this month, in April, wherein a proposal had been made essentially to deal with overcoming some challenges in terms of getting new Canadians, or people new to Canada who are settling in Quebec, to learn French as a language to overcome inclusion issues.

The proposal, which I'm reading out of the Montreal Gazette, was that under the plan:

...an immigrant would be issued a transitionary certificate valid for three years on arrival in Quebec. At the end of the period, the immigrant would be evaluated on his or her knowledge of French and Quebec values...as well as their efforts to find work. If they pass the test, the immigrant would get an immigration selection certificate after signing a commitment to respect Quebec values. Those who fail would be given an additional year to improve themselves. If they fail again, they will not be issued the certificate which means they could not apply for Canadian citizenship.

Certainly this would have some implications, if passed or discussed, under the provisions in Bill C-6. I'm just wondering if you could comment on whether or not you would see that as something that would be acceptable.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I'd like to thank everyone for appearing before the committee. Obviously, one of the issues that we did have surrounding Bill C-24 is that there was very little input from experts such as you, so I'm very grateful that we've been provided this opportunity to determine if there are any gaps in Bill C-6.

I wanted to follow up on the testimony that you provided, Mr. Gardee. I understand that you're very much concerned about revocation of citizenship. I'm not quite sure whether you were here in the first hour when Professor Macklin provided a mechanism that would deal with revocation of citizenship. I was wondering if you would have any comments, and if you can think of any proposed mechanism to make sure that there are safeguards in place.

[Ihsaan Gardee]

—are part of that slippery slope.

In closing, the NCCM strongly supports the removal of the grounds for citizenship revocation as related to national security under Bill C-6. By repealing these measures, the government can reinforce its commitment to rebuilding the trust of Canadians that they will be treated equally, including Canadian Muslims, who have felt stigmatized by national security policy and the public discourse surrounding it.

[Ihsaan Gardee, Executive Director, National Council of Canadian Muslims]

Good afternoon, honourable Chair, and respected members.

On behalf of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, I'm pleased to have this opportunity to offer the committee our organization's perspective on Bill C-6 and the Citizenship Act.

Briefly the NCCM is an independent, non-partisan, and non-profit grassroots organization that is a leading voice for Muslim civic engagement and the promotion of human rights. Our mandate is to protect the human rights and civil liberties of Canadian Muslims, promote their public interests, build mutual understanding between communities, and confront Islamophobia. For over 15 years, we have worked to achieve this mission through activism in four primary areas, including community education and outreach, media engagement, anti-discrimination action, and public advocacy.

At the outset, the focus of NCCM's submissions today will be on the provisions in Bill C-6 that repeal the grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship as related to national security. We do not take a formal position on the bill's other proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act.

As a civil liberties organization, the NCCM supports the proposed legislative changes under Bill C-6 in order to remedy the problematic and legally dubious elements introduced by Bill C-24. Specifically, in our view and that of many other respected Canadian human rights organizations, including Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association to name a few, removing the grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security upholds Canada's democratic ideals and ensures the protection of our deeply cherished and hard-won civil liberties.

The law as it exists today has created, in essence, two classes of citizenship. That dual citizens are more vulnerable to losing their citizenship means that some individuals and groups are less Canadian than others and therefore are less deserving of equal protection of the law. This is completely antithetical to the equality rights guaranteed by section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely equality before and under the law, and equal benefit of the law. In effect, exposing dual citizens to banishment, something not faced by Canadians holding no other citizenship, makes dual citizens unequal before the law.

The Citizenship Act allows for a dual national found guilty, and incarcerated for a national security-related criminal offence, to be punished again with banishment through citizenship revocation and deportation. In our view, and that of many legal experts, this is inconsistent with the rule of law and the protections of the charter.

Aside from these human rights concerns, there is also the larger context to the social implications of the citizenship revocation provisions, which our organized is cognizant of, as we regularly receive and hear the concerns of Canadian Muslims. Simply stated, these laws do not exist in a vacuum and have harmful consequences. Stripping dual citizens of their citizenship for national security reasons unfairly targets immigrant and racialized groups, particularly those belonging to Muslim communities. It does little to enhance our national security by effectively unloading our problems on the doorsteps of other countries, many of whom may be our allies in the fight against violent extremism.

Make no mistake, the implications of the current law also go beyond dual citizens. Canadian Muslim individuals, families, and the broader community have been disproportionately affected by ostensible anti-terrorism measures enacted in the name of national security. In some cases, citizenship revocation proceedings have been commenced against individuals who were born in Canada and held only Canadian citizenship, merely because it was theorized that they would be able to obtain citizenship in a foreign country through their parents, even though they had never held such foreign citizenship or even lived in a foreign country.

This is an astonishing and deeply draconian and archaic development. Such an arbitrary and dangerous interpretation and implementation of the citizenship revocation provisions speaks to the urgent need to repeal them.

It is in this context that we remind the committee of what the Arar commission report warned about in 2006:

Given the tendency thus far of focusing national security investigations on members of the Arab and Muslim communities, the potential for infringement on the human rights of innocent Canadians within these groups is higher.

Since 9/11, Muslims have been living under a microscope and are subject to heightened suspicion, which is perpetuated by negative stereotyping and discrimination in Western countries, including Canada. The potential reliance on terrorism convictions outside of Canada to revoke citizenship further exacerbates the issue. Had the citizenship revocation provisions been fully in effect, it is not difficult to imagine that someone like Canadian journalist Mohamed Fahmy could absurdly have been stripped of this citizenship after being convicted in what was widely described as a flawed legal process. That should give us all pause.

Ultimately, while Canadian Muslims benefit as much as our fellow citizens from our shared national security and public safety, Canadian Muslims also pay a higher cost for any benefit that may be derived from national security measures. This is also true when we take into consideration the impact of other national security measures, such as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2015.

NCCM strongly believes that repealing provisions that revoke citizenship for national security related criminal offences is both a necessary and critical step in protecting the constitutional rights of Canadians. It is imperative, as a democratic and free society, that Canada upholds equal treatment for all under the law. At the same time, the NCCM supports measures that effectively enhance security and public safety while respecting civil liberties and the protections afforded under the charter.

To be clear, all Canadians agree that people should be held accountable for the crimes they commit. There is no question that the offences listed under the existing act are serious crimes; however, these crimes are appropriately punished by the criminal justice system, founded on a robust and transparent adversarial system and due process. In stark contrast to this principle of fundamental justice, the power to enforce banishment, as the law currently stands, is profoundly unjust and discriminatory.

In keeping with the spirit of Bill C-6, we would also like to take this opportunity to encourage Parliament to, at best, repeal or, at worst, significantly amend other harmful pieces of legislation that threaten the principles of democracy, equality, and the rule of law. Bill C-6 would have little meaning if the same principles are undermined through other legislative measures such as the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, and if any changes made to these are only cosmetic in nature.

As mentioned, given the disproportionate impact that previous security measures and legislation have had on Muslim communities, it is not unreasonable that they fear they will be the collateral victims in a web of unchecked power and unbridled information sharing, if not the direct targets of unfair scrutiny.

The temptation to create more powers of enforcement, detention, and punishment to make the general population feel safer can be appealing, but represents a slippery slope in a liberal democracy. The Citizenship Act provisions for citizenship revocation—

[Debbie Douglas, Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)]

OCASI, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, welcomes the amendments introduced in Bill C-6. I was here for Bill C-24, and it's good to be back.

We hope it will remove certain barriers to citizenship, particularly for disadvantaged groups, such as racialized immigrants and refugees, and immigrant and refugee women, children, and seniors.

We welcome the potential for the bill to move toward a more inclusive and accessible citizenship process and remove the two tier citizenship created as a result of changes introduced through the previous Bill C-24. We are pleased that the present government made the repeal a priority and has moved so quickly to bring this forward.

Bill C-24 extended the residency eligibility from three out of the previous four years to four out of the previous six years. It required six months of physical presence in Canada for each of the four out of six. It took away the pre-permanent residence credit that could be counted toward residency to a maximum of one year for those legally in Canada prior to becoming permanent residents, such as refugees, international students, live in caregivers, and in Canada, sponsored spouses.

Bill C-6 will change the residence requirements to three out of five while maintaining the six months physical residence requirements for each of those three out of five years. It returns the pre-permanent residence credit of up to one year.

The bill reduces the waiting time required to become eligible for citizenship and allows immigrants and refugees to become citizens more quickly. It will let them participate more fully in Canadian society to become full members and to contribute to their full potential. This is particularly important for refugees who may not have any other country in which to turn to for protection, and it will meet practical needs such as a passport for travel.

Reducing the time is especially important for future citizens, such as live-in caregivers, other migrant workers, and international students. They would have been living and working in Canada for a certain period even before they became permanent residents, getting to know the country and the people, and contributing to the communities in which they live, including by paying local taxes.

Maintaining the strict physical presence requirements removes any discretion, even if extraordinary circumstances have forced potential applicants to travel for too many days.

OCASI supports the proposed residency eligibility period of three out of five years and supports allowing applicants to count at least one year in Canada before becoming a permanent resident.

We do not support the strict physical presence requirement. We recommend a citizenship judge should be allowed to exercise flexibility to approve an application when an applicant has met all other requirements and has a compelling reason for missing certain days of physical presence in Canada, particularly for applicants who are otherwise stateless.

On the issue of language, Bill C-24 extended language and knowledge test requirements from those aged 18 to 54 to those aged 14 to 64, thus extending it to more people. Older applicants may very well learn English or French enough to function, but have difficulty in passing the test. Those with limited formal education and literacy will have the most difficulty in passing the test. Learning a new language and passing a test is often difficult as one gets older.

OCASI believes it is important to encourage and support all residents, including older residents, to learn one of the official languages and acquire knowledge about Canada, but making this a condition of citizenship would exclude many from full participation in our society. Given the general vulnerability of older people, we should support improving access to citizenship so more residents have secure status and the additional rights, entitlements, and protection citizenship would give them.

Younger applicants aged 14 to 18 would still be in high school, and in that process will be learning one of the official languages as well as about Canada. It was never clear to us why Bill C-24 reduced the age requirement to 14 years. Reversing this requirement is the right thing to do.

OCASI supports the proposed amendment to require language and knowledge tests for those aged 18 to 54. We also ask the committee to recommend that particularly older applicants, and I will add here particularly older refugees, should be allowed the use of an interpreter in the interview with the citizenship judge to satisfy the knowledge requirement. This element was in place before the Bill C-24 changes.

Through Bill C-24, the previous government changed citizenship application rules in 2012 to require up-front proof of language ability. We suggest that the requirement for up-front proof also be eliminated. Many potential applicants have been excluded from applying for citizenship because of this requirement. For example, applicants who have been working in more than one job to support themselves and their families, and who therefore have found it difficult to also fit in language classes, have not even attempted to take the test. Some others could not afford the testing fee. Yet others live and work in communities that don't have a test centre. Those who don't have the time or money to travel to a test centre have not been able to take the tests either.

We have heard from immigrant and refugee settlement workers that because of a variety of difficulties, their clients are opting to wait until they are older so that they can apply for citizenship without having to take a language or knowledge test. Refugees, especially refugee women in particular, are those who are most impacted. Often they have met all other requirements for citizenship. These are Canadian residents who are living and working here. They are part of our communities. They are contributing to Canadian society in many different ways, and yet they are excluded from citizenship because of this language requirement.

OCASI asks the committee to consider a recommendation that would remove the up-front proof of official language ability. Instead, we ask you to recommend that having met all other criteria, the citizenship judge should be given the flexibility to determine through an interview if the applicant has sufficient official language ability and knowledge of Canada to satisfy these requirements of citizenship.

Other amendments in Bill C-6—

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Here's my next question. For a citizen whose citizenship may be revoked under Bill C-6 due to fraud or misrepresentation on an application, you're stating that they should revert to permanent resident status rather than being inadmissible foreign nationals. What steps define that?

One example would be a war criminal who didn't state that they were a war criminal. I think that would probably be an appropriate person to be declared inadmissible. Others may just be somebody like an uncle of mine who I know overstated his age to get into the military in World War II and then wanted to come to Canada. He was 15 and wanted to be 17, so his records all showed that; perhaps today the rules might say that he was fraudulent when he came to Canada. For those, it may be pertinent to either remain a citizen or to at least be a permanent resident.

Should there be a two-step mechanism? Or is it a hearing process that you're proposing? What would be the appropriate mechanism to determine if one reverts to a being permanent resident or an inadmissible foreign national?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I was going to ask a few other questions, but maybe I'll ask a question to help my colleagues on the other side and some others who don't understand why we want to change Bill C-24.

You're all lawyers, and I'll ask you to put your minds in a devil's advocate or a reciprocal mode. What if other countries were to adopt Bill C-24, not Bill C-6 but the original bill, similar to Great Britain and Australia, or as France was about to do, and a Canadian born from Canadian parents here was adopted and moved to and became a citizen of Australia—moved there for a job—but later became radicalized by a crazy ideology, became a terrorist there, and blew up something? Do we think that as Canadians we would like it if after he was convicted there, they were to revoke his citizenship and say that he was born in Canada and we should take him back? Do you think Canadians would like that?

I would like to hear from the Bar Association first and perhaps Professor Macklin afterwards.

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

Keeping Canadians safe is very important to me and my colleagues. Given your testimony, what changes would you recommend making to Bill C-6 so that the safety and security of Canadians are safeguarded? Anybody can answer that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I would like to remind everyone to stay within the scope of BillC-6. Thank you.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I would like to move on to a different topic, the issue of criminal offence abroad. Bill C-24 brought in provisions that were left in place in Bill C-6, which prohibited citizenship from being granted to individuals charged with, or serving a sentence for, a criminal offence abroad.

There is also a related matter of term bars to citizenship, which I think was in some of your submissions as well. I wouldn't mind hearing about this issue and whether or not this committee should entertain making changes in addressing these two items.

I would open it up to any of the witnesses.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their thoughtful presentations, as well as for the written presentations.

I'm not going to rehash some of the issues that were brought forward with Bill C-24 because we now have Bill C-6, which I'm very happy about. More to the point, there are issues that we need to focus on and address with C-6 that still need to be remedied.

On the issue of revocation, I think we've dealt with that. On the issue around independent and impartial hearing, I think we have the full sense of it. On the issue around statelessness, we have full sense of it as well.

There are a couple of other issues that were not touched upon due to time limitations, I think. One is the issue of knowledge of official languages. I know that was in the brief from the Canadian Bar Association. I wonder whether or not you could elaborate on the requirement to pass a knowledge test in one of the official languages. Would it amount to double testing, and what is your remedy for this issue?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

My question is for Ms. Macklin.

I would like to touch on the revocation of citizenship for acts that demonstrate the [Inaudible--Editor] “Canadian values” that was introduced to the Citizenship Act by Bill C-24 and that Bill C-6 proposes to remove. In an op-ed in the Toronto Star on April 25, 2013, you likened this provision to the “medieval practice of banishment”.

Could you discuss how allowing a politician to revoke citizenship for a vaguely defined [Inaudible--Editor] of values opens the door to a slippery slope of grounds for revocation and opens the provision to a likely challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if it is not removed from the act?

[Andrew Brouwer]

Certainly there's a great deal that Canada could and should do with respect to statelessness. We're here talking about Bill C-6. I do think that, if you take a look at my handout, you'll see there are some changes that can be made in this context that would make a big difference right now with respect to access to citizenship; and particularly, introducing a definition in law, in the Citizenship Act, would make a big difference.

Beyond that, though, I agree. There are some larger issues that need to be dealt with, with respect to the protection of stateless persons. I know that the UNHCR, Amnesty International, and other organizations have been asking the new government to consider, once again, signing on to the 1954 convention. I think that would be a very important step, and having done that, establishing a process for status determination for stateless persons likewise would be an important step.

If we were able to recognize—through a procedure like they have in the U.K. and in other countries—a procedure for determining whether someone is truly de facto or de jure stateless, and then grant them access to Canadian status, I think that would be a critical change. That is a stand-alone measure that needs to happen, and that needs to have some debate and some legislative crafting, for sure.

Beyond that, another measure that I understand the department was looking at was to make amendments to the H and C, the humanitarian and compassionate, permanent residence guidelines to make sure that statelessness is an identified factor for the exercise of discretion under section 25 for grants of permanent residence. That would be similar to what I'm recommending now that the Citizenship Act have under subsection 5(4), which is again a recognition that statelessness is an important factor that should justify an exercise of discretion to grant citizenship.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

My question is for Andrew Brouwer. You have written and spoken extensively on the issues of statelessness and Canada's need to adhere to its international obligations with regard to not rendering any individual stateless through its immigration policies. Several bills have sought to address shortcomings in the Citizenship Act in this regard. Could you outline what changes you feel are still necessary to address this issue? Should these changes be made as an amendment to Bill C-6, or would they be better addressed on their own with stand-alone legislation that would allow for a more focused debate on that matter?

[Christopher Veeman, Executive Member, National Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you to the committee for the invitation to appear.

I'm assuming that everybody has the submission. I'm proposing to highlight some of the points that we make in the submission, but it's there for you to review at your leisure.

Over the time I've been practising in this area, it's possible to discern two phases in Canadian citizenship law. The law was largely unchanged after the major rewrite in 1977—with the exception of the lost Canadian issue in 2009—until Bill C-24 came into effect. Leading up to Bill C-24, the perspective of practitioners in this area was that the system was in its “Byzantine” phase, if you can use that word. I say this because nobody knew what the legal test was for residency and how you qualified to become a citizen. There was a problem with the jurisprudence. The courts couldn't solve that problem, the processing times were backlogged, and Canada's interests were not being served by the old system.

The CBA supported the efforts in Bill C-24 to improve that situation. To its credit, Bill C-24 did fix a lot of those problems. The definition of residency was clarified, so we now have the physical presence definition. The decision-making process was streamlined, and also the government committed resources to processing. All those things led to the decline in processing times that we've seen.

Back in 2014 the CBA opposed many of the other parts of Bill C-24. While Bill C-24 brought citizenship law out of its Byzantine phase, in the view of some practitioners it moved it in a sort of Kafkaesque direction where, as we've heard, a person can have their citizenship revoked by a government official without any hearing. In a point that wasn't touched on yet, section 13.1 was introduced into the law, which allows the department to suspend processing of an application essentially indefinitely. These are features that in our view do not support the rule of law. Another thing we heard under the changes that came in with Bill C-24 was that the system of appeals for citizenship matters was changed to judicial review instead. From the point of view of practitioners, that's an inferior system. As we've heard, you need to get leave, and in all cases where you don't get leave, you don't get reasons. People can get an application refused, and they don't have the opportunity to get an appeal with reasons.

Our section supports many of the aspects of Bill C-6 that reverse some of those changes, in particular the national interest revocation. We were strongly opposed to that. Rather than listing all the points that we do agree with, which are in our brief, I want to point out some of the things where we think the bill can be improved.

The first one has already been touched on today by Professor Macklin, and also by the minister in his remarks last Tuesday, which is the question of ensuring there is a fair and independent process for persons subject to revocation of citizenship for misrepresentation or fraud. Professor Macklin outlined that, so I'm going to skip over parts of this. Our solution for this problem is slightly different from what Professor Macklin has proposed. The overall goal is the same, to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to at some point have their case considered on humanitarian and compassionate grounds prior to the revocation of their citizenship. In our view, it may be appropriate to consider granting the department official that discretion when they're reviewing the case and have that decision directly reviewed by the Federal Court on a reasonableness standard.

In some situations under the current law, people can have their citizenship revoked for misrepresentation, and they go directly back to foreign national status. This is the case where the misrepresentation occurred in their permanent residency application, and then they subsequently obtained citizenship.

We say that all persons who have their citizenship revoked should revert to permanent resident status, and then have an appeal before the Immigration Appeal Division to retain that status and try to remain in Canada.

In our brief we have advocated, in terms of the grant of citizenship process, for some residual discretion to grant citizenship in deserving cases where people cannot meet the physical presence test, despite strong connections to the country and a desire to become Canadian citizens. In 2014 we proposed certain definitions that might be used.

I'll just give you a couple of examples of cases that might be problematic. A pilot who lives in Canada but is flying overseas for work may have trouble meeting the three in five standard. Just as an aside, the three in five standard is an improvement from the four in six. It's slightly more flexible, but still, there may be these hard cases that will arise.

[Prof. Audrey Macklin, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual]

Thank you for this opportunity to make a presentation.

I will give my presentation in English but will do my best to answer any questions you might have for me in French.

I would like to echo Mr. Brouwer's congratulations to the government for the many salutary features of Bill C-6. For reasons of time, I'm going to accentuate those factors that I think perhaps still require further attention.

My presentation will be exclusively on the question of the procedure for the revocation of citizenship based on fraud or misrepresentation.

The process as it currently exists, through the amendments to the Citizenship Act made by the previous government, is such that where the government considers revoking citizenship, the minister or a delegate sends a notice to the individual concerned. The individual, the citizen, then has the opportunity to respond in writing to the allegations leading to the intention to revoke citizenship. That's done exclusively in writing, except that the minister has discretion to convene an oral hearing.

Based on whatever submissions the minister receives in response, and other evidence before the minister, the minister then makes a decision to revoke citizenship. At that point, the individual may seek judicial review before the Federal Court, but can only do so with leave of the Federal Court.

Rather than walk through a jurisprudential analysis of why I think this process probably fails to pass constitutional muster, let me just explain it through some examples.

Generally speaking, the more secure one's status, whatever it is, the greater the procedural protections one is afforded prior to a decision to remove that status. Similarly, the more important the consequences of the decision, the greater the emphasis is on procedural fairness in the course of making the decision that will have that consequence.

Bear those two features in mind while I recount that the process under the current law for revoking citizenship provides fewer procedural protections than one would have as a permanent resident before the immigration appeal division, or indeed, as an individual fighting a speeding ticket in court. I hope that illustrates to you that there might be something problematic about revoking somebody's citizenship with a thinner, less protective process than is required to lose permanent resident status or, indeed, to fight a speeding ticket in court.

I should add that in the United States, for example, citizenship revocation on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation is done through a civil court process. That is, it is done before an ordinary court using ordinary civil court procedures.

What I will do is offer a suggestion or proposal for how one might consider amending the existing citizenship revocation process in a manner that would bring it into compliance with section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 of the charter guarantees to everybody the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with fundamental justice.

What I am proposing here is a mechanism for dealing with citizenship revocation on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation that complies, I think, with principles of fundamental justice. Let me preface it by saying that I anticipate that the majority of cases that would come up for revocation would concern potential fraud or misrepresentation regarding the physical residence requirements for citizenship, although there are certainly many other bases upon which citizenship could be revoked.

What I propose is that the first level decision remain with a delegate of the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. From there, I would suggest that, should an adverse decision be made, the individual has the right to appeal to an independent quasi-judicial tribunal. An example of that one could consider is the immigration appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. One might choose that or one might develop some other tribunal for that purpose.

One would have to consider the composition of that tribunal. Should they be legally trained? Do you want one member, perhaps two members or three members? These are all issues to be considered.

With respect to important questions of procedure and evidence before that appeal body, I think it would be important that the burden of proof—that is, proving that the facts and the law in favour of revocation are met—be on the minister; that it be proven on a balance of probabilities; that there be full disclosure of the record, so that the citizen has access to all the available evidence; and in addition, that the parties be able to adduce further evidence on appeal.

What would the jurisdiction or the mandate of such a tribunal be? It would be able to consider an appeal on the basis of law, fact, discretion, as well as what are called “equitable” considerations, or humanitarian and compassionate discretion. Broadly speaking, this conforms to the existing mandate of the immigration appeal division with respect to loss of permanent resident status. The tribunal would have various remedial options, which again could be further explored in questions.

What happens from there? It goes from the initial decision maker to an independent appeal body that has the ability to uphold or set aside the decision made by the first-level decision maker. In the event of an adverse decision, either side could then go to the Federal Court. One might ask whether it should be an appeal or a judicial review. I would favour an appeal. I think this is a matter, certainly, for further discussion.

It is important, and here I would concur with what Andrew said with respect to denials of grant of citizenship, that it be “as of right”; that is, that there be no leave requirement.

With that, I will end my presentation here. I look forward to questions.

[Andrew Brouwer, Senior Counsel, Refugee Law, Legal Aid Ontario]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be back before the committee.

I work for Legal Aid Ontario, or LAO. Legal Aid is the country's largest legal aid plan. Our mandate is to ensure access to justice for the most vulnerable and marginalized Ontarians. We do that through staff legal services, community and specialty legal clinics, and of course, funding private bar lawyers on certificates to represent our clients. Legal Aid Ontario helps almost 4,000 low-income Ontarians each day, accessing justice in the areas of criminal, family, immigration and refugee, and poverty law matters.

Legal Aid Ontario also has a law reform mandate directed to the core goal of access to justice for the most vulnerable. We have a number of key priority areas in the area of refugee and immigration law. Those are, first of all, equal access to and effective protection of charter rights; protection of mentally ill non-citizens; protection and promotion of the rights of the child; domestic implementation of international human rights law; and access to and protection of citizenship, particularly for naturalized Canadians.

We applaud the government today for introducing Bill C-6 so very early in its mandate, and we support much of what's in the bill. We're particularly pleased about the provisions scrapping the intention to reside requirement and removing the power to strip citizenship for national security grounds. We also support the changes to the language and the residency requirements for naturalization.

That said, in our view the bill's not perfect. There are some significant problems and gaps that we hope this committee can address. Of particular concern to us are five areas. I've handed out a summary in English and French of the specific recommendations we have, and I hope those are before you. I'll just go through very briefly what we're suggesting.

The first issue I know has been a topic of a great deal of debate. I'll rely on Professor Macklin on the issue of the revocation process. Legal Aid Ontario shares Professor Macklin's position on the best remedy for that, and I know that Minister McCallum has also expressed interest in looking at how to reform that provision.

The second is with respect to remedies for refused citizenship applications. Bill C-24 stripped refused citizenship applicants of their right to appeal refusals to the Federal Court, and introduced instead a remedy of judicial review by way of leave. That change imposes unjust and costly barriers to access to justice, particularly in an area that really goes to the core of what it means to be a member of society. Leave requirements in Federal Court can double the time it takes to get a remedy and double the cost of seeking that remedy; and leave refusals, as I'm sure you know, are made without reasons by the Federal Court judge, which does an injustice to the individual applicants who naturally will perceive the leave requirement as being arbitrary. They don't know why they get refused. We therefore urge the committee to amend Bill C-6 to reverse the amendments that were introduced in section 20 of Bill C-24 and return to the Federal Court appeal provisions that existed before.

Our third area of concern is with respect to the first generation born abroad limitation. We were very pleased to hear Minister McCallum affirm before this committee that there should be one class of citizen. There's no place in Canadian law, in our view, for provisions that treat citizens born on our territory differently from those who are naturalized. My grandchild will be a Canadian citizen no matter where she's born. Mr. Virani's grandchild—he is my MP—will not be, unless she's born on Canadian territory. That's an unjust distinction. We ask, therefore, that the committee amend Bill C-6 to include a provision that strikes down the first generation born aboard provision in section 3(3) of the Citizenship Act.

The fourth area of concern is with respect to the residency calculation. We supported the change to the residency requirements that were set out in Bill C-6. We ask that they be expanded so that credit can also be given for Canadian residency to those who have made a refugee claim that's been found eligible but are waiting to have their hearing. As you know, there is a massive backlog right now. People are waiting for three or four years to have their claim heard. They should get credit for that time.

As well, those who have been accepted on humanitarian and compassionate grounds at stage one should also get credit for the time. It's a two-stage process, and people sometimes wait for years to get the final approval. That period of delay is not the fault of the applicant; it's a problem at Immigration, which is just taking too long to process them. We ask that they also get half-time credit for that period.

Finally, I'd like to ask the committee to consider seriously the issue of statelessness and how this act can be amended to deal with the stateless within Canada.

We are certainly hopeful that the new government's renewed recognition of the importance of international law and global engagement will result in our signing the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, but there is something that we can do right now with this act to make sure that we are better protecting stateless persons and coming into better compliance with international law and norms.

We have three recommendations.

The first, which is critical, is to include a definition of “statelessness” within paragraph (a) of subsection 2(2) of the act. We ask that this include both de jure or legal statelessness as well as de facto statelessness. Practically speaking, the whole point of dealing with statelessness and assisting stateless persons to get protection is to make sure that every member of society has a connection to a state.

Concerns have been expressed by various people, including in a case in the U.K. called Pham, which shows the problems when we have an overly legalistic and narrow definition of statelessness. We are proposing the following definition, which is also included in the materials handed out. It's that “stateless” means that the person is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law and includes both de jure and de facto statelessness.

I've handed out a little printout from the website of CIC, which includes this government's understanding and definition of those two terms, de jure and de facto.

The second provision with respect to statelessness is that we're asking for an amendment to subsection 5(4) of the act, the provision that allows discretionary grants of citizenship in special cases. We propose that statelessness be identified specifically within the act as a factor that would justify a grant of citizenship under subsection 5(4).

Finally, we are proposing an amendment to section 10 of the Citizenship Act, the revocation process. We propose adding a restriction on revocation when it might result in a person's becoming stateless, whether de jure or de facto. We believe this would provide a very significant protection against an unexpected result of a revocation decision, and we ask that you seriously consider it.

Those are my submissions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Good morning. I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference received by the committee on March 21, 2016, the committee will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

I'd like to welcome our first panel of witnesses on the subject of Bill C-6: Andrew Brouwer, senior counsel in refugee law, Legal Aid Ontario; Audrey Macklin, professor and chair in human rights at the faculty of law, University of Toronto; and Tamra Thomson, director of legislation and law reform, and Christopher Veeman, executive member of the immigration law section, both from the Canadian Bar Association.

Welcome. Each of you will have seven minutes or less to make opening statements, and we will proceed alphabetically.

Mr. Brouwer, you're up first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

I'd like to call the vote.

I'll just read through the motion to make sure that we have the wording correct, Mr. Tilson. It's that staff be invited to return before the end of consideration on Bill C-6 to provide a briefing on the process for accessing the ministerial inquiries division.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I think that's a matter of process. Right now we are discussing Bill C-6 and we should go ahead with it. That is a matter of discussing a process and the officials will provide a response to that. Maybe we should go to a vote on this motion.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chairman, a response to a question that was asked from the government as to why we would want the officials to come back. The answer is because we will have questions. They may provide a written response, but we will have questions.

For example, my constituency offices have called embassies on specific questions from our constituents, and the embassies have told us to call this general number. This is something new. We've always had assistance from the embassies. We've never had the embassies...and to be fair to the embassies not all are saying that. Perhaps they haven't heard of this ruling yet, but some embassies are saying they will not speak to us. We will have to call this general number.

Members of Parliament are asked a lot to assist constituents on immigration and other issues. This just makes our job much more difficult and it certainly fits into questions that will arise as a result of Bill C-6.

The reason the motion has been made, we may, and I expect we will, have questions of the staff on whatever responses they're giving to this ruling.

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

On that point, the email that Ms. Zahid read out talks about the centralization of access for members of Parliament into one number. What's not clear from that is whether or not staff from the ministerial inquiries division have the authority to look at things like reconsiderations of rulings on citizenship decisions, as well as, for example, dealing with overseas embassies. These are scopes of responsibility that the staff that man the current central line at the central processing unit do not have.

What's not clear in that email is whether or not as members of Parliament we will still have access to the level of service and the scope of responsibility of the staff that the ministerial inquiries division provides.

The way I read that email and many of my colleagues did, your caucus included, it looks as if we would have to phone a number and have a staff member act as a middleman. That's not the best process in my opinion.

I would like more information on why this decision was made. That's simple. Also, as my comments to the officials were, my recommendation would be rather than going to a middleman that we have better training for new caucus members, so perhaps if the ministerial inquiries division is getting a bunch of requests that are out of scope or something like that, that some training is provided.

Your question about why this is happening now, the changes to Bill C-6 will impact your offices. You are going to have a lot of questions from constituents on how these new rulings might apply retroactively or if they apply to cases already in there. We're going to have a lot of requests.

I do think that again this is not a gotcha situation. Just to have the officials sit here, and whoever the officials may deem to find appropriate to do that, to answer questions, I think a lot of our colleagues across party lines would be very interested in that.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I wanted to remind my colleagues here, and in particular Ms. Rempel, that the purpose of today's hearing in having the officials here was to discuss Bill C-6. Further to that the officials have kindly agreed and undertaken to provide us with the information that you have requested. I don't quite understand why you think it would be necessary for these officials to once again appear before this committee.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would support this motion, and I think we can dispense with it fairly quickly. I think it is important for us to get clarity on what the changes are. We have heard news about this and have been hearing about rumours around this change. I have written an open letter to the minister making inquiries around that to see what the changes are. If there are changes, constituency offices are anxious, and rightfully so, to see what it means in terms of them being able to help their constituents address cases.

In that regard it would be useful as well to get information with respect to the changes around embassy offices, because those changes include the constituency office not being able to contact the local embassy offices for information about cases.

I would welcome this opportunity, but I don't want to get into a full debate about this at this juncture. Hopefully we can vote on this, and then I can get on with my other questions to the officials related to Bill C-6.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I would move that the staff of the department be invited to return before the end of the deliberations of Bill C-6 to further brief the committee on the topic that's just been raised by Ms. Rempel. If it requires further time on the bill, that would be added to the time.

[Catrina Tapley]

Bill C-6 doesn't change any of the provisions related to revocation for reasons of fraud or for those who lied on initial applications. Nothing in this bill would change that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

I have a final question. Minister, the previous Conservative government gave your predecessor the unfettered discretion to grant citizenship. Bill C-6 does not reinstate the necessity of the Governor in Council's approval for ministerial granting of citizenship. Bill C-6, as written, doesn't provide the scope to make such an amendment.

Under what circumstances, other than the humanitarian or compassionate discretion you already have, would you override or short-circuit the arms-length citizenship process, with its prerequisite qualifications and checks? Fundamentally, do you believe that a politician in the executive branch of government should have the unchecked power of granting citizenship?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Minister, under previous Liberal governments residents without legal temporary residency were allowed to include the time spent in Canada prior to obtaining permanent residence toward their residency requirement. This would include refugee claimants, persons whose sponsorship application had been approved, and those whose applications for permanent residence on humanitarian considerations had been approved.

I'm concerned that Bill C-6, as worded in proposed paragraph (5)(1.001)(a), does not consider this time as residency. I assume that you would be amenable to a friendly amendment that would clarify this issue in cases of refugee claimants, sponsorship, and humanitarian and compassionate cases.

[Mary-Ann Hubers]

There's nothing in Bill C-6 that talks about the first-generation limit, but there is in the law a first-generation limit that applies to children born abroad to a Canadian citizen. There were a number of reforms done that gave citizenship back to lost Canadians. The first one was in Bill C-37 in 2009. Then there were additional changes in Bill C-24 that gave citizenship back or gave it for the first time to a number of other lost Canadians. There were a number of individuals who were fixed by those provisions.

For those who are impacted now in terms of being themselves first generation born abroad, and they have a child abroad who's therefore not eligible for citizenship by descent, there are some avenues available to them. For example, they can sponsor that child for a permanent residence to Canada. If the child is stateless because they don't have access to any other citizenship, there's a grant in the Citizenship Act for stateless children of Canadians.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The minister mentioned a two-tier citizenship, and a citizen is a citizen is a citizen.

Now the issue of lost Canadians I think has been brought to the minister's attention, and there are great concerns around this issue. Essentially the current legislation denies Canadians born abroad from the ability to pass on citizenship to their children, even in the event that there is significant contribution to Canada and to Canadians.

I wonder whether the minister would be willing to entertain amendments to this effect, if not to Bill C-6, then in a separate amendment. My former colleague, Olivia Chow, had tabled a private member's bill in this regard. Would the government be interested in entertaining such a move?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

You only have to have three years for citizenship, so that would be two out of three. Again, these things are all debatable, but we thought that where we went was sufficient.

You mentioned international students, and I might add that we've moved to reinstate the 50% credit for citizenship, but more important is access to permanent residence. Here's an example of something that's not in my mandate and not in my platform, but I still wanted to do it, which is to increase the points under express entry for international students to give them greater access to permanent residence.

My aim is to help international students, not just through reinstatement of the 50% credit for citizenship but also by improving their access to permanent residence through the express entry system. I don't think there's any more positive group of people for what good Canadians they will become than international students. They're educated. They know French or English, and they know something about the country. This is a double-courting of them, if you will; one way is through Bill C-6 to reinstate the 50% credit, and also through something that hasn't happened yet but hopefully will soon to make it easier for them to become permanent residents.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Also, I want to thank you for the energy you've brought to the task and for the important and timely changes you are making to the Citizenship Act. This was a very lively issue in my riding of Willowdale, so it's very nice to see that some of the excesses of Bill C-24 have been addressed in Bill C-6.

Now if I could, I will focus my question on the credit that is being provided to those who are temporary residents in this country and who intend to apply for citizenship. I find that to be a very useful change, and I have every confidence that it will have a discernible impact on attracting some of the best and brightest from around the world to apply for Canadian citizenship. One could think of international students, or of course, people who are experienced workers.

I had an opportunity to look at the changes being contemplated and to compare them to provisions that are also available in the American and Australian citizenship system. My colleague had a chance to ask you whether there was some consideration of providing more than 50% credit for that period.

My question is whether there was any consideration of having a cap that would not be for 365 days, but actually for a two-year period. Is that something that was contemplated?

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

And through Bill C-6, Zakaria Amara stands to regain his Canadian citizenship. Is that also correct?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

We obviously would like to get Bill C-6 through as quickly as possible, subject to the will of Parliament. The first step involves your committee and you will have witnesses. I don't know exactly when you will get it back to the House of Commons, but I'm hoping that won't take too long. Then it goes to the Senate and the Senate is a little bit more difficult to predict, given that we don't have a majority in the Senate but we do in the House. We will then have to speak to senators and hope that they will pass the bill, and that's the next stage. Then after that, it will receive royal assent and different aspects of the bill will be implemented at different speeds.

I think in terms of the issue of time spent in the country, there will be some delay in implementing the bill in order to prevent the buildup in backlogs resulting from this change.

Is that correct? Yes.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I think it was under Bill...maybe I have the wrong one. I'll just go on to my second question, then.

My second question is that there is a constituent who came.... Again this will be out of the scope here I think.

My third question.... Here, I'll ask this one. I got an email from an engineer in my riding who became a permanent resident in 2013, and then went back to the U.K. for a few months to finish his university degree, and moved to Canada permanently in 2014. He is so eager to apply for citizenship as soon as possible after Bill C-6 becomes law. As mentioned earlier, my office has received a number of emails.

Minister, can you have an estimate of the length of time that it might take to bring Bill C-6, to introduce the implementation once it's enacted?

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here.

Minister, you appeared in the committee on February 23, and I congratulated you for restoring the interim federal health program for refugees. I just want to thank you once again for restoring that.

Then I asked you when you would reintroduce the legislation to repeal Bill C-24, and you responded, “In the coming days, and not very many”. Then two days later, you introduced Bill C-6, so again I want to congratulate you for that.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I represent a riding that has a very heavy Filipino and Gujarati population. I know several of the Filipino and Gujarati families who have brought their parents to Canada to help them look after their children. These grandparents are providing valuable child care by looking after their grandkids, allowing both parents to work and contribute to Canada's economy.

Could you please explain how the changes in the language proficiency requirements and the age range in Bill C-6 will impact these families?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I've heard from a number of permanent residents in my riding, as I meet them every day in my constituency office, who are ready to apply for Canadian citizenship but have had to wait longer because of the previous government's lengthened waiting period. These are people who have worked hard, pay their taxes, and are making a valuable contribution to the economy of our society. Now they want to join our Canadian family.

Could you please discuss how Bill C-6 will help these people join our Canadian family sooner?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us today as we examine this important legislation, Bill C-6.

This is a very important issue for me and for my constituents in the riding of Scarborough Centre. After the Conservatives passed Bill C-24, effectively creating two tiers of Canadian citizenship, as a mother I had to explain to my two sons why they were second-class citizens in the country they have grown up in. They love their country.

This was wrong, and it went against the fundamental values of the country that has shaped them into the fine young men they have become. As a mother, a parliamentarian, and a Canadian, I am proud to see the integrity of Canadian citizenship restored. Could you please explain why it is so important to defend the integrity of Canadian citizenship, which is a beacon for people around the world?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

As I said in my speech in the House on Bill C-6, a general point is that we are always open to amendments if those amendments improve the bill. We're not sitting here saying that it's perfect and that we will not contemplate any amendments.

More specifically, what I said, that point having being drawn to my attention, was that I would also be open to considering amendments that provided a greater right to appeal for those whose citizenship is revoked on grounds of false information provided. I won't go further than that, because I think this committee will hear from the CBA and from other witnesses who might themselves have ideas on how to proceed in this area, but certainly I've said that I'm open to amendment in that area.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I would urge the minister to look into this issue. Hopefully, action will be forthcoming.

Let me move onto another issue. Bill C-24 eliminates the right to a judicial hearing for anyone who could have their citizenship revoked. Those involved with the civil liberties movement are calling on the government to make changes in this regard. Bill C-6 leaves this provision untouched.

Would the minister agree with the Canadian Bar Association that someone who is about to lose their citizenship should always have the right to a hearing before an independent and impartial decision-maker?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

No, that is not what I am saying. I think that anything that is in my mandate letter is something we are committed to do, but we may well do things beyond that. There's no reason why we cannot.

I'm saying that fees are something we could consider in the future. It's not a part of the mandate letter, and that does not preclude us from considering changes in the future, but that's not a part of this new Bill C-6.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I understand, as you've just pointed out, that for certain households the fee issue can be important. However, I would say that in the way we have presented Bill C-6 we have responded to every item that we committed to do in our platform and in my mandate letter, and neither the platform nor the mandate letter referred to fees. This is something that over time we will examine, but we have not made any commitment to change those fees and there was no fee change in the bill.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I would advocate for a change. Even though it's not part of Bill C-24, it's still part of the set of legislation that we're dealing with in respect of Bill C-6.

With that, I want to move on to another area, which is the fees issue. Under changes to regulations that were made by the previous government, fees were increased to such a degree that a family of four could expect to spend nearly $1,500 on citizenship processing fees. On top of that, there's a $100 right of citizenship fee as well. For many families, this is equivalent to greater than a month's rent. It's significant.

I wonder whether or not the government has any plans to examine the high fee structure. Is there any action that the minister might be undertaking to correct that?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the minister and his officials.

On the language issue, as the minister knows, Bill C-6 maintains the requirement for citizenship applicants to pass a knowledge test about Canada and one of the two official languages. For anyone who has taken the standardized test, even in their first language, these tests can often be confusing because the wording or the questions could sometimes be tricky for people. For many new Canadians, this could reasonably be considered as double-testing because they have to go through the testing twice and not necessarily a true representation of the individual's ability to function or succeed in Canada. I can name many examples where people have succeeded and may not be able to pass this test.

I'm wondering whether or not the minister would be amenable to amending Bill C-6 with changes around the language proficiency requirements so that the issue of double-testing could be eliminated.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Okay.

Bill C-6 also allows time spent in Canada as a temporary resident to count towards the residency requirement for citizenship. Periods of temporary residence had been eligible prior to Bill C-24 as well. Before the provisions excluding time as a temporary resident came into force, approximately what percentage of citizenship applicants included periods of temporary residence in their application?

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the minister for being here with our committee today.

I know that in Bill C-6 there is a change in terms of the language requirements and the ages to which they apply. I can share that in my riding of Scarborough North there are many new immigrant communities. I've heard the concerns from families that elders and grandparents find it difficult. Under the new rules, the age requirement would see that those between 14 and 17, and between 55 and 64, no longer need to fulfill the requirements that were set by the previous government.

Can the minister explain the rationale for this decision in light of the context that new Canadians are expected to master one of the official languages?

[Catrina Tapley, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sometimes in a meeting I would joke on a legal question that I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV. I think I'll start by saying that I am not the minister and I am not going to play him on TV.

I do have a few opening remarks. These aren't his. Perhaps it would be helpful for the committee if I give a quick overview of what's in Bill C-6 and highlight some of the key elements of Bill C-6, the changes to the Citizenship Act.

The first is repealing the national interest grounds for citizenship revocation. These are legislative changes that came into effect in May 2015, which created new grounds for citizenship revocation that allowed citizenship to be taken away from dual citizens for certain acts against the national interest of Canada. This bill repeals those provisions.

This bill also repeals the “intent to reside” provision. Since June 2015, adult applicants must declare on their citizenship applications that they intend to continue to reside in Canada. Bill C-6 repeals that provision.

Other things in Bill C-6 include reducing the length of time someone must be physically present in Canada to qualify for citizenship. To use the vernacular, we've gone from four of six years to three of five years. To be more precise, the time required to be spent in Canada for citizenship for adults goes to three years, or 1,095 days, from the former or current 1,460 days.

I will stop now, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Good morning.

Pursuant to the order of reference received by the committee on March 21, 2016, the committee will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

The minister should be with us shortly. However, senior department officials are here to discuss the implications of Bill C-6, and I invite Ms. Tapley to proceed with any opening comments she may have.

Income Tax Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It is Bill C-2 and if I said Bill C-6, I apologize, but I do not think so. The vote is on Bill C-2.

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

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

Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt votes for clarification, but I thought we were voting on Bill C-6. However, I heard you call Bill C-2 and I do not want to vote the wrong way. I just want a clarification.

Citizenship Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-6.

The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a great debate today. I have enjoyed listening to both sides of the House, where there seems to be quite a polarity between the Liberals and Conservatives, but the debate nonetheless has helped me reflect on the idea of what a citizen actually is and what is citizenship.

It is a very ancient concept, perhaps developed by the Israelites, but really made famous by the Greeks who expanded the idea of what a citizen is. It used to be that we organized ourselves. Humans were not very mobile and we lived in the same spots most of the time. We organized ourselves first by family and then by clan. Whom we were loyal to and whom we conceived ourselves to be was really the people in our immediate area.

However, once society started to expand and urbanize, which the Greeks were a great example of, all of a sudden it brought us into contact with different people who were not from our family groups, not from our clans. What developed as a result was the idea that we are something outside of ourselves. We could conceive of the idea that it was not just about us and our families, that not only could we co-exist with other groups, but we could believe in this broader group as something bigger than ourselves. That is really where the idea of citizenship began, as we began to think of ourselves as a group beyond our family members.

Along with that came the idea of defining what a citizen is. The safest way in ancient societies was to give citizenship to the most powerful people to make sure that males who were born in a particular area were given exclusive rights to citizenship and no one else. That eliminated women, slaves, and visitors from other places, so it was a very exclusive domain, this idea of who a citizen was.

What was important about that aspect of citizenship was that Greek males started to travel. Citizenship was important because they would be Greek citizens regardless of where they were in the world. Once people started to gather in urban areas and started to travel and explore, the idea of citizenship became even more important. A Greek male who travelled far away could always think in his head that he was a citizen of Greece. That was something beyond himself. It is not that he was a member of a particular family, but a citizen of Greece, and that was something important to him. It is something he would defend and try to contribute to.

We are in a parliamentary assembly now. The Greeks were famous for their parliamentary assemblies. Indeed, they not only expanded the idea of citizenship, but also started the first democracies. That is where they would debate who a citizen was, who would be included, who would be excluded, which is what we are doing here today. We are talking about what a Canadian citizen is.

Often we are caught up here with our partisan hats on, thinking about how this would benefit our own party and other parties, but I would really like us to pause and think about what we are doing here in this debate and will be doing at committee when the bill is passed. We will be having the same discussion that has been had in other assemblies. It will be about what a citizen is and how we define who we are. That will in turn will show the rest of the world how we think of ourselves and what kind of example we are providing to other people. This is a very important debate we are having because it sets the tone of how Canada is perceived worldwide.

Citizenship is actually codified by rules that give us privileges and responsibilities, but also gives us a sense of ourselves that is outside of our normal day-to-day living. We are all proud to be Canadians here, and I think a lot of people in the world would like to be Canadian, whereas others are very proud of their own nationality and will retain it. Furthermore, in some situations in Canada, we do not make people trade in their other identity, but allow them to become dual citizens. That is how our country works and it has worked very well. It is not the same in all countries. Some countries make people revoke their citizenship from another country.

What it really says is that Canada is an open place where one can come from afar, go through the rules, and become a citizen without having to jettison one's other identity. I think that is what makes Canada very strong.

My riding of Burnaby South, I would say, is one of the most diverse communities in the entire world, with over 100 languages. Most folks are from afar. We have a core group of folks of European descent who have been in Burnaby for 100 years or so, and now we have citizens from all over the world and a large population of refugees. They have come to Canada and are trying to move their conception of who they are to who they are going to be.

This is why we have to make sure that we get it right here and make it clear what it means to be Canadian. It is also why I so disagreed with the debates we had in the last Parliament, because they all came down to a very small part of what being a citizen is. It is important how we deal with people who are terrorists, but the focus on that clouded the idea of what citizenship is in Canada. I think what we need to do in this debate is clarify for both new and old Canadians what citizenship means to us.

Everyone thought Canadian citizens were equal, but then all of a sudden we had this whole discussion of whether or not citizenship was two-tiered, and whether someone could have their citizenship removed, which seems like an alien concept for people. If one is a citizen, either one has been born here to Canadian parents or one has moved here from another country and has gone through a series of very rigorous steps to gain citizenship. The state is totally in control of that process. The very apt government officials at Citizenship and Immigration Canada move recent immigrants to become permanent residents and then citizens, and these people are put through rigorous screens.

However, I have not really been getting an answer from the Liberals why they have retained in Bill C-6 the idea that a minister can revoke someone's citizenship without any kind of judicial review. I asked the parliament secretary that. If someone gains citizenship through fraudulent means, then their citizenship can be revoked, but I think that represents a failure on our part. If we fail to screen people properly and they gain citizenship by fraudulent means, that is a failure on our part, and I do not really count that person as having been a citizen to begin with.

If we move aside someone who has received citizenship fraudulently, under what other circumstances would we ever remove someone else's citizenship? Why does the minister need this power to remove someone's citizenship without judicial review? I have yet to hear an answer from the other side to that question. I am hoping that maybe in the question and answer period we can have a response from the other side as to why that is the case.

I think the effect is that it is still unclear as to how our citizenship is protected by law. For every other case of law-breaking in the country, we have to go through a proper judicial process protected by the charter. All Canadians feel confident in that. However, to me, this clouds the idea of what a citizen is and leaves a shadow of doubt as to whether citizenship is protected.

I have to say that I am glad that the new Liberal government has decided to allow graduate students here to speed up their application to become citizens. I know the U.S. is moving in that direction as well, and I am deeply worried that we will lose very talented students because we have restrictions on their becoming Canadian citizens.

This is something I am very proud to support and will be voting in support of the bill.

However, I am hoping that as we get to committee, we will try to clarify this whole issue of why the minister can revoke citizenship without judicial review.

I see that I am out of time.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech, particularly the story of her family's arrival in Canada.

This morning, in my speech on Bill C-6, I said that I have tremendous admiration for parliamentarians from all walks of life. Here in the House, we have more opportunities to meet people than we do in my riding, which is in a part of Quebec where there are fewer people from many different cultures.

My colleague said a lot about the importance of immigration and inviting people to Canada. She did not, however, say anything about terrorists.

When her parents came to this country, they intended to live here, to participate in and contribute fully to Canadian society, and they should be very proud that their daughter is now sitting in Canada's Parliament.

That is not at all the same as what the government wants to do with Bill C-6. It would restore citizenship to people who do not share these values and have no desire for their children to do something like become a member of Canada's Parliament.

Can my colleague comment on that situation, on that change of heart? When people want to come to Canada, they want to be Canadian; they do not want to destroy this country.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-6 and to its provisions that would help provide greater flexibility for applicants trying to meet the requirements for citizenship and help immigrants obtain citizenship faster.

Bill C-6 proposes to help those Canadians who desire to work for companies that require travel as a part of their job description. I am sure the House would agree that in this ever-changing economic climate, it is essential for us to help those who reside in Canada and who want to become Canadians. As Canadians, we desperately need them to join us. That new generation of immigrants can continue to help build our country so it may remain one of the best places to live in the world.

We must also allow our people to be gainfully employed. I have had several people in my riding who are frustrated with not being able to work for companies that require them to travel and still have the ability to become citizens of our country, which would help them build a successful life in Canada. I am sure we can all recall situations where people have come to our riding offices wanting to work for these companies, wanting to be employed, and wanting to be Canadian citizens. We must help them.

Under the renewal process in place now, it takes s a lengthy time for people to renew their PR cards that allows them to travel around world. We want to encourage diversity and take steps to ensure that the path to citizenship is flexible and fair. However, we also want to encourage Canadians to take pride in obtaining their citizenship.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship have been clear from the outset. Flexibility and diversity is crucial to our future as a country and in what we offer the world. We know from decades of experience that immigrants who become Canadian citizens are likely to achieve greater economic success in our country and make a greater contribution to the Canadian economy. This commitment benefits the country as a whole. Furthermore, one significant predicator for a successful integration into Canadian life is achieving Canadian citizenship.

During debate on this very issue yesterday, a member from the Conservative Party stated that in order for one to value his or her citizenship, it should be difficult and take a long time to obtain citizenship. I highly disagree with that. In fact, it took my parents less time to get their citizenship when they arrived in this fine country in the late 1970s. I do not know of people who could be prouder to have chosen this country to make it their home. They have contributed greatly and have worked extremely hard to make their lives and the lives of their children a success here.

I have a senior in my riding who helped me with my campaign. I have never met a prouder man. He came to Canada as a senior with little knowledge of the English language or Canadian history. However, he always reminded me of how honoured we should all feel to be involved in the democratic process. He always made sure my office had a Canadian flag. He also insisted that I wear a Canadian pin on my jacket when campaigning. At events, he reminded me to play the national anthem. He stood proudly as he attempted to sing the words. This is a person who never had to take the test because he was above the age that required him to do so. Does it seem as if this individual does not value his citizenship? I think not. If anything, at times people who are born here and have never lived anywhere else can end up taking their citizenship for granted.

Bill C-6 provides for a flexibility that benefits both the lives of new Canadians and the social cohesion of our diverse country. The first way it would do this is by amending the physical presence requirement to the equivalent of three years out of five. More specific, the proposed changes would reduce physical presence requirements to three years out of five immediately before the date of application. This is a change from the current four years out of six. This would allow individuals to apply for citizenship one year earlier than under the requirements that came into force in May of 2015, making the path to citizenship a shorter one.

The five-year window in which to accumulate three years, or more specifically, 1,095 days, of physical presence would also provide greater flexibility for those who are absent from Canada during the five-year qualifying period, for work or other personal reasons.

I have had many people in my office, whom I have met over the last few months, who have sick parents in their country of origin, who have to travel in order to take care of loved ones. Should we not grant these people the ability to do so in these extenuating circumstances, but also the ability to come back and gain citizenship quite quickly?

There are people who are selling their homes and wrapping up loose ends, who have moved to this country because their children have enrolled in school or for other reasons. They need to be able to wrap up their old prior business and still be able to come back to this country and move on with their lives in a successful way.

This bill supports the Government of Canada's goal that I spoke of earlier, the goal of increasing flexibility and making it easier for immigrants to build a successful life in Canada, reunite their families, and contribute to the economic success of all Canadians. In a world where individuals are more mobile than ever before, where employers increasingly have an international presence, it is crucial that we build flexibility into our immigration system.

As well, permanent residents who choose to study abroad, do voluntary work in other countries, or work for NGOs abroad would be able to, provided they are physically present for three years within the five-year window. They would be able to then bring this rich, international experience back to Canada, benefiting us all.

Similarly, Bill C-6 also proposes to repeal the supplemental physical-presence requirement that citizenship applicants be physically present in Canada for a minimum of 183 days of each of the four calendar years within the six years before the date of application.

Keeping this requirement would not allow applicants to fully benefit from the shorter physical presence or the increased flexibility that I just described, or the new non-permanent resident time credit that Bill C-6 also proposes. Removing this requirement would also provide more flexibility for prospective applicants to meet the requirements of citizenship.

Another way Bill C-6 would increase flexibility is through the removal of the intent-to-reside provision. Under current law, applicants are expected to have an intention to continue to reside in Canada if granted citizenship. Applicants are required to hold this intention from the time they submit their application to the time they take the oath of citizenship.

The provision created concern among some new citizens, who feared their citizenship could be revoked in the future if they moved outside of Canada. For example, although the period covered by the intent-to-reside provision does not apply after a person has become a citizen, it has created great confusion.

Some new Canadians whose work requires them to live abroad for extended periods may feel that their declaration of an intent to reside in Canada could negatively affect their ability to work abroad as Canadians.

The government has made a commitment to repeal the provision. Doing so, and making it clear that no citizens are bound by it, would eliminate any misperception that new Canadians would have.

We want our immigration system to be flexible to the needs of those who make Canada their home. More broadly, the changes proposed by Bill C-6 support the Government of Canada's commitment to fostering a diverse, fair, and inclusive country.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-6 today. I encourage all my honourable colleagues to support the bill, as I will.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that many dual citizens were gravely concerned about how this might impact them personally. It is important to remind everyone in this debate that dual citizens may be people who were born in this country and became, by birth, dual nationals, both Canadian citizens and citizens of some other country. The law as it stands now would actually mean that such a person could have his or her citizenship revoked for an egregious set of circumstances, as mentioned earlier, while having never lived anywhere else but Canada.

Therefore, yes, people were concerned about this issue in the election campaign, but, as I said, it is a matter of principle, and to say that it only affects a few who may actually get caught up by this provision makes no difference. It is a matter of principle. We should stand up for the values we believe in in Canada. I believe Bill C-6 is a good measure to do that.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of Bill C-6. The bill will restore the fundamental principle of equality of citizenship, and also restore common sense to the process of becoming a Canadian citizen.

There are few privileges on earth greater than being a citizen of Canada. In our country, we cherish our freedom, our democracy, and our inalienable rights that attach to our citizenship. Canada has long been a beacon of hope and opportunity to many around the world. Our country is blessed to have been enriched by people who have become Canadians by choice.

In my riding of West Nova, we have an incredible history which started the foundation of the country, with rich contributions from Acadian, Mi’kmaq, Métis, British, and African Canadians. Also, we know that through many generations at Pier 21 in Halifax, many more immigrants began their lives as Canadians and together helped build this great country.

The most fundamental principle of the rule of law is that all citizens are equal before the law. We cannot have two classes of Canadians. Once someone is a citizen of our country, certain rights and privileges attach to that. They cannot be taken away. Bill C-6 restores the fundamental principle of our system of citizenship. It rightly seeks to reinstate this principle, which was taken away under the Conservatives' Bill C-24 in the last Parliament.

I have heard all kinds of claims by the opposition members in the debate so far on Bill C-6. However, the most intellectually frustrating argument I have heard is their claim that Bill C-6 leaves in the law the ability for revocation of citizenship in some cases. Therefore, the argument we are making on this side of the House, that it is fundamental that we cannot revoke citizenship, is somehow inconsistent with leaving that provision in the law. I have heard this from the other side. The argument has been made that Bill C-6 in fact creates two tiers of citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the opposite is true. The bill remedies the fact that in Bill C-24 there are two classes of citizenship.

Does the opposition not see the obvious difference between taking away citizenship from someone who never would have or should have obtained citizenship but for fraud or misrepresentation, and revoking the citizenship of an otherwise valid citizen for egregious behaviour done after they have been conferred with all rights and privileges that come with citizenship? To my mind, there is a clear distinction between something being void ab initio, that meaning from the beginning. They were never citizens. That is the difference between something void ab initio and something voidable in the future for future behaviour.

Furthermore, do they not see that maintaining the integrity of our citizenship application process requires a mechanism to prevent those who would lie in order to become a citizen? What kind of system is reliable if there is no mechanism to withdraw from it people who have lied, committed fraud, or misrepresented the statements made in order to obtain the thing conferred upon them? Of course, to have a proper system of citizenship requires a mechanism for those people who have misrepresented themselves to the government to obtain the citizenship to take that away.

That is vastly different from saying that someone should have their citizenship revoked for something done after they have become a citizen. There is no causal link. There is nothing between their bad behaviour afterwards and their citizenship. Therefore, it is fundamentally wrong to suggest that because there are provisions that remain in the law to revoke citizenship for someone who should never and would never have been conferred citizenship, versus someone revoking their citizenship for egregious behaviour after the fact, that the law is flawed

Let me be clear about this. There is no question that the behaviour associated with revoking citizenship in Bill C-24 is egregious behaviour. It is intolerable. It is criminal. It is repugnant. That is exactly why the criminal law in this country, to the fullest extent, should make sure that those people go to jail. That is where they belong. It should not be used as a punishment to revoke their citizenship because it does in fact create two tiers of citizens. It creates citizens who have dual citizenship who could be subjected to having their citizenship revoked on future behaviour, versus those who are Canadian and only Canadian citizens.

There is a big fundamental difference. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. I know that line has been used on both sides of the House, but it is true. It is true that if we go down the road of having more than one class of citizenship, it will render less valuable the fact that someone is a Canadian citizen.

Being a dual citizen means that an individual is a Canadian citizen. However, a Canadian citizen is the same, whether or not they have more than one passport.

I submit that most Canadians understand this obvious difference. It is unfortunate that it is being advanced as a proper argument to maintain these elements from the previous Bill C-24. I note that these elements were part of the election campaign, and Canadians rejected those ideas in the last election.

Bill C-6 also reduces the length of time that someone must be physically present in Canada to qualify for citizenship. This would help immigrants achieve citizenship more quickly and change the requirements to three years within five years total. It will mean that applicants can apply one year sooner in order to join the citizenship of this country. This offers greater flexibility for immigrants who travel outside of Canada but maintain the timelines. It does ensure that a new Canadian has significant ties and links with our country to be a full and proud Canadian.

Another element of Bill C-6 that I find very good is the part of the bill that restores the 50% credit, for international students in particular, who spend time at one of our amazing schools in this country. It does not make any sense to take away the credit for those individuals whom we hope to attract, for whom we are competing with other countries around the world to have them live in Canada, to participate in our country. It does not make any sense at all to make it harder for them. We are competing with other countries around the world to attract the best and brightest, and we must do what we can to ensure that they stay here.

They have links with Canada. They obviously have a linguistic connection, either English or French, or perhaps both, in order to attend one of our universities or post-secondary schools. Therefore, it makes sense with those links, those connections, their intelligence and innovation, that we should be attracting and doing everything we can to encourage these students to become part of the Canadian family.

We know that Bill C-6 also amends the age range for the language requirement. Bill C-6 proposes to amend the age range for those required to meet language and knowledge requirements from 14 to 64, to those aged 18 to 54, removing a potential barrier to citizenship for applicants in both the younger and older age groups.

All Canadians are free to move outside of Canada, of course, and this is a right guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many Canadians enjoy that privilege and maintain their strong ties and connections and pride in Canada. It is right and correct that Bill C-6 repeals the June 2015 change that required adult applicants to declare that they intend to continue to reside in Canada. This is a prime example of previous modifications to our law that treat certain citizens differently.

Bill C-6 attempts to remedy changes that were made that are against the rule of law, against the best traditions of this country, and that is why I will proudly support Bill C-6.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are some positive aspects of Bill C-6. I will admit that not all aspects of the bill are bad. We need to look at the changes carefully.

Unfortunately, there are too many provisions in Bill C-6 that are problematic, so barring the legislation being drastically amended, I and my colleagues in the Conservative Party cannot support it.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned in his speech that this legislation would do nothing to help the long line of immigrants waiting to become citizens. Bill C-6 proposes to reduce the number of days needed for international students by reinstating 50% of their time here credit. It would also reduce the time that they are in Canada, from four out of six years to three out of five years in order to apply as citizens.

Would my friend agree that these measures would help those who want to become citizens and reduce the waiting time?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 falls short in just about every way imaginable.

Take, for example, the fact that under the Strengthening of Canadian Citizenship Act, we recognized that new Canadian applicants in an increasingly globalized world needed flexibility. In terms of the period of time that applicants were required to remain in Canada, the Strengthening of Canadian Citizenship Act gave them one third of the time that they could be outside of Canada. The Liberals now want to take away that flexibility, by reducing that to only 25% of the time that applicants can be outside of Canada.

This legislation would be bad for new Canadians. The only beneficiaries of it would be terrorists.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion with which my colleague speaks. It adds greatly to this debate.

My colleague has been vigorously defending Bill C-24, and I get a sense from the questions and the speeches that perhaps it did not go far enough for him.

Can he envision a bill that is stronger than Bill C-24 that he would perhaps like to see replace Bill C-6?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when people commit terrorist acts, when people seek to kill other Canadians, when people seek to destroy the institutions that bind us as Canadians, those individuals, as a matter of fact, renounce their citizenship.

What the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act did was merely affirm that fact.

What Bill C-6 does is seek to revoke the renunciation and reinstate it solely to the benefit of terrorists. We think that is fundamentally wrong, and it is why we do not support Bill C-6.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in opposition to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

Let me say at the outset that Canada is a country built upon immigrants. People come from all corners of the world, people of all backgrounds, ethnicities, faiths, and creeds. People come here to build a better life for themselves and their families, and as a result of their contribution, they help shape and build a better Canada each and every day.

Hundreds of thousands of new Canadians are welcomed into the Canadian family each and every year. Indeed, as a result of important reforms to Canada's immigration system brought forward by the previous Conservative government, a more than 70-year record number of new Canadians were welcomed into the Canadian family. I would say that is a record of which all Canadians can be proud.

Each time an immigrant is welcomed into the Canadian family as a Canadian citizen, we are all enriched by the ever-increasing diversity of Canada. It is precisely because of that, that I stand vigorously in opposition to Bill C-6.

Bill C-6 would do absolutely nothing to help the hundreds of thousands of good people who are waiting in the immigration line to build a new and better life in Canada. Rather, Bill C-6 would primarily help one individual, and that individual's name is Zakaria Amara.

Zakaria Amara is the ring leader of the Toronto 18. Yes, it is that Zakaria Amara. He is someone who built detonators, acquired explosives to build truck bombs to blow up downtown Toronto, and was responsible for a plot that the trial judge characterized as “spine chilling”. What is more, the trial judge determined that, but for the fact that Amara was stopped in his tracks, this plot would have resulted in loss of life on a scale never before seen in Canada, if it had been carried out.

Amara's citizenship was rightly revoked under the previous Conservative government, and now, if Bill C-6 were passed, Amara's citizenship would be reinstated. Effectively, Bill C-6 would put Amara at the front of the immigration line, ahead of the hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people who want to join the Canadian family.

I agree with the hon. members opposite when they say that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. I would add that a law-abiding Canadian is a law-abiding Canadian is a law-abiding Canadian. Also, a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

However, Bill C-6 would do nothing to create equality or treat newcomers equally. I can see that the government's bill may be well intentioned, but what Bill C-6 would effectively do is give dual citizens convicted of terrorist offences preferred status over other dual citizens.

What happens to dual citizens who conceal their criminal record? The answer is that their citizenship may be revoked, and the government supports that.

What happens to dual citizens who enter Canada on fraudulent pretenses? The answer is that their citizenship may be revoked, and this government supports that.

However, what happens to dual citizens who are convicted of terrorist offences? If Bill C-6 were passed, they would be able to keep their Canadian citizenship.

How can that be? How is that fair? How is that just? How is that fair to, frankly, multi-generation Canadians, to first-generation Canadians, to new Canadians, or to any Canadian?

It is not fair. It is fundamentally unjust, particularly to dual-citizenship Canadians. Not only is it fundamentally unjust to dual-citizenship Canadians, but it is out of step with literally every other country in the western world. Almost all countries in the western world have laws on their books that take away the citizenship of those who perpetrate terrorist acts.

It is out of step with literally every democracy in the western world, because Bill C-6 is inconsistent with the principles that underlie citizenship; namely, reciprocity. Canada is loyal to the citizen; the citizen is loyal to Canada.

Let me just say that I hope the government takes a step back and reconsiders this ill-advised piece of legislation. Rather than moving forward with this legislation, I would encourage it to work with us, work with all parties, work with all Canadians to find ways to help streamline the immigration process; to find ways to give immigrants the tools they need so that they can prosper here in Canada; and to, frankly, work to help every new Canadian enjoy the Canadian dream by creating conditions for long-term growth and prosperity, instead of the reckless tax-and-spend schemes it has brought forward over the last six months, which are slowing economic growth, including that of new Canadians, making us all poorer, and burdening future generations of Canadians with mountains of debt, including future generations of new Canadians.

In closing, let me say that a bill that would put terrorists ahead of dual-citizenship Canadians, a bill that would be inconsistent with long-standing principles respecting citizenship, a bill that would put one of the worst terrorists, Zakaria Amara, at the front of the immigration line, is a bill that must be defeated.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in the past, it is always a pleasure to address the House on what I believe are important issues. Bill C-6 is a very important issue.

I spoke against Bill C-24, which was passed not long ago under the Conservative government. I felt fairly passionate about the fact that the government was taking the issue of citizenship in the wrong direction. Today we have a bill before us that would rectify a number of wrongs that the previous government put in place.

I want to pick up on the point of my colleague from the NDP. I appreciate his comments and support of this bill, recognizing the importance of citizenship and that we get it right. Citizenship is very important. It is something in which we have a vested interest. In the Liberal caucus, it is an issue about which we are all very passionate. We look to the current Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to be progressive in making the changes that are so badly needed to fix the system, and it goes beyond the legislation before us today.

A few weeks ago, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship addressed the House and made reference to the processing times for citizenship. It is a serious issue. It was not that long ago, a number of months, when the Conservatives allowed the processing of a citizenship to go far beyond two years. We should keep in it perspective that this is after someone technically qualifies to get citizenship. He or she has to then put in an application requesting it. People are putting in their applications today and having to wait a minimum of two years. The actual percentage is a guesstimate, but it was closer to two and half or three years, and 15% plus were waiting four to six years, depending on whether they required their residency calculator to kick in while spot checks were being done. Those are unbelievable processing times.

The minister has been very straightforward and transparent in saying that the government wants to deal with this processing time. We recognize the desire of people who call Canada their home. They have taken interest in our great country, are productive while they are here, and contribute to our lifestyle in a very real and tangible way. We want them to take on the responsibility of being citizens, and they have a desire to become citizens. I was pleased when the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship said that we would be reducing the processing time.

Now we are debating a bill that is yet another step in the right direction to deal with citizenship. For example, the legislation would change what the Conservatives put in place, which was that in order to qualify to be citizens, people had to have lived in Canada for at least four years out of the most recent six. It used to be three out of five years. This legislation would bring it back to the way it was.

There was no demand to change it in the first place. I was the critic for immigration a number of years ago. I sat in committee and no one talked about it. Why the Conservative government made that decision is beyond me. In fact, a Conservative MP introduced a private member's bill to reduce the amount of time required for citizenship for individuals who chose to join the Canadian Forces. That member received a great deal of sympathy from members on all sides of the House. Therefore, I was somewhat taken aback when the government made this decision.

Another very smart move in the legislation is the recognition of the valuable contributions of people who come to Canada to work and to study. I believe Canadians are quite passionate about this. We recognize those valuable contributions made by individuals who make those sacrifices, often leaving family abroad to come to Canada, to get money, to get that job, to fill a void in the Canadian economy. We are talking about significant numbers of people.

As the immigration critic a few years back, I used to argue that if people were good enough to work in Canada, they were good enough to stay in Canada. There was overwhelming support for statements of that nature. There needs to be criteria, and the criteria will be there. I believe we will see more on that front.

However, the legislation recognizes those students and those workers. For example, someone who has been working in Canada for two years will be able to take one of those years and apply it to the three of five years. That is a progressive move recognizes the valuable contributions these workers have made.

When we look at the student component, these incredible young people have made a commitment to further their education in Canada. Why should we not allow them the opportunity to get their citizenship a little earlier? I would challenge the Conservatives to answer some of those questions about why they made those changes.

There was no demand. No one was coming to the table saying that we needed to make those changes. We have heard a great deal about the whole issue around terrorists, and why we would accept the two-tier system as proposed by the Conservatives proposed when in government.

Let there be no doubt. Under Bill C-24, the Conservatives created a two-tiered citizenship system. They said that if people had dual citizenships, they could lose their Canadian citizenship. If they did not have dual citizenship, then they could not.

I do not care what the official opposition benches say. The Conservatives created a two-tier system.

This legislation recognizes that a Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen. All we need to do is look at the election results, because this issue was often referred to at the door. This bill would right a number of wrongs, as members of the Liberal Party and other parties have said.

This legislation is yet another step in what I believe is a move for real change, which the Prime Minister committed to during the last federal election. We are seeing those commitments materialized.

We believe that one of the greatest, if not the greatest, strengths we have in Canada is our diversity. If we capitalize on that diversity, Canada will continue to grow and prosper well into the future. There is so much potential here. We cannot underestimate the importance of immigration.

I was especially pleased when I heard the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship earlier today in question period. He made very positive statements about improving processing times for families and improving the number of immigrants. I believe I even heard him say that in 2016 Canada might receive the highest number of immigrants in its history.

We recognize that good, sound immigration policy that leads to citizenship and good citizens is the direction in which to take our country. We are a country of immigrants. Immigrants built our country. We need to have immigration to continue to prosper in the future. We in the Liberal Party recognize that and, as a government, we will put in sound policies to feed that growth. By feeding that growth, we will be building a healthier, stronger economy, and a better society for all of us.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and very pleased to stand in the House today in March of 2016 to speak to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

I want to start by congratulating the government on bringing forward this legislation. It is long overdue. It is thoughtful and very important to Canadians. It undoes what every thoughtful Canadian and, more importantly, most new Canadians in the country regarded as regressive changes made to citizenship by the previous Conservative government.

I find that we often do not support each other enough across the aisle in the House when legislation or proposals are introduced that are helpful. We tend to criticize each other and find fault, but while the bill is not perfect—and I will speak to a few items that I hope the government would be open to amending—I want to congratulate it on tabling the legislation and say that the vast majority of Canadians will receive this legislation very well.

I want to talk about citizenship for a moment, broadly speaking. Citizenship is extremely important to Canadians. I do not think there is a person in the country who does not deeply value and profoundly treasure the fact that we are lucky enough to be Canadian citizens in this world. This citizenship is cherished not only by those fortunate enough to be born on Canadian soil but also equally by those who have come to Canada, who may have been born in another nation.

In my riding of Vancouver Kingsway I have one of the most multicultural ridings in Canada. We are home to one of the highest percentage of new Canadians of any riding in the country. Whether people came from Sri Lanka, India, the Philippines, China, or anywhere else in the world, when they reside in Vancouver Kingsway, and I would dare say in all of my colleagues' ridings in the country, they are incredibly proud of the citizenship they have been permitted to acquire in our country.

I must say as well that Canada does not have an unblemished record when it comes to citizenship. In fact, the record on citizenship in our country has been checkered with discrimination, racism, and sexism. Last week, I was fortunate enough to tour the Canadian Chinese military museum. I saw artifacts of soldiers of Chinese descent who fought in World War II. They were born in our country, fought for our country, and had certificates issued to them at birth that said they were not considered Canadian citizens because of their race.

Prior to 1947, children born to Canadian fathers and non-Canadian mothers were treated better and differently than children born to Canadian mothers and foreign-born fathers. There was gender discrimination in that as well.

Citizenship has long been precarious. In fairness, this applies equally to Liberal governments of the past as well as Conservative governments. For the Liberals, between 1947 and 1976, citizenship could be revoked for issues like treason or acts of war. Then of course the Conservatives brought in their infamous citizenship legislation that once again made citizenship precarious for Canadians, where it could be revoked for treason or terrorism. Both parties have introduced measures in the past that made citizenship revocable in our country, based on the medieval concept of banishment. That is something I am very happy to see the bill remove from the legislation.

Before I go further, there has been a litany of issues since 1947. There were problems with citizenship that still exist to this day that we need to address. The legislation goes a long way in addressing and fixing these problems.

Citizenship, of course, raises important considerations. What criteria ought to exist in order to acquire it? Are there any circumstances in which it is appropriate for a citizen, once granted citizenship, to lose it? These are important considerations that engage every member of the House. I will talk about this in a moment.

I want to talk about the legislation introduced by the previous Conservative government, which this legislation very properly attempts to fix. The Conservatives essentially made citizenship harder to acquire and easier to lose. They increased the language requirements for people coming here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly go over the previous question and provide a bit of commentary.

We need to recognize that Bill C-6 would do a number of things. There is one in particular that I would like to focus on, and that is that we are proposing to lower the number of years to qualify for citizenship. That is a strong and positive thing.

With respect to the member's question, there are a number of citizenship problems that the Liberal government has to deal with. One of those problems is legislation, and that is what Bill C-6 is all about. A former question was asking about fees.

Another issue is the processing time for citizenship. The previous government increased processing times to over two years from under one year, and this involved individuals who actually qualified to become citizens and then had to put in an application.

This government has recognized that some people here are students and visitors. They can count that time.

We also have a budget coming up, and we might see more things dealing with other aspects of citizenship.

Would the member not agree that this government is taking the issue of citizenship to heart, that we are doing what we can to improve the system, and this legislation is just one step?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her defence of diversity and inclusion.

The fees associated with citizenship applications went up significantly under the Conservative regime, despite the poor service provided by the department.

I would have liked Bill C-6 to go even further. I have no doubt that my colleague has a great deal of compassion for the families who go through financial difficulties after they first arrive in Canada.

Does the member intend to ask the government to go even further with Bill C-6 and bring down these fees, which can easily surpass $1,000 per family, as well as the other fees related to documentation?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to be able to speak about Bill C-6. The government is committed to a Canada that is both diverse and inclusive. Canadians know and our government recognizes that historically we are strong because of our diversity, not in spite of it. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship have been clear from the outset: flexibility and diversity are going to be crucial to our future as a country and in what we offer the world.

We want to encourage that diversity and take steps to ensure that the path to citizenship is a flexible and fair one, but also one that encourages all Canadians to take pride in being Canadian. Speaking to an audience at the Canadian High Commission in London shortly after taking office, the Prime Minister eloquently stated:

Compassion, acceptance, and trust; diversity and inclusion—these are the things that have made Canada strong and free. Not just in principle, but in practice.

Those of us who benefit from the many blessings of Canada’s diversity need to be strong and confident custodians of its character.

It s a strong feeling of attachment to Canada, and to those values of compassion, acceptance, and trust that we cherish, that encourages citizens to be strong and confident custodians of our national character.

Those who criticize the measures in Bill C-6 will say that the greater flexibility that these changes bring will diminish the attachment to Canada and our shared values, creating so-called citizens of convenience.

To be Canadian is a privilege and an honour. Few among us would deny that. Far from decreasing the value of Canadian citizenship, the measures in this bill foster greater attachment to our country. Bill C-6 fits in with the government's goal of ensuring that immigrants succeed in life and reunite their families in Canada.

The Citizenship Act includes and will continue to include a number of measures that help strengthen attachment to Canada, deter citizenship of convenience, ensure program integrity, and combat fraud. All Canadians should be treated equally, whether they are born in Canada, are naturalized, or hold citizenship in another county.

As the Prime Minister has said, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”

Critics will likely also point to changes to the age range for language proficiency and citizenship knowledge testing as another way that attachment to Canada will be lessened. We believe in the importance of having adequate knowledge of one of Canada’s official languages and understanding the responsibilities and privileges associated with being a citizen of this country.

Adults aged 18 to 54 will still be required to provide evidence of their proficiency in English or French and to pass a citizenship test. However, the government understands that for younger and older applicants, this can be a barrier to citizenship. That is why Bill C-6 brings the age range for language and knowledge requirements back to 18 to 54. These changes will not put newcomers at a disadvantage.

Younger applicants will acquire knowledge of Canada and official language capability through schooling. Older adults applying for citizenship will find support to be knowledgeable about Canada and to speak its official languages through a wide variety of services offered across the country. This flexibility will help children, their parents, and their grandparents achieve citizenship, an important step that will allow immigrants to gain a deeper sense of belonging to our society and to become more active citizens.

To foster attachment to Canada, we are also allowing time spent residing in Canada before becoming a permanent resident to count toward citizenship requirements.

The Citizenship Act would be amended so that each day within the five years preceding the citizenship application that the applicant was physically present as a temporary resident or protected person before becoming a permanent resident would count as a half-day toward meeting the physical presence requirement for citizenship, up to a maximum of one year.

Furthermore, each day of physical presence in Canada as a permanent resident will be counted as one day of physical presence for the purpose of obtaining citizenship.

In other words, an applicant could accumulate up to 365 days as a temporary resident or protected person and the remaining 730 days as a permanent resident in order to accumulate the1,095 days of physical presence required to become a Canadian citizen.

This acknowledges that post-secondary students who come to study in Canada choose to remain to pursue a career. If they do so, it is because they have developed an attachment to Canada, whether because of work, family, or opportunities. They have started to make a life for themselves in Canada, benefiting our society and the country as a whole.

We should acknowledge and reward them for choosing to make Canada their home. Their experience in Canada matters. Their choice to be here matters.

Once again, this is a matter of principle to our government. Canadians are proud of their country and our values. We welcome immigrants, and we help them settle, integrate, and succeed. That is our history, our present, and our future.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear that the changes in Bill C-24 passed by the Conservative government in 2014 turned millions of Canadians into second-class citizens with fewer rights than other Canadians. The changes were discriminatory, anti-immigrant, and un-Canadian. Bill C-6 would simply undo these changes.

No government should have the right to revoke citizenship, whether one is born in Canada or abroad.

Does the member opposite not agree that Bill C-6 simply restores equal citizenship in Canada to Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to those of my distinguished colleagues in debating Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

Within Bill C-6, among other things, the Liberal government is seeking to repeal legislation that would allow citizenship to be revoked from dual citizens who engage in certain acts against the national interest. The type of acts that would warrant someone's citizenship being removed are not loosely defined or a slippery slope, as my colleagues across the floor have implied. Instead, they are clearly defined and limited to convictions for terrorism, high treason, treason or spying offences, depending on the sentence received, or for membership in an armed force or organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada. In short, the removal of citizenship for dual nationals only applies to those who show an overwhelming hatred of Canada, Canadian values, and Canadian citizens.

As an immigrant myself and a member of Parliament for a constituency made up of Canadians with rich and various cultural backgrounds, I am deeply upset by the implication that removing citizenship from a convicted terrorist somehow constitutes creating a second tier of Canadian citizenship. My caucus colleagues and I, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast, know that there is only one class of Canadian citizens and that all Canadians deserve to be protected from acts of terror. To imply otherwise is an insult to anyone who takes pride in our rich cultural values and freedoms.

I find it deeply troubling that the priority for the Liberal government when it comes to immigration and public safety legislation is to give back citizenship and to protect the rights of Zakaria Amara. To give some context for why this is important, Zakaria Amara was found guilty in a court of law of plotting to murder thousands of innocent Canadians by bombing strategic locations throughout the greater Toronto area and other locations across our country. This man, by both his convictions and actions, showed his hatred for Canada and lack of respect for all those who value their citizenship, who invest in their communities, and call this great nation home.

An act of terror against one Canadian is an act of terror against all Canadians and all future Canadians. I know that my constituents and I feel that deeply. In light of this, I believe that the Liberal government owes Canadians a credible explanation for their decision to offer Canadian citizenship to convicted terrorists, especially while our allies, including the United Kingdom, France, Australia, and New Zealand, are taking steps to revoke the citizenship of convicted terrorists. Therefore, I ask, why should Canada be so far out of step with our peer countries?

There is nothing inevitable about Canada's future prosperity. The government has an obligation to introduce policies and legislation that live up to the high standards Canadians rightly expect. Under the previous Conservative government, Canada benefited from the highest level of sustained immigration in our history. I am proud to stand on this legacy as a member of Parliament.

I emigrated to Canada as a young man, and I can say with absolute conviction that I understand both the joys and challenges that come as part of transitioning to life in this great nation. It is with this understanding that I would like to speak to another part of Bill C-6, specifically the Liberal proposal to limit the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of Canada and one of the official languages for applicants between the ages of 18 and 54.

There is no debate about whether or not those with a low level of proficiency in either English or French outside this range can still contribute to Canadian society. We know that these individuals work hard, care for their families, and are involved in their communities. Yet, I would like to share my own experience as a young immigrant in Canada two decades ago.

When I arrived in Canada, I began working in a factory. At the time, I was shy and spoke very little English, and as a result I had to rely on those around me to help me communicate to both my co-workers and supervisors. One day, I needed help asking my supervisor for some nails to finish the project I was working on. The young man I asked for help responded by demanding that I buy him lunch first. In this way, I was made to purchase lunch for this young man every day just to keep my job. It is because of this experience that I do not support the Liberals' changes to the language requirements.

Learning one of the two official languages is a valuable tool that helps immigrants to successfully transition into their new lives in Canada. Furthermore, it ensures that they are not isolated from the larger Canadian communities, and allows them to both learn and share with others the rich experience and perspectives they bring with them.

In conclusion, my colleagues and I on both sides of the floor recognize the value of calling this great nation home. It is my hope that we can continue to work together to strengthen the integrity of our citizenship, safeguard the security of all Canadians, and enjoy unity within our diversity for generations to come.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in the House to the important changes, proposed by the government, relating to the Citizenship Act. These changes would go a long way to encourage immigrants to take the path to full membership and permanent belonging in Canadian society.

Obtaining Canadian citizenship more quickly would ensure the best transition possible for newcomers into Canada. Immigrants who become Canadian citizens tend to achieve more economic success. That is good for all Canadians. The proposed legislative change would allow greater flexibility for applicants to meet citizenship requirements, thereby also helping to foster a sense of belonging and connection to Canada.

Overall, the changes would make an impact in three major areas of concern. First, the changes would remove portions of the act that were implemented in 2015, which clearly created two-tiered citizenship. Second, the changes would provide a higher degree of flexibility for applicants to meet requirements for citizenship. Third, the changes would further enhance the integrity of the citizenship program.

Today, I want to address the proposed changes that would give people applying to become Canadians greater flexibility to meet these requirements. These changes would allow immigrants to achieve citizenship faster, which is a goal worth pursuing. The rationale behind the proposed changes lies in the government's goal to encourage immigrants to more fully integrate into Canadian society and to help them build successful lives in Canada.

I want to look at one specific change among several that the government is proposing. It concerns the ability of prospective citizens to count the time they spend in Canada before they become permanent residents toward meeting the citizenship requirements. In the legislation that received royal assent in 2014, this ability was removed. Our government simply wants to restore it.

Under the new proposal, time spent in Canada as a temporary resident or a protected person prior to becoming a permanent resident would count toward meeting the physical presence requirement. The Citizenship Act would be amended to allow each day that a person was physically present as a temporary resident or protected person to be counted as a half-day toward meeting the physical presence requirement for citizenship, up to a maximum of 365 days. Moreover, every day that a person was physically present in Canada as a permanent resident would count as one day of physical presence for citizenship. This means that an applicant could accumulate up to 365 days as a temporary resident or as a protected person. They could accumulate the remaining required 730 days as a permanent resident to meet the 1,095 days of physical presence required to become a citizen.

Who could benefit from this credit? Temporary residents, such as international students, would be one group. Foreign workers would benefit as well. Also, parents and grandparents in Canada with valid temporary resident status could apply this credited time to their citizenship application. In addition, protected persons, those whom Canada has accepted as convention refugees, who went on to become permanent residents could also apply this time in Canada toward the physical presence requirements. This is about recognizing that immigrants often begin building an attachment to Canada before they become permanent residents.

These priorities draw heavily from our election platform commitments. As the minister said earlier, allowing time spent residing in Canada before becoming a permanent resident to count toward citizenship requirements would be received favourably, especially by post-secondary students who come to this country to study and want to stay here and build their careers here and continue contributing to Canada. The Prime Minister has also asked the minister and his cabinet colleagues to reinstate the credit given to international students for time they spend in Canada before becoming permanent residents, and to eliminate the provision that requires citizenship applicants to intend to continue to reside in Canada if granted citizenship.

The reasons the government has for repealing some of the recent changes to the Citizenship Act are simple. We are committed to a Canada that is both diverse and inclusive. It is easy to take diversity for granted in a country like Canada. We have raised children who think nothing of hearing five or six different languages spoken on the playground or at school.

One-fifth of Canadians were born elsewhere. They chose to immigrate to Canada. More than half the citizens of Toronto were born outside of our country.

Against this backdrop, the importance of diversity can sometimes be taken for granted. There is no doubt we are a better country, a stronger country, a more successful country, because of this diversity. Canadians are proud of our country and proud of our values.

We welcome immigrants, we help them settle, we help them integrate, and we help them succeed. This is our history, it is our present, and it is our future. We encourage all immigrants to take the path of full membership in Canadian society. One of the strongest pillars for a successful integration into Canadian life is achieving citizenship.

I am sure, as members of Parliament, we have all been at citizenship ceremonies and we can all attest to how moving these functions can be. It is an important step in the life of immigrants.

The success of our immigrants is our success as a strong and united country. The strength of our new Canadians is what makes us all stronger.

I urge every member of this House to consider supporting Bill C-6.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Liberal Party promised to repeal the unfair and reprehensible parts of the previous Conservative bill, Bill C-24, and that is exactly what we are doing with Bill C-6.

The two-tier citizenship provisions that were contrary to the Canadian values of equality and inclusiveness will be gone. We are allowing hard-working permanent residents who are contributing to Canadian society to become citizens more quickly, and we are making it easier for grandmothers and grandfathers to join their children and grandchildren without language testing.

To repeal the bill entirely would be irresponsible and rash. The legislation did several things that I agree with, and I hope that the hon. member would as well. For example, the act restored the citizenship of so-called lost Canadians, such as the descendants of Canadian citizens, who were born abroad and were shocked to discover they were not Canadian citizens. The legislation also allowed for a faster path to citizenship for those who were serving or had served in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Surely, the hon. member would agree that these are measures worth keeping.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will support the bill, which repeals many of the discriminatory and unconstitutional changes that the previous government made to the Canadian Citizenship Act. However, like my colleagues, I am disappointed that Bill C-6 does not go further.

After hearing her eloquent remarks in support of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I would like to ask my colleague from Scarborough Centre whether she intends to press the minister not to revoke anyone's citizenship without giving that person the opportunity to participate in a court hearing.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-6, for this is very much a bill that speaks to the heart of why I am so proud to be Canadian and what makes our country the envy of the world.

In my first speech in the House as the member of Parliament for Scarborough Centre, I spoke about how my husband and I came to Canada from Pakistan about 16 years ago to provide better opportunities for our children. Before we moved here, there was one big thing we knew about the country, which is why we came here, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

People around the world know two things about Canada. We love hockey and we are the country of the charter. This is a document that says every Canadian and everyone within our borders have certain inalienable rights: the right to associate with whom we wish, communicate what we wish, and worship how we wish. The charter speaks to choice and equality, that whether we are Canadian by birth or by choice, we all are Canadian.

I live in Scarborough, one of the most diverse communities in Canada, where many people have chosen to settle and build better lives for their families. During the election campaign, I heard from many families who were deeply concerned by some of the provisions in the previous Conservative government's Bill C-24. Of particular concern were the so-called two-tier citizenship provisions, which allow government ministers to strip dual citizens or those eligible to obtain one of their Canadian citizenship.

Let me be clear that terrorism is abhorrent and should be punished to the full extent of the law. However, let me be equally clear that terrorists belong in jails, not on a plane overseas. This is a matter of principle. We cannot create two different tiers of Canadian citizenship and we cannot ship our problems overseas for other people to deal with. That has never been the Canadian way.

My husband Salman and I have two sons. Umaid is 17 years old and Usman is 15. They are like many Canadian children. They love basketball and the Toronto Raptors, and were two of my best door knockers during the campaign. Usman was born in Canada, while Umaid was born just before we left Pakistan and came here as a baby. They have much in common with their classmates, but there is one difference. While Usman was born here and Umaid was not, both are still dual citizens and both could be stripped of their citizenship under Bill C-24.

How can I tell my two sons that they are different from their classmates? They both feel Canadian to their core and deeply love this country and all it stands for. Should Umaid and Usman really be treated as second-class citizens? This is wrong, and it goes against the fundamental values of the country they both grew up in, which shaped them into the fine young men they have become.

That is why I was so proud, not just as a candidate but as a mother, when the Prime Minister came to my campaign office for a rally during the first week of the election campaign and promised to repeal this provision of Bill C-24. My sons and many more sons and daughters heard the Prime Minister reassert those core Canadian values when he told us, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”. With Bill C-6, none of our children will ever again have to feel like second-class citizens in the country they love.

Our diversity is our strength and we are stronger, not in spite of our diversity but because of its diversity.

There are a number of other worthy elements of Bill C-6 that I would like to draw to the attention of the House. Of particular interest to my constituents in Scarborough Centre are the changes to the language testing requirements, returning the age range required to pass the language testing to the age group 18 to 54.

Encouraging family reunification is an important goal of this government, including parents and grandparents, and these provisions will make a major difference in this regard.

I know many Filipino and Gujarati families in Scarborough where the grandparents have come to Canada to join their children and grandchildren, and are making vitally important contributions to both our society and our economy.

With one Filipino family in my neighbourhood, the grandmother comes to take the kids to school first thing in the morning, and then takes them home afterwards and looks after them into the evening. In the summer, she takes the children to summer camp and on activities and outings around the city. By taking care of her grandchildren during the day, she allows her son and her daughter-in-law to both work full time, contributing to our economy and allowing them to provide more opportunities for their children.

I know one Gujarati families in Scarborough grandmother who looks after six grandchildren. I do not know how she does it, but these grandmothers and grandfathers and the child care they provide, as well as the emotional support they provide to their children, are invaluable to our economy.

I agree that new Canadian citizens should be required to meet a certain level of English or French proficiency. However, do we really want to force the 64-year-old Filipino grandmother to pass a demanding language test? I would rather have her grandchildren teach her while they are at the park.

Finally, I would like to touch on the various changes to residency requirements to applying for Canadian citizenship that would be made by Bill C-6. The proposed bill will help permanent residents become Canadian citizens sooner by reducing the time they must be physically present in Canada before being able to apply, from four years to three years. Applicants will also receive credit for time they were present in Canada without being a permanent resident, for example, if they were studying on a student visa or a skilled worker.

My feeling is this. If individuals are hard-working contributing members of society, if they love our great country as much as we do and want to take that next step and join us as a citizen, then I see no reason to make them wait so long. They are exactly the kind of person we want to join our Canadian family.

With Bill C-6, this government delivers on its promise to restore the integrity of Canadian citizenship and reaffirms our Canadian values of openness, fairness, and equality. Today, we can proudly say once again, with our heads held high, that we live in the greatest country in the world, and that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have done before in many previous speeches in this House, I will start with a Yiddish proverb: if you walk straight, you will not stumble.

This bill stumbles. It zigs and it zags. It takes too many leaps where a few minor tweaks would do.

I want to quote the late George Jonas, National Post columnist and fantastic author, who sadly passed away January 10 of this year, on patriotism and citizenship. He said:

My reservoir of patriotic feelings is exhausted by Canada, and citizenship without patriotic feelings is a sham.

My family is the culmination of two immigrant stories in Canada. My wife Evangeline and her family immigrated to Canada in 1990. They arrived from Singapore, a mixed family of Chinese and Jewish heritage, speaking Hokkien, a Chinese dialect, at home, as well as English from the British educational system in Singapore. I still debate my father-in-law on whether it is “stroller” or “pram”.

They became citizens in 1994, grateful to be here, grateful to be welcomed. My father-in-law has wanted to shake the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's hand ever since the comments he made in Singapore about being open and welcoming to immigrants.

My family left Communist Poland in the early 1980s during martial law and the rioting at the Gdansk shipyards in my birth city. I grew up in Montreal and for a time lived in Sorel, where my father worked at the shipyard. My mother learned French, my father English. It was a sort of division of labour.

I attended a French school, Guillaume-Vignal, then Royal George, eventually learning French and English. Many immigrants in my generation call themselves the Bill 101 kids.

We are proud to be Canadians who made the effort to learn Canada's official languages and who understand the importance of our country's linguistic duality. I am a Polish immigrant who is married to a Jewish Chinese woman, so a lot of this bill's content affects us. Of course, the communities we play an active part in have a variety of views on the content of the Canadian Citizenship Act.

I want to fully address the issue of revocation first. It is not two-tier citizenship. I do not feel two-tiered, anyway.

Thanks to international law commitments, Canada cannot and will not leave a person stateless. Their place of birth is not important in the current provisions of the law as they stand, and in cases of fraud, citizenship can still be revoked, a measure I thank the government for retaining.

Since 1977, the Government of Canada has revoked citizenship in 54 cases, seven of those connected to World War II. Legally they lost their citizenship because they lied on their forms upon entry, which is fraud, but morally, in the example cases I am going to use, Jacob Fast and Helmut Oberlander were found to have participated in crimes against humanity and genocide.

The technicality for refusing them entry and permission to keep their citizenship in Canada was that they lied on their CIC forms, but the truth is that many of those cases were revoked because of the moral imperative in rejecting acts of mass murder and systemic violence against civilians, which are war crimes.

The Toronto 18 ringleader, Zakaria Amara, whose citizenship was revoked, is serving a life sentence but is eligible for parole in 2016. I want to read what he was convicted of. He was convicted of knowingly contributing to, directly or indirectly, a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the group to carry out an act of terror and intending to cause an explosion that could kill people or damage property for the benefit of a terrorist group.

He admitted to a leadership role in organizing a winter camp north of Toronto in December 2015, where recruits were given basic combat training and indoctrination in extremist jihadi causes.

Montreal jihadist Sami Elabi burned and shot his own passport in a video published online. Does he deserve to keep his citizenship? I accept their acts of violent disloyalty and I do not need a form from CIC to confirm that. That is legalism.

A Canadian of Somali heritage, a student, burned his passport in a video posted in Somali news on BartamahaOnline. That video was posted November 28, 2014. Does he deserve to keep his citizenship?

The line “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” is a slogan. It is not public policy discourse.

When writing on the prosecution of war criminals, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies wrote on the Helmut Oberlander case I mentioned before:

As Canadians, we have to ask ourselves if we are prepared to share buses, playgrounds, offices or community centers with mass murderers. These people may not be an immediate threat to one's safety, but they are certainly a threat to the morals and values held by this country as a whole.

Convictions for terrorism, high treason, and espionage are matters of loyalty to our country and to our communities, and the government could have amended the law to target only the most egregious of terrorism cases. The government could have narrowed it down and clarified it further to very limited cases of revocation if there was a concern out there. However, it did not do that. Rather, it is wiping out the entire section, and I am deeply disappointed by that decision.

I asked a question earlier on the residency requirement, and I will speak a bit to this aspect.

The move from four out of six to three out of five years would reduce the length of the residency requirement and also remove the clause that relates to the intention to reside in Canada. I believe in the positive declaration of principle and intent to reside in Canada. It is a clause that should be retained. Like many new Canadians, I expect those who are seeking citizenship to join us permanently and live with us here in fellowship as we continue to build a Canada we can all be proud of and pass on to the next generation afterward.

If there was a concern over the wording or the phrasing of the law as it is, then why did the government not propose an amendment to it, instead of simply erasing that wording in the law? The intention of the original section was correct in that we welcome new citizens such as myself. I received my citizenship in 1989, four years after I came here. We welcome new citizens with the understanding that they have joined the great Canadian family to help us build a society based on natural freedoms. What groups or stakeholders are calling for reducing the time spent in Canada before applying for citizenship? I am looking for the groups or the studies out there. What is better about three years versus four years?

The time spent in Canada is not time wasted. It is time spent learning languages, as I did, and learning about the culture. It is not idle time but time adjusting and time integrating. It takes four years to earn a bachelor's degree to be an expert in Canadian studies. Why not keep four out of six years for Canadian citizenship? Why can we not be both welcoming and vigilant?

The Liberal member for Markham—Unionville stated the following concerns in the 41st Parliament while debating an immigration government bill. I will quote from the Hansard on February 27, 2014, the House of Commons Debates, pages 3321 to 3322, where he stated:

There is some sense to the fifth, the idea of increased physical presence, that in four out of six years people should be here more than half the year, some 183 days. I have some sympathy with that because I have some concern with the phenomenon of citizens of convenience.

The member also suggested:

Why not have strict...requirements for health care? That would really target people who are citizens of convenience.

He further stated:

It speaks to the question of citizens of convenience. We want measures in place to deter that. I sympathize with that goal, in principle. However, with this specific measure, I agree that the minister could, in theory, take someone's citizenship away because he went to work overseas for a length of time, when he had previously stated his intent not to.

I do not always agree with the Conservatives, but I do not think it likely that a minister, even a Conservative minister, would do that. I do not take this risk that the professor raised too seriously.

That member is no less than the current member for Markham—Unionville, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship in the Liberal government, who is moving Bill C-6. Some of this is not in the bill and some even contradicts itself. I think reducing the length of years necessary to apply for citizenship and eliminating the intent to reside clause represents a contradiction there.

To conclude, over the past years that the Conservative government was in power, over 1.6 million immigrants became citizens, and record numbers came to Canada and became permanent residents. I know my colleagues and I welcomed them all.

I am an immigrant; my wife is an immigrant. We grew up at opposite ends of this country. We actually met here in Ottawa in a parliamentary internship program, of all things. What is more Canadian than meeting in the capital of our great country?

Our Canada is one that values citizenship and promotes loyalty to the community. It is a Canada that welcomes new Canadians with an expectation that they are joining our larger extended family.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-6 go too far. This bill does not walk straight. It stumbles repeatedly. Wording changes or further clarification would have achieved the goals of the minister. I see the striking out of entire sections. Where we could have used tweaks, we see too many leaps.

I cannot support this bill as it is presented today before this House, and I urge all members to oppose it.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today to express my support for Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act. I plan to vote in favour of the bill, and I encourage all of my hon. colleagues to do the same.

Canadians know that our strength lies in our diversity, as the Prime Minister has been saying from the beginning.

We know that the cultural, political, and economic success of our country is because of our diversity, not in spite of it. We need to keep that in mind as we study the changes proposed in Bill C-6. These changes relate to Canada's success throughout its history as a cosmopolitan nation. What is more important, however, is the fact that this bill aims to bring Canadian citizenship and immigration into the economy and reality of the 21st century. From now on, diversity will be at the very heart of our success and what we offer the rest of the world.

Generally speaking, Bill C-6 amends the Citizenship Act in three ways. First of all, it repeals the 2015 amendments to the Citizenship Act that make it possible to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals who engage in certain activities identified as being against the national interest. Secondly, it gives citizenship applicants greater flexibility, and finally, it improves the integrity of the citizenship program.

How will these changes to the Citizenship Act affect Canada's future economic prosperity? That is what we are about to explore, because that is what I want to talk about.

Our changes are going to help prospective immigrants achieve their economic objectives, build ties, and create a sense of belonging in Canada, which will be beneficial to all Canadians.

The 2015 measures required anyone applying for Canadian citizenship to express their intention to stay in the country after obtaining citizenship. They extended the physical presence requirement for applicants by requiring them to be present in Canada for a longer period before being able to apply for citizenship. Applicants were no longer able to count the time they spent in Canada before becoming permanent residents in the calculation of the length of their physical presence. Finally, the age range of applicants required to illustrate knowledge of one official language, of Canada, and of the responsibilities of citizenship was increased to 14 to 64. Previously, only applicants 18 to 54 had to meet the language and knowledge criteria. We are going to get rid of the intention to reside rule.

Through our changes to the Citizenship Act we are fulfilling a promise that the government made when it received its mandate. Moving around constantly has become commonplace in the 21st century. Thanks to our changes, applicants will no longer have to worry about losing their Canadian citizenship for not staying in Canada, even though they said they would.

We will reduce the physical presence criteria. It will now be possible to apply for citizenship one year sooner than under the 2015 provisions. The path to a permanent place within Canadian society will be shorter.

We know that economic success and cultural integration work out better when newcomers feel an attachment to their new country, and that is what Bill C-6 will focus on for future generations of immigrants.

We will allow applicants to count the time they spent in Canada as temporary residents or protected persons before becoming permanent residents. We know that quite often, immigrants start to become attached to Canada before they become permanent residents.

This change will help encourage foreign students and experienced workers to come to Canada. These are the types of people who may be here temporarily but who ultimately decide to stay.

Canada remains an attractive place to study and learn. We want students from around the world to choose to study in Canada and, potentially, to make their careers here.

Currently, anyone between the ages of 14 and 64 must demonstrate knowledge of one official language and take a knowledge test on Canada and the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. These rules will now apply to people between the ages of 18 and 54.

Younger and older applicants will have fewer barriers and will feel a strong sense of belonging in our society as citizens of this country.

Our government is abolishing or amending some recent changes to the Citizenship Act for some very simple reasons: we strongly believe that Canada is a land of diversity and inclusion.

We place a high value on diversity and inclusion, which is consistent with our firm and ambitious resolve to make Canada and the world better and safer. We often take the importance of diversity for granted. There is no doubt that we are a better, stronger, and more prosperous country because of our diversity.

Canadians are proud of their country and its values. We welcome immigrants, and we help them settle in, integrate, and succeed. This is our past, our present, and our future.

When an immigrant succeeds in Canada, the whole country becomes stronger and more united. These newcomers bring their strength, which makes us all stronger.

The changes I presented today will benefit all Canadians.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke in the House about the need to improve the processing times. We saw them languish under the previous government. We are committed to helping immigrants attain their citizenship as expeditiously as possible.

The idea of being able to move through the application process will be addressed in some ways through the changes in Bill C-6. There are other administrative changes that our minister has committed to doing. I look forward to seeing those implemented so we can allow immigrants to become Canadian citizens as quickly as possible.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to reiterate, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

Bill C-6 also contains provisions to repeal the current intent to reside requirement for citizenship. The previous government's legislation required adult applicants to formally declare that they intend to continue to reside in Canada after being granted citizenship. This has created great concern among some new Canadians. They fear that their citizenship could be revoked if they move outside of Canada, regardless of the rationale for moving. In light of today's global economy, we require flexibility in the movement of our citizens around the globe, without the threat of losing the highly desired Canadian citizenship that we all cherish.

This government respects this right to move outside of Canada, which is guaranteed under section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is something that all Canadians should be allowed to do without fear or repercussion.

Another proposed change in this bill is the provision to help immigrants achieve citizenship more quickly. Currently, the Citizenship Act requires applicants to be physically present in Canada for four of the six years immediately prior to applying for citizenship. Our government is proposing to reduce this time. Prior to submitting an application for citizenship, an applicant would be required to be physically present for three out of the preceding five years. Essentially, applicants could apply one year sooner than they can now. This would offer more flexibility for immigrants who may need to travel outside of Canada for personal or work reasons.

Furthermore, since the first Citizenship Act of 1947, citizenship applicants have been required to have a reasonable knowledge of English or French and an understanding of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. However, the previous government's changes to the Citizenship Act expanded the age range of applicants who must meet the language and knowledge requirements from those aged 18 to 54 to ages 14 to 64. This added an additional 14 years to the age range affected by this language requirement.

Our government is proposing to reinstate the former age requirement, eliminating a potential barrier to citizenship. For younger applicants, learning English or French and having an adequate knowledge of Canada can be achieved through schooling. For those applicants in the older age group, language skills and information about Canada are offered through our wide range of integration and community services. All applicants between the ages of 18 and 54 would still be required to provide evidence of their ability to understand and converse in English or French. Similarly, they would continue to be required to pass a knowledge test about Canada. That requires applicants to have a firm understanding of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, with a slightly lesser focus on the War of 1812 than currently exists.

I heard over and over again from immigrants who arrived in the 1970s and 1980s that they do not consider themselves to be hyphenated Canadians. They consider themselves Canadians, as do I. They were horrified and terrified that they could be targeted for deportation by their own government. This government wants that to change. A Canadian is a Canadian and will always be a Canadian under the changes proposed in this bill.

Our government is proposing to make it easier for immigrants to build successful lives in Canada, reunite families, and help strengthen the economic foundation to the benefit of all Canadians. Bill C-6 would credit time spent as a non-permanent resident toward the new three-year physical presence requirement for citizenship, for up to one year. This proposed change would allow any person authorized to be in Canada as a temporary resident or a protected person to count a day spent in Canada as a half day towards meeting the physical presence requirement for citizenship.

Last week, I spoke with an immigrant about the anticipated changes to the Citizenship Act. This woman has been in Canada for four years, two years as a student and two years on a work permit. She is committed to Canada and to becoming Canadian. She was happy to know that some of her time spent in Canada would now count toward her citizenship requirements. As in the case of this woman, the time credit would encourage skilled individuals to come to Canada to study or work, and would benefit groups like protected persons, and parents and grandparents on visitor visas.

I can also confirm that the changes proposed by Bill C-6 will not compromise the security of Canadians. In fact, there are several provisions in this bill that would strengthen the fair application of the right to become a Canadian citizen and provide protection against abuse of the process to do so. For instance, the Citizenship Act currently prohibits a person under a probation order, on parole, or incarcerated from being granted citizenship, or from counting that time toward meeting the physical presence requirements for citizenship.

However, these current prohibitions do not include conditional sentences served in Canada; that is, sentences served in the community with conditions. As a result, an applicant who is sentenced to a conditional sentence order could conceivably be granted citizenship, or could count that time toward meeting the physical presence requirements. The amendments in the bill would change that for both new applications and those still being processed.

Another provision relates to the requirement to maintain the conditions for citizenship until taking the oath, which I might digress, will respect the court's decision on appropriate attire.

Under provisions of the previous government's Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, applicants were not permitted to take the oath of citizenship if, in between the time the decision to grant citizenship and the time to take the oath, a period that is typically two to three months, they no longer met the requirements.

Let me make one last case. At present, citizenship officers do not have the authority to seize fraudulent documents. Bill C-6 would change that.

I remind the House that one of the most effective tools for achieving successful integration into Canadian life is by achieving Canadian citizenship. The bill would ensure that any and all who become Canadian citizens are treated equally under the law, whether they are born in Canada, naturalized in Canada, or hold a dual citizenship.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps there might be consent for me to table this very incisive statement that members are about to hear.

Today, we will continue our second reading debate of Bill C-6 on citizenship. Tomorrow, we will continue to discuss Bill C-2 on the middle-class tax cut. There have been discussions among several members, and I believe we will be able to conclude second reading debate tomorrow. Next week, as my colleague mentioned, we will be working very hard in our constituencies.

Monday, March 21 will be the final opposition day in this supply cycle.

On Tuesday, we will take up debate again on Bill C-6, until 4 p.m. I know that members on all sides are looking forward with great enthusiasm to the Minister of Finance presenting his budget at that time.

On Wednesday and Thursday of the week we are back, the House will have the two first days of the budget debate.

Finally, on a serious note, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, one minister of the Crown be permitted to make a statement pursuant to Standing Order 31 on Friday, March 11, 2016.

Citizenship Act

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by noting that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

During the time leading up to the election on October 19, 2015, I heard many concerns from residents of Cloverdale—Langley City about the changes that the previous government had made to the Citizenship Act, and since this government was elected on October 19, with part of our election platform being to make changes to the Citizenship Act, I have heard from many constituents inquiring as to when these changes will occur.

The bill represents an important reminder of this government's commitment to a diverse and inclusive Canada. It recognizes the contribution that new Canadians make to this great country each and every day.

The proposed changes in Bill C-6 would provide greater flexibility for applicants trying to meet the requirements for citizenship. It would help immigrants obtain citizenship faster and it would repeal provisions of the Citizenship Act that allow citizenship to be revoked from citizens who engage in certain acts against the national interest.

I can tell members that citizenship is an issue of critical importance to my constituents in Cloverdale—Langley City, many of whom are immigrants who have achieved citizenship and are exceedingly proud of their status as Canadians. They are proud of what being a Canadian means for them and their families.

I have heard from recent immigrants about their fears of losing their Canadian citizenship. They saw how the rules of citizenship could be changed by a stroke of the government's pen. Members of diverse communities were horrified, even terrified, that they would be targeted for deportation by their own government.

In May 2015, under the previous government's Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, legislative changes were created to allow citizenship to be revoked from dual citizens. The legislative changes allowed citizenship to be taken away for certain acts against the national interest of Canada. Convictions for terrorism, high treason, treason, spying offences, or membership in an organized group engaged in armed conflict with Canada were grounds for revocation. Citizens felt threatened and under attack by these changes.

I also heard from Canadians who have been Canadians for decades but who still hold citizenship from other countries and had passed this dual citizenship on to their children. They too are horrified, even terrified, that not only they but their children could be targeted for deportation by their own government under the rules set by the previous Conservative government.

Bill C-6 would repeal these grounds for deportation. This government believes that the Canadian justice system is fully capable of administering justice, protecting the public interest, and holding individuals accountable for their actions.

However, the value, the strength, and the iconic symbolism of Canadian citizenship would remain intact under Bill C-6. The bill would continue to provide the ability to revoke citizenship when it was wrongfully obtained. False representation, fraud, or knowingly concealing material circumstances remain grounds for revocation.

Madam Speaker, I will continue my speech after question period and will share my time, as I have mentioned.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who has spent a great deal of time on this debate already. I welcome his words as well.

I will start off with my 10 minutes to talk a little about my background. Hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Surrey Centre and the hon. member for Brampton West, with her intervention, they are seeming to make the bill about a general immigration bill, which is of course absolutely incorrect.

We will not take our lessons from the hon. members opposite when they get on their high horse and talk about their valid backgrounds. There is nothing wrong with that, but I was born elsewhere. My mother's mother was born in Aleppo, Syria. My father was born in Cyprus. I welcome the comments of the hon. members about their backgrounds and their histories, but on the Conservative side of the House, we have proud backgrounds and histories as well.

We have a different perspective on the bill. Just as we respect their perspective, they should respect our perspective. I do not want to hear the insinuation that somehow if members vote against this bill, they are anti-immigrant, or they do not believe that the future of our country will in great part be built on people who were born elsewhere. Those are the facts of the situation. That is my personal history. I take a bit of umbrage when I hear the other side try to corner the market on that point of view.

Therefore, I am speaking as a first generation Canadian. I am speaking about the importance of successfully integrating into Canadian society to take advantage of all that our great country has to offer. However, it does concern me that it appears that one of the first priorities of the Minister of Immigration and of the Liberal government is somehow to return the citizenship to convicted terrorists. There is no refuting the fact that the person who has the most to gain from the bill is the heinous ringleader of the Toronto 18, Zakaria Amara. Those are the facts.

We believe that there is only one class of Canadian citizens and that all citizens deserve to be protected from terrorist acts.

Therefore, it is particularly alarming to me that Bill C-6 would create an unacceptable and, frankly, ridiculous double standard. Under the proposed legislation, a convicted terrorist's citizenship rights are protected, whereas someone who commits fraud is eligible to have their citizenship revoked.

The fact remains that while the Liberals are focused on ensuring convicted terrorists can have their citizenship back, we Conservatives are instead choosing to focus on maintaining Canada's strong global reputation as one of the best places to live, a bastion of freedom with jobs, hope, and security.

Let me talk about section B of the bill. It would remove the requirement that if granted citizenship, an applicant would intend to continue to reside in Canada. I repeat this for the record. We believe new immigrants and new Canadians enrich our country. They make our Canadian experience more wholesome and more successful. The experiences and perspectives they can bring within our borders are integral to the Canadian experience.

We want newcomers, just as when I arrived on these shores as a four year old, not knowing anything about this country at that young age, relying on my parents' wisdom. Thank goodness they chose Canada as a place where they wanted to get ahead in their lives.

I know other members of our caucus and indeed of all caucuses may have shared experiences of the New World as a youngster, coming here not knowing anyone and many times not knowing the language. However, we want people to succeed. We want people to experience our freedoms, experience our safe communities across the country. It is not just about the freedom to succeed. In many cases newcomers are fleeing countries where they do not have the freedom to experience a safe community. That is, by and large, what Canada offers.

We want that safety as well as that freedom. That is the critical part about Bill C-6 that we find objectionable. Let me state for the record that this intention to reside provision does not restrict a citizen's mobility rights as guaranteed under the charter. Rather it reinforces the expectation that citizenship is a privilege given to those with the intention of making Canada their permanent home. That is the whole purpose of it.

The Conservative Party would support an amendment that removes this provision from the bill.

Paragraph (c) of the bill would reduce the amount of time a person must have been physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship from four out of six years to three out of five.

Newcomers to Canada should receive every opportunity to succeed in every way possible. The longer an individual lives, works or studies in Canada, the greater the connection that person will have to our country.

On this side of the House, we believe that stronger residency requirements do promote integration, a greater attachment to Canada, and ultimately success in our great country. Make no mistake. Canadian citizenship is a very special thing, not easily emulated around the world. It bestows rights, freedoms, and protections to which many foreign nationals are not privy. As Canadians, they can vote and seek elected office. As such, we believe it is very important to be an active participant in Canadian life for a significant period of time prior to being granted citizenship in order to enrich both their personal experiences within Canada as well as our country's future. Therefore, we would support an amendment that would strike this component of the bill.

What it comes down to is a conception of an open, free, democratic, welcoming society, but one that enjoys the protections under the law, one that protects current citizens, permanent residents, and newcomers as well as bestowing those freedoms.

On this side of the House, we offer a balanced approach to these kinds of issues, balancing freedoms with responsibilities and protections. That is why we have the position we do on Bill C-6.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank my friend, the member for Surrey Centre, for his excellent speech.

Bill C-6 is an extremely important bill to me, as a proud immigrant, a first-generation Canadian, and to my diverse riding of Brampton West. Family reunification is vital to my constituents.

As we know, this legislation would reduce the age to 18 to 54 for applicants for citizenship to demonstrate knowledge and language proficiency, which would help many senior immigrants in my riding of Brampton West.

I would like my colleague to tell the House why asking my constituent, who is 68 years of age and trying to reunite with his family, to pass an English test is completely unfair and a huge barrier to becoming a Canadian citizen, and how this legislation would help constituents and help reunite families.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to speak after listening to my colleague from Brampton East with his passionate speech, but I will do my very best and attempt to emulate him.

Diversity, inclusion, immigration: these are pillars of this great country and should always inform any debate in this chamber. I am rising today to speak in support of this bill with these fundamentals in mind.

When this House considers a subject as important and as fundamental as citizenship, we should treat these debates with the importance they deserve. Today I am rising to support this bill. My constituents will be thrilled to hear that our government is addressing serious errors that Bill C-24 created, whether they were purposeful or not. I thank the minister for swiftly reversing these errors and addressing these concerns.

One of our nation's many pillars is the successful integration of immigrants into new Canadians. Our country is stronger because of our diversity, and our government encourages all immigrants to take the path to full and permanent membership in this country and Canadian society.

Bill C-6 achieves just that. These changes would provide newcomers to Canada more flexibility to help meet their requirements for citizenship. I know I am not alone in this House when I say that, day in and day out, as members of Parliament, we hear about the unique paths that newcomers have taken to end up here in Canada. A number of these paths have been filled with hardship, challenges, and roadblocks.

As a government, we have a responsibility to ease immigration to our country, especially when it comes to reuniting families with their loved ones. For the past number of years, we have seen processing times for applications balloon. Now, as a result, I hear about constituents in my riding who have waited not months but years for decisions on their applications.

My family's immigration story is similar to that of millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is a story I share with many of constituents in my riding of Surrey Centre. My father, Mohan Singh Sarai, emigrated here from India in 1959, 57 years ago, and my mother, Amrik Kaur Sarai, emigrated in 1969. They came to this country to participate fully in Canadian society. My brothers are transportation workers, sawmill workers, and truck drivers, and one is a postman, all active in their communities, coaching, volunteering, or working in community kitchens around the great province of British Columbia.

I look around this chamber, and I know that many have similar stories to tell, and that is exactly what makes this place and country so great. The government recognizes that newcomers often begin building an attachment to this country long before they become permanent residents. This includes students who study in our great institutions, such as Simon Fraser University and Kwantlen Polytechnic University in my riding.

They would now receive credit for their time while they study in schools in our great land. This bill proposes allowing applicants to receive credit for the time they were legally in Canada before actually becoming status permanent residents.

Let us be clear about what this legislation would accomplish. This bill removes the unnecessary barriers to becoming full members of Canadian society. Our government has taken action by narrowing the age range of those required to meet language and knowledge requirements, so more newcomers have the chance of being granted Canadian citizenship.

Our government has demonstrated leadership by repealing the intent-to-reside provision of citizenship applications. I know there was a period of time during the previous Parliament when the government of the day conveniently forgot about a pesky little document called the charter. However, our government recognizes that all Canadians are free to move wherever they choose, and this right is guaranteed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I want to talk about something I find to be deeply troubling. Let us imagine a country where people who were born and raised in this country could have their citizenship taken away. That country does exists, and its name is Canada.

Now this might come as a shock to my colleagues from across the aisle, but I agree with them. I will go slowly here so my colleagues can follow.

When terrorists commit a crime against our country, we should lock them up and let them pay for their crime, because when people commit a crime in this country, we lock them up, we prosecute them, and we sentence them to jail. This is the Canada my parents immigrated to, the place I am proud to call my home, and in this country we have a justice system designed to do exactly that: provide justice to Canadians.

I have had this debate with many during and after the election: citizenship is akin to adoption. When parents adopt a child, they take the child not knowing what he or she will become. Some may become doctors, lawyers, nurses, electricians, or maybe even members of Parliament, but some may also end up becoming criminals. However, the adoptive parents cannot, all of a sudden, tell the biological parents from whom they adopted their children that the kid is now a criminal and they want to return the child, as he or she is not their child anymore. Their child is their child is their child.

The same goes for citizenship. When people come to Canada, we assess their medical histories, perform deep and extensive criminal histories and security assessments, including criminal record checks, histories, backgrounds, and we watch them for at least five years. For the first five years they live in Canada, we monitor them and are able to see their actions. Only after completing that long assessment and a written test, and in some cases an interview with a judge, do we decide that they are worthy of our citizenship. After that point, they are ours, period.

Subsequently, if people get radicalized or become terrorists or criminals of any kind in Canada, they are our problem, not the country from which they came. Why should another country take our criminals? Why? They become a problem in Canada, so why should the countries of their birth or their parents' birth take them back? Their act of terrorism or criminality happened or was conceived on Canada's soil, while being Canadian.

Therefore, we cannot just do a brain drain from countries by taking their best and brightest and then deport those who become rotten apples here in Canada. If this were the case, then we should deport the hundreds of mass murderers, serial rapists, pedophiles, and other criminals who are in Canada, in Canadian jails, back to the countries from which their parents came.

With that in mind, do we wish to have people of Canadian descent, who have migrated and become citizens elsewhere, such as the United States or European countries, be deported back here when they do heinous crimes in their new country of choice? No, they should pay for their crimes there.

Let us recap. Should Bill C-6 become law, it would give more flexibility for newcomers to Canada to apply, more newcomers would become full and permanent residents of this great country, and they would become citizens faster. Finally, it would remove and end a shameful second class of citizenship that should never exist in a country such as ours.

I hope my colleagues in the House will support our government's initiatives because our country is stronger not because we have no diversity but because of it.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Surrey Centre. It is a pleasure to be able to speak in support of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act .

As the member of Parliament from a riding where immigration is the number one concern for many of my constituents, I am proud to support this bill. During my 11-week campaign and the two years leading up to it, I heard time and again of the issues that people were facing concerning bringing their loved ones to Canada, or their struggles in gaining citizenship while they were completing their residency requirements.

Since the good people of Brampton East sent me to this chamber, my constituency office has received over 400 cases, and 99% of them deal with immigration. They are families who have waited seven years to be reunited. There are thousands who have waited 18 months since they were married to begin their life together. There are genuine visitor visa cases that are being denied time and again. There are also PR holders who have filled out the application, met the residency requirements, and suffered under the unnecessary changes to the Citizenship Act made by the previous government.

I am the proud son of immigrants. My family's story is similar to that of many families across this great nation. My parents immigrated to Canada in the late 1970s in search of social and economic opportunities. They worked hard. My dad was a taxi cab driver, and my mom lifted boxes in a factory. My parents realized that in Canada anything was possible with a bit of hope and a lot of hard work. At the core of their story is the day that they became Canadian citizens. It was not just a document to them. For my parents, it was security and a sense of pride that they were finally part of the Canadian family. At the ceremony, they proudly sang O Canada, and called their relatives for a party to celebrate the occasion.

Time and again, my father tells me that I won the lottery by being born in Canada, that I am a Canadian citizen by birthright, and that being a Canadian citizen is the envy of the world. I could not agree with him more. When asked on the campaign trail how I enjoyed the process, I responded that I am living the Canadian dream.

Brampton East is the second-most diverse riding in the entire country. The strength of our country has always been our diversity and building upon one another's experiences. Yet, at the same time, no matter where we come from or what we believe, we are all united by our Canadian values.

A few weeks ago, I had the honour and privilege of welcoming our new Syrian brothers and sisters at Pearson International Airport. I had the opportunity to chat with some of them, and the hope and joy in their voices was priceless. They knew how special it was to come to Canada as permanent residents. One parent spoke about how her children would now have the opportunity to live out their dreams. One day, a young Syrian refugee will study hard, become a professional, gain citizenship, and become a member of Parliament and sit in this very House. His or her life story will be a story of the Canadian dream.

Day in and day out, my team in Brampton East helps our constituents understand the immigration process, helps them determine their eligibility, and supports them through any challenges they face. Gaining citizenship is a cherished goal for many of my constituents, as well as the associated objectives such as family unification, which our government is also improving upon.

When the previous government announced the changes to the Citizenship Act, it redefined the narratives of citizenship and what it meant to be a Canadian. As a result, it pitted Canadians against one another in the ugliest of ways in order to serve political purposes. This greatly affected the citizens of my riding, many of whom are first generation and second generation Canadians. Their families moved here with the hopes and dreams of building a secure and prosperous life in Canada and providing the best foundation for their children to contribute to Canadian society.

Bill C-24, introduced by the previous government, tore into these hopes and dreams, as well as the hard work my constituents had put into building successful lives for their families. It created a fear and discomfort that is not the norm for Canadian society, and it certainly should not be.

Former citizenship and immigration minister Chris Alexander defended this bill by arguing that citizenship is a privilege, not a right. Simply put, he is wrong. It may come with responsibilities, but citizenship is a right. Once legitimately acquired by birth or naturalization, it cannot be taken away.

Bill C-24 gave the government the kind of sweeping power that is common in dictatorships, not in a democracy built upon the rule of law where all citizens are equal. The previous government used national security as a justification for the bill, but Bill C-24 could easily have been used against Canadians who were innocent under the laws. That was the danger in the lack of clarity and overreaching scope of that bill. That is the slippery slope that we must avoid at all costs.

Under that bill, the only Canadians who could not lose their citizenship arbitrarily were those born in Canada who did not have another nationality. The double standard and inequality that the law inflicted was immediately obvious to most Canadians. Revoking citizenship is one of the most serious consequences that a society may impose and should remain an exceptional process. It should be conducted with the highest degree of procedural fairness, as rightly noted by the Canadian Bar Association and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. We must trust our justice system to ensure that all criminals of Canadian nationality face the consequences of their actions, but that should not come at the expenses of their civil liberties.

I cannot say strongly enough how proud I am of the government for introducing Bill C-6, which aims to right the wrongs of Bill C-24 committed against dual citizens, potential dual citizens, and those looking to become citizens. Canada is, and always has been, and always will be, a country that opens its arms to others, whether it be immigrant families or our new Syrian refugee brothers and sisters. It is also in our nature to support these individuals to become integrated members of our society until they are settled and contributing to their community.

I would now like to focus on the importance of other parts of Bill C-6 that may not get as much attention.

I applaud the government for eliminating unjustified barriers to achieving citizenship. Allowing applicants to receive credit for the time they are legally in Canada before becoming permanent residents is a huge step in the right direction, if we value the talent and work ethic of the people who come to work or study in Canada. I am sure we have all met a bright, young international student with a promising career whom we would like to call Canada home, as we do. This improvement to the immigration system would create economic growth in communities, as we have the best and brightest of the world's population joining our workforce.

Allowing applicants to apply for citizenship one year sooner by reducing the number of days of physical presence has already been very well received in ridings like Brampton East.

Bill C-6 would correct a wrong. I am proud of the government for making this commitment during the campaign and now fulfilling its promise.

We can never forget that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member on his speech. He spoke with sincerity.

During the election campaign I too heard about Bill C-24. Obviously I was hearing different things. Members of my riding were supportive of the revocation of citizenship for acts of terrorism, treason, or espionage.

While I will congratulate the Liberals and the NDP on one thing, which is changing the narrative on the bill and making it seem to be more than it was, I was interested in the member's comments with respect to not supporting the revocation on the basis of treason, espionage, or terrorism.

Bill C-6, as it currently stands, does allow for the revocation of citizenship that has been gained through fraud. Could I ask the member why it is any less important to revoke citizenship for treason, terrorism, and espionage than it is for fraud?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his comments, and I totally agree with him that we do need to remove these unnecessary barriers to citizenship, whether they are in the form of delays or in the form of onerous fees. To bring in a new family costs literally thousands of dollars. I believe this is unnecessary and onerous, so any common sense action that the government can take should be taken.

Another of my colleagues talked about students who come to Canada on student visas and want to stay here in Canada. We should make that path to citizenship easier for them. I believe that Bill C-6 would do that, which is why I am happy to speak in favour of the bill.

However, I still think there are more actions that should and can be taken.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak in support of Bill C-6 today, although I do feel that it falls short in a number of areas.

As has been said by several speakers here today and yesterday, most Canadians come from immigrant families, and many of us have stories of parents and grandparents who came to this country to ensure a better life for their children. My mother's family, the Munns, came from Scotland to Newfoundland in 1837, and I was very happy and honoured to hear the member for Avalon read a statement on Tuesday regarding my great-great-uncle John Munn, who came here in 1837 as a young entrepreneur and started Munn and Co., one of the greatest merchant companies in the storied history of Newfoundland, a company that was taken over by my great-grandfather, Robert Stewart Munn, in 1878.

My father's father, on the other hand, came from more humble beginnings, the slums of Bristol. He went to the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia in 1907, and I am proud to use the leather case that he was given by his colleagues when he left England. I use it in recognition of the courage that he showed in giving up his life in England and moving to the wild west over a century ago.

To my way of thinking, Bill C-6 and its attempt to fix some of the serious shortcomings in citizenship law in Canada is a very welcome step. I would like to talk about the provisions in this bill that repeal the parts of Bill C-24 that relate to people who hold dual citizenship in Canada.

During a very long election campaign, like everyone in the chamber, I talked to thousands of people across my riding. As we found out on election day, most of them were desperate for a change in government. When I spoke with citizens on their doorsteps or answered questions at forums, they had a long list of concerns with the former government, but what really surprised me about the depth of these concerns was the fact that many people actually knew the names and numbers of a couple of the bills that bothered them.

I was not so much surprised that they knew about Bill C-51, as there had been a number of local rallies in my area and the bill had been well covered in the news, but I was really surprised to find out how many people immediately named Bill C-24 as their biggest concern. It is not often people know the names and numbers of bills. They were particularly vehement in their discussions around its provisions for stripping people with dual citizenship of their Canadian citizenship. It did not matter that this bill supposedly targeted only terrorists and spies; when taken in context with Bill C-51, there was a lot of concern at the time over who might be considered a terrorist, a spy, or a traitor.

A couple of years ago, I attended a meeting of environmental activists in a church basement in the Okanagan Valley. Most of the people there were elderly folks who were worried about the impacts of oil tankers along the Pacific coast. They were learning the basics of door-to-door canvassing. We found out some years later that a federal agent had attended the meeting and that some of the volunteers were followed and photographed as they canvassed neighbourhoods.

The previous government clearly treated anti-pipeline activists as traitors, and Bill C-51 came close to legalizing that view. Who is to say what future governments may decide about the definition of these serious charges? That is why I am very happy to see that Bill C-6 will repeal those parts of Bill C-24 that created two kinds of Canadian citizens: those who were safely Canadian and those who could lose their citizenship at the whim of some future minister.

This section of Bill C-24 has been denounced by the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and many respected academics. Many of these experts feel that Bill C-24 does not comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or international law. Like many other bills from the previous government, it was given a rather Orwellian doublespeak name. In this case it was called the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, when it clearly did the opposite.

When we welcome immigrants to Canada and grant them citizenship, they become Canadians, citizens like every one of us here in this chamber. They deserve to be given the same rights of citizenship as all of us, whether or not they choose to retain the citizenship of another country.

On top of that, one has to wonder why we would want to strip people of their citizenship and deport them, even if they have been convicted of treasonous or terrorist acts. Would we want them plotting against Canada from some foreign country, where they could easily be drawn into terrorist groups to harm Canadians and other citizens, or do we want them to be safely behind bars in prisons here in Canada?

I would like to turn now to talking about welcoming new immigrants. We all know the great benefits that immigrants bring to our country. Their hard work helps build this country, and we should remove unnecessary barriers to citizenship. I am happy to see that Bill C-6 begins to address some of these issues.

One of those barriers is the requirement that most new citizens be proficient in one of our two official languages. My daughter works in an immigrant support centre teaching English to refugees and new immigrants. Lately her classes have included refugees who have come to our region from Syria. I have met her students and can attest to their enthusiasm for learning English so that they can become fully integrated into the local community, get jobs, and become productive members of our society.

That said, I do support the provision in Bill C-6 that returns the age restriction to this requirement to 54 years of age, since older immigrants have strong family support and in turn are supporting their children's family at home. Many of these older immigrants have difficulty learning a new language and can contribute to Canadian society through their relationships with their children and other community members.

On that note, I would like to bring up the extreme difficulties just mentioned by my colleague that face young families of new Canadians who are trying to reunify their families and bring their parents to Canada.

I have had numerous representations, as I am sure many here have, from constituents who have been trying for years to bring parents to live with them in Canada. I have one family that has been trying for almost 10 years to bring their parents to join them in Canada. It breaks my heart to tell them that they have another six and a half years to wait. In the meantime, their parents are getting older and older. They do not think it is useful to continue the process because it is just so frustrating, so I hope the government acts on its promises to quickly clear up this backlog by replacing the present system with one that is fair and really works.

I would also like to note that many immigrant support centres across this country have had their federal funds cut over the past two years, making it difficult for these centres to help refugees and new immigrants get the language lessons and the other help they need to integrate into our communities.

To conclude, I urge the government to continue to remove unnecessary barriers to new immigrants in Canada, both through legislative action and through proper funding for immigrant support.

I would like to reiterate that Canada is a country of immigrants that should continue to welcome new Canadians from around the world. Bill C-24 was a giant step in the wrong direction, and Bill C-6 is a good step back toward making Canada a welcoming country, a country that we can all be proud of.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment. I disagree with a few of his comments on Bill C-24. The bill really has not been around long enough to measure any of its impacts, positive or negative. I know he mentioned those in his speech.

The path to citizenship remains the same. It was just a little longer in our past bill compared to the bill proposed today. Why does he feel that the requirement is reasonable? Is it so unreasonable to live and work in this country 183 days a year in four out of six years? In addition to that, why are they taking out the clause to compel immigrants to live in the country? Part of being a citizen here is to live and work here, not to get citizenship and then go somewhere else. What would he like to say to that specific point in Bill C-6?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

I am pleased that Bill C-6 is moving through the House of Commons. As New Democrats, it is not exactly all that we want, but at least it will result in some movement on a number of different initiatives that have not only hurt this country economically, socially, and culturally, but also hurt the individuals we need to be a successful country.

I come from a riding that has over 100 organized ethnic cultures that have been part of the foundation of our border town, which basically has a third of the nation's trade go through it a day. It also has some of the most diverse areas. It is where the War of 1812 took place and was the end of the Underground Railroad, where people came to Canada to escape slavery in the United States. A number of times we contested bounty hunters coming into Canada to remove individuals back to the United States to collect a bounty and return them to slave owners. In many respects we had become a refuge against the acts and activities that we, as a part of the British empire at that time, clearly viewed as needing to change, such as the slave trade. That opposition of ours is very much a part of our cultural element. Although we were geographically large, at that time we were a small colonial country in terms of population. We were standing in the wings of the United States and offering something called freedom against its very controversial republic of union and the southern states, which eventually led to the Civil War. It was quite a stand for the people, communities, and so forth, of our country to take at that time.

Therefore, when we talk today about the changes called for in Bill C-6, we must keep in mind that if we were to continue with the policy brought in under the Conservatives in Bill C-24, we would be harming our ability to be successful in the world.

I will point to a couple of local examples that are also somewhat national in nature because they happen in many other border town facilities.

We have not only had many immigrants and refugees come to our region and contribute in recent years, as we have discussed over the last two years with respect to Syrian refugees, but we have also had a steady stream of immigrants come into our region who have helped to build the national footprint of this country and make significant local progress on many different issues.

Bill C-24 was basically more than just a fly in the ointment with respect to the Canadian dream of being a multicultural country; it became adverse to our economy and to the families that we need because we do not have a growing population ourselves. It is the reality of our future.

It is interesting when I hear some pushback about this from certain members of the public who ask the honest and interesting questions they feel the need to ask, such as who will pay for their pensions in the future if we do not have skilled labour and other types of labour coming to contribute back to the Canadian economy.

Interestingly enough, in a border town like mine we have seen the harmful effects of the extension of days and time required to be spent in Canada before a residency gets completed. In my riding alone, the issue was so bad that we received a budget for a single position in my constituency to hire someone four days a week to deal with immigration itself. We are not funded for that position in the overall budgeting of the House of Commons, which is sad because we had a new Walker Road immigration facility open up in Windsor eight or nine years ago. It also had a room for ceremonies. People could go and get their file looked after and could get updates. That office was not only subject to staffing reductions by the past regime, but we have also seen it close to the public.

A number of people have English as a second language. Let us be clear on this. They may be doctors, engineers, or teachers. They come from all walks of life. Some are skilled workers, some are not. These people are trying to get information about their cases. They may have a spouse, children, or parents who do not know what the h-e-double hockey sticks is happening. That is unfortunate, because they are trying to move on with their lives. The process takes far too long. This has been a habitual problem since I have been here in Parliament. Hopefully the changes proposed in this legislation will improve this to some degree. I hope staffing levels will get augmented. Hopefully, the office will be opened up so that people can get processed quickly.

How would this affect people in Windsor West, Toronto, Montreal, northern Ontario, or any other place in Canada? Employment will be delayed for these people. Their contributions back into our tax system will be delayed. Ironically, over 10,000 workers cross over to the Detroit region every day because that city is short of skilled labour. Some of these people are doctors, nurses, accountants, and marketing consultants. A lot of them have value-added skills, but their skills are not recognized in Canada. Some of these people have degrees but they cannot practice here. They cannot use their experience here. They can do so in the United States.

Thousands of people in the health care industry go over to the United States. These are doctors and nurses and other types of health care professionals. If Canadians need urgent hospital care, they are sent to Detroit to get help. We will pay a premium here in Canada for them to be treated by Canadians working in Detroit who are not allowed to practice their skills in our country. We pay a premium to send individuals over there, where they quite likely will receive treatment from people who have been denied a licence to practice here in Canada.

These delays in our immigration policy over the last number of years and the issue with Bill C-24 have created a shroud around families that makes it difficult for them to contribute.

I listened with interest to the previous speaker who said that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. I was at the U.S. embassy with Raymond Chrétien, who was the ambassador at that time. It was the first time an announcement was made that five countries would be put on a watch list. People who were granted Canadian citizenship but came from a third country might be exposed to fingerprinting and having their picture taken and other security checks done. I argued about this at the time, but to this day nothing has ever been done about it. That was the first step that took place. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian was not the case. We now have two-tier citizenship. We need to change that policy as well, and we can work toward that in the future.

Bill C-6 provides us with an opportunity to work on different things. We want to work on a few points contained in the legislation. It is not appropriate for the minister to unilaterally act with regard to someone's citizenship without judicial oversight. That is not appropriate in terms of an individual's rights. No minister of any political party should have that type of influence over a process that should be carried out in the courts. There should be accountability for the person, because he or she is a Canadian citizen. They should be entitled to their rights. We need to make sure that those rights are thoroughly reviewed, not only for them but for the rest of Canadian society.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I, too, share the same concerns as the hon. member opposite. As I mentioned at the end fo my speech, Bill C-6 is the first step of what I hope will be many more steps to come in reforming our immigration system.

Our Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has been very clear. He is also very worried about the wait times. He is preoccupied. It is a matter of importance to him right now and it is something he is working on dealing with as soon as possible.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to Bill C-6.

Like my colleague from London North Centre, I too proudly come from immigrant parents, and so immigration policy that creates clear paths to citizenship is very important to me. It is a bill that I believe will positively influence my riding of Davenport where I have, blessedly, a very high number of immigrants who come from many different cultures, and that lends to the wonderful diversity not only of my riding but of our city and indeed our country.

This Liberal government is committed to a Canada that is both diverse and inclusive. Canadians know that our government recognizes that historically we are strong because of our diversity and not in spite of it. We also know we have to get immigration policy right and create clear, compassionate, and fair paths to citizenship if we are to have a healthy economy moving forward.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship have been clear from the outset: flexibility and diversity are going to be crucial to our future as a country and indeed what we offer the world. We want to encourage that diversity and take steps to ensure that the path to citizenship is a flexible and fair one, but also one that encourages all Canadians to take pride in being Canadian.

Speaking to an audience at the Canadian High Commission in London shortly after taking office, the Prime Minister eloquently stated:

Compassion, acceptance, and trust; diversity and inclusion—these are the things that have made Canada strong and free. Not just in principle, but in practice.

Those of us who benefit from the many blessings of Canada’s diversity need to be strong and confident custodians of its character.

It is a strong attachment to Canada and to those values of compassion, progress, opportunity, and justice that we hold dear and that lead citizens to be strong and confident custodians of our national character.

Critics of the measures outlined in Bill C-6 may say that the greater flexibility these changes would bring would diminish an attachment to Canada and to our shared values as Canadians, creating so-called citizens of convenience. Being Canadian is a privilege and an honour. Few of us would dispute that.

However, far from diminishing the value of Canadian citizenship, the measures in Bill C-6 would in fact increase and foster a greater attachment to Canada. What is even more important is that in introducing Bill C-6, there is a message that we in the Liberal government are sending, and that is different than that of the former government. The message is that we recognize, with the exception of our indigenous community, that everyone in Canada at some point was an immigrant to our great country and that we value our immigrants. We feel lucky that there are so many people who want to create a home in Canada, who want to contribute to Canada, and who want to do their part to create an even better Canada.

Bill C-6 would support the government's goal of making it easier for immigrants to build successful lives in Canada. The Citizenship Act will continue, and has continued, to have several measures that contribute to deepening attachment to Canada, deterring citizenships of convenience, ensuring program integrity, and combatting fraud. All Canadians should be treated equally, regardless of whether they were born in Canada, naturalized, or hold citizenship in another country. As the Prime Minister has said, and is now quoted way too often, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

Critics may also point to changes to the age range for language proficiency and citizenship knowledge testing as another way that attachment to Canada would be lessened. However, this government understands that for younger and older applicants this is a barrier to citizenship. Indeed, in my riding of Davenport, for whatever reason, many residents have remained permanent residents for years and decades and have waited until they have reached 55 years of age to become a Canadian citizen. It could be that while most of them have worked most of their adult lives in Canada and contributed to the Canadian economy and society, they are still not comfortable with their language level and lack the confidence to take the language test currently required to become a Canadian citizen. However, Bill C-6 would bring the age range and knowledge requirements back to 18 to 54, and I applaud that. I know the residents in Davenport will also applaud these changes.

The Liberal government believes in the importance of having adequate knowledge of one of Canada's official languages, and understanding the responsibilities and privileges associated with being a citizen of our country. Adults aged 18 to 54 will still be required to provide evidence of their proficiency in English or French and to pass a citizenship test.

These changes will not put newcomers at a disadvantage. Younger applicants will acquire knowledge of Canada and official language capability through their schooling, which is excellent.

Older adults applying for citizenship will find support to be knowledgeable about Canada and to speak its official languages through a wide variety of services offered across the country. This flexibility will help children, their parents, and grandparents achieve citizenship, an important step that will allow immigrants to gain a deeper sense of belonging to our society and to become more active citizens.

An important way that we will accelerate attachment to Canada is by allowing time spent residing in Canada before becoming a permanent resident to count toward citizenship requirements. The Citizenship Act would be amended to allow each day within the five years preceding their application that a person was physically present as a temporary resident or protected person before becoming a permanent resident to be counted as a half day toward meeting the physical presence requirement for citizenship, up to a maximum of one year.

Moreover, every day a person was physically present in Canada as a permanent resident will count as one day of physical presence for citizenship. This means an applicant could accumulate up to 365 days as a temporary resident or a protected person. They could accumulate the remaining 730 days as a permanent resident to meet the 1,095 days of physical presence required to become a citizen.

This acknowledges that post-secondary students who come to this country to study often find Canada a great place to stay and build their career. Indeed, there are many of these wonderful students in my riding of Davenport. They are extraordinary people, and it would be a blessing to have them want to apply to become a Canadian citizen. If they choose to stay in Canada, it is because they have developed an affection and an attachment to this country, whether because of work, family, or opportunities.

They have started to build their lives here, benefiting our communities and, indeed, our country as a whole. We should acknowledge, encourage, and be grateful for the choice they have made to make Canada their home. Their experience in Canada matters. Their decision to come to Canada, build a new life and home here, and contribute to building our great nation matters as well.

Treating our immigrants well and creating viable, fair, compassionate paths to citizenship are matters of principle to the government. Canadians are proud of our country and our values. We welcome immigrants. We help them settle, integrate, and succeed. This is our history, our present, and our future.

Whether newcomers arrive as refugees, family members, or ethnic immigrants, their contributions to Canada and those of the generations to follow will be positive. Our current and future economy depends on us getting our immigration policy right. Bill C-6 is just a first step of what I hope will be many more steps to come in reforming our immigration system.

We encourage all immigrants to take the path of full membership in Canadian society. One of the strongest pillars for successful integration to Canadian life is achieving citizenship. With that in mind, I encourage all of my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-6.

[Bill Casey, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for London North Centre on his remarks. I know he is well qualified to talk about this issue and he has a genuine interest in safety, justice, and security for all Canadians. He has worked tirelessly on several different aspects, and I credit him for that, and I applaud him.

He recently tabled a private member's bill on non-state torture. I wonder if he could tell us if there is any connection between his private member's bill and Bill C-6. Maybe he could also tell us a little about his private member's bill, how we might apply that here and support it, and if there are any connections and parallels.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and pleasure to rise in the House today to speak about the government's plan to repeal provisions in the Citizenship Act. As this is a concern relating to citizenship, which is so central to Canadian identity, and matters of immigration, which are essential to the Canadian story, it is especially an honour for me, as the son of immigrants, to be here today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to also mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Davenport,

As the provisions only apply to Canadians with dual or multiple citizenships, they contribute to the creation of a two-tiered system. It is unacceptable in a democratic society that dual or multiple nationals are vulnerable to losing their citizenship.

This is a point that was raised time and again by stakeholders and private individuals when the previous legislation, Bill C-24, was first introduced.

Groups were as varied as the Canadian Bar Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, and Amnesty International. I would like to quote a few of these concerns.

David Matas of B'nai Brith, who testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration stated that:

We should not be revoking the citizenship of Canadians for crimes committed after the acquisition of citizenship, no matter what the crime.

I want to emphasize that point that Mr. Matas made.

I will continue with his quote:

Once a person becomes a Canadian citizen and commits a crime, then he is our criminal. We should not pretend otherwise.

Barbara Jackman, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, stated before the same committee that:

For people who are born here and who have grown up here, it can result in banishment or exile.

She went on to observe that we punish people through the criminal justice system.

In its submission to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill C-24, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants stated that, in its view:

Treating dual citizens differently is discriminatory and violates the fundamental principle that all citizens are equal. Citizens should not face different consequences for committing the same crimes. Creating separate rules for dual citizens creates a two-tiered citizenship, with lesser rights for some citizens.

These are just a few of the many examples of organizations and individuals publicly expressing their view that the revocation measures created two different kinds of citizenship.

Many of my constituents in London North Centre have told me that this is unacceptable. I heard it throughout the election campaign, and I have heard it since. There is great support for this bill in London North Centre. My constituents want all Canadians to be treated fairly and with a high level of respect. London, Ontario, was built on immigration, and many Londoners hold dual or multiple citizenship. These are extremely proud Canadians who value and respect this beautiful country. We have an obligation to be fair and respectful to them, as well.

Our government has listened to these concerns and Bill C-6 clearly addresses them.

No government should ever have the ability to take away an individual's Canadian citizenship. Any Canadian who commits a crime ought to be punished. There is no debate on that point, at all, on this side of the House and, I am happy to say, with my hon. colleagues in the NDP.

However, the revocation of citizenship crosses a line that we must never accept. Without citizenship, the rights and equality we all enjoy become meaningless. Canada is a country that prides itself on solid democratic principles and foundations and is an example for other nations. However, playing fast and loose with the definition of citizenship is a very slippery slope and inevitably calls into question our leadership in this area.

I again point to the importance of my constituents. I am here to represent them and I want to reference what I have heard on the ground, as their MP.

I have heard loud and clear from my constituents in London North Centre that fair treatment of all Canadians and dedication to the principles of democracy, tolerance, and equality are what they expect in their elected officials and, more than this, in the Government of Canada.

I would also like to add that, while this position reflects my stand and that of our government, it was a former Conservative prime minister, John Diefenbaker, who held this view, and I am glad to continue that point in the debate that will follow, I assume.

By introducing this bill, we are taking concrete steps to return to a system where all citizens are treated equal, regardless of whether they are dual or multiple nationals. This is a commitment my party made before forming government, and we are following through now. This is a matter of principle and fundamental values for us. There should be one tier, only one tier, of Canadian citizenship.

I have no doubt that members in the House are concerned about security, and I want to turn to that point now for a moment. I can assure all of them that we remain unwavering in our commitment to protect the safety and security of Canadians. Canadians convicted of treason and terrorism will be dealt with through our justice system. As the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has stated, we have courts and prisons in Canada, and offenders will not go unpunished.

As well, there are measures in place before someone becomes a citizen. A person may be denied a visa or other travel document, refused entry to, or removed from Canada for security reasons or criminal activity, preventing him or her from becoming a citizen. Furthermore, prohibition grounds in the Citizenship Act remain in effect, barring individuals convicted of certain offences or engaged in activities against the national interest from acquiring citizenship in the first place.

Moreover, repealing the national interest grounds would not affect the ability to revoke citizenship where it was obtained fraudulently. The minister would continue to have authority to revoke citizenship in basic fraud cases. Furthermore, the Federal Court would continue to have authority to decide on cases where the fraud is in relation to a fact regarding security, human or international rights violations, or organized criminality. The ability to revoke citizenship where it was obtained fraudulently has been in place since the first Canadian Citizenship Act came into force in 1947, and it will continue to be in place.

Three additional proposed amendments included in this bill would further enhance the integrity of the citizenship program. The first is to include conditional sentence orders in the prohibitions provisions. The second is to ensure that the need for applicants to meet citizenship requirements, from the time their grant of citizenship is approved to the time they take the oath, applies to all applicants. The third would provide authority for the minister to seize documents that are fraudulent or are being used fraudulently when provided for the administration of the Citizenship Act.

As we have emphasized, Canada's commitment to diversity and inclusion is an essential, powerful, and ambitious approach to make Canada and the world a better and safer place. A Canadian is a Canadian, and that must never change.

Bill C-6 would bring us closer to putting this principle into action and to remaining the open, tolerant, and diverse country that we have been throughout our history and, I hope, we will continue to be.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by outlining my family history to some degree. My grandparents both immigrated from the Netherlands separately and were married in Canada. They went on to produce a large family of 10 children. I have over 80 cousins from that set of grandparents. They have been a very productive Canadian family.

I would like to thank and recognize in particular two of my aunts who worked tirelessly on my campaign. I would not be standing here today without their help, that is for sure.

I rise today to discuss the integrity of some of the proposed changes to our Citizenship Act. The previous Conservative government brought in Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. The measures enacted in Bill C-24 reinforced the value of Canadian citizenship and gave us a means to protect our country and citizens by revoking citizenship of dual nationals convicted of terrorism, high treason, and certain spying offences, or who have taken up arms against Canada.

A NRG poll of over 1,000 Canadians showed that 83% of Canadians and 85% of immigrants to Canada supported revoking citizenship from convicted terrorists. Many groups representing new Canadians endorsed the bill as well.

We believe that new Canadians enrich and strengthen our country. Their experiences and perspectives as immigrants strengthen an important part of who we are as a nation. They are the strength of our nation's future. We want newcomers to Canada to have every opportunity to succeed and to have opportunities for economic success.

A constituent of mine, Ray Galas, a hay farmer from northern Alberta, called me yesterday. He wants the government to focus on the economy so that newcomers arriving in Canada have every opportunity to contribute to our great country. A strong Alberta makes a strong Canada, a place for all to succeed.

We also want newcomers to experience many of our freedoms. All the new Canadians agree that we want to experience safe communities. Dual nationals convicted of terrorism erode the public safety we all cherish.

There are choices when it comes to penalizing dual nationals who are convicted of terrorism. One of them is jail. Revoking the right of citizenship is a penalty that fits the crime. The legislation that the Liberals seek to repeal allowed Canada to revoke the citizenship of the convicted terrorist Zakaria Amara, a member of the Toronto 18 . Members may remember that Mr. Amara was sentenced to life in prison after admitting to his role in the plan to attack sites in Toronto. He was convicted of knowingly contributing to a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the group to carry out an act of terror.

In 2007, Canada revoked the citizenship of two Nazi war criminals, enforcing the principle that Canada will not be a safe haven for anyone convicted of war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity.

The Liberals want to strike down this law. Canadian citizens have a responsibility to embrace Canadian values. A part of this responsibility that we all share as citizens is the special responsibility for the preservation of the principles of democracy and human freedom. These are cornerstones of our nation.

We are a law-abiding, generous, and compassionate country. The measures in the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act were enacted to better protect our country and better combat the ongoing threat that countries worldwide are grappling with. Most of our peer countries have similar legislation in place.

I would point out that Bill C-6 is the Liberals' first bill dealing with immigration and public safety. It is extremely worrying that under this legislation, dual national citizenship cannot be revoked for the commission of an act of terrorism, but can be revoked for fraud. We are concerned about the Liberals' lack of focus. The ability to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals who are convicted of terrorism and similar offences is a sound, good, and commonsense law. It is law that helps to maintain the integrity of Canadian citizenship. We do not support the Liberals' attempt to weaken our country. We will continue to push to keep our country one of the best countries in the world.

Another component that concerns me is the removal of the requirement for an applicant to continue to reside in Canada if granted citizenship. The intention-to-reside provision likely does not restrict the mobility rights guaranteed under the charter. What it does do is reinforce the expectation that citizenship is for those who intend to make Canada their permanent home. This is not an unreasonable expectation. We want to ensure that citizenship applicants maintain strong ties to Canada.

There is a reason that Canadian citizenship is the most sought after citizenship in the world. We have a reputation as one of the best places to live, a place where jobs, security, hope, and freedom are available to all. Every year we receive thousands of applications from people who want to live here. We hope that those seeking Canadian citizenship intend to bring their personal experiences and contributions to our nation, just as many of the preceding immigrants did during the course of our nation's history.

The sum of our experiences has made us a better country. We hope that future immigrants will also contribute to our nation and enrich our country by residing here. It is disappointing that the Liberals have chosen to focus on the intent-to-reside provision when there are more pressing issues facing us in immigration, such as the shortage of applications from skilled labour immigrants.

There is another component of Bill C-6 that gives us cause for concern. That is the provision that reduces the number of days during which a person must be physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship. Currently, the physical presence requirement is fulfilled if an applicant resides in Canada for only 183 days in four out of six years prior to making a citizenship application. The Liberal government proposes to change the physical presence requirement to three out of five years before the date of application.

The Conservative Party believes that stringent residency requirements promote integration and a greater attachment to Canada. We are opposed to any provision that weakens the integrity of Canadian citizenship, and we recommend that this component be struck from the bill.

Another component of Bill C-6 seeks to prevent applicants from being granted citizenship while serving conditional sentences, or allowing such time to count towards meeting the physical presence requirements for citizenship. We agree that these measures are reasonable and we support this component of the bill.

We also support the provision that all applicants must continue to meet the requirements of citizenship until they take the oath, regardless of when their application was received.

The Conservative Party believes that the strength of our nation lies in the strength of our citizens. Gaining citizenship by means of fraud undermines our nation and leaves us vulnerable. We support the component that gives citizenship officers the authority to seize fraudulent documents provided during the administration of the act, including during in-person interviews and hearings. The integrity of our Citizenship Act is not something we can take for granted.

If we allow dual nationals who are convicted of terrorism to remain Canadian citizens, we weaken our public safety. If we reduce the number of days during which a person must be physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship, we weaken integration within Canada.

In closing, we will examine the bill in detail, but we are extremely concerned about these changes.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I will share my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock. I look forward to hearing him speak to this bill.

Not a single day goes by that I do not think about what a huge privilege I have to sit in the House and represent the people of my riding, Mégantic—L'Érable.

As a new member of Parliament from a small region of Quebec, I must say that this place is rather impressive. This is where elected officials contemplated the laws that have defined the Canada we know today. This is where they discussed and debated. Each government, each Parliament, and each parliamentarian had the opportunity to contribute to making our country, which is still a young one, one of the most admired democracies in the world. We are admired for our values of equality, compassion, justice, hospitality, and openness.

I am also impressed by the quality of the parliamentarians in this 42nd Parliament of Canada and by the diversity of its members. Just take a look around during question period and listen to those talking, and it becomes clear that Canada is a unique place in which everyone, regardless of where they come from, can help contribute to our country's future.

I would like to quote the Minister of Democratic Institutions, who spoke to the House yesterday about Bill C-6:

Whether an international student, or someone who works at GE, or a new Syrian to our community, we should acknowledge, encourage, and reward the choice that individuals make to come to Canada and to call this place home. They are experiencing Canada, especially before citizenship matters. Their choice to be here matters.

This will not always be the case, but the minister is absolutely right. I agree with her thoughts on this. Many people from around the world have chosen to live in Canada. Out of all the countries in the world, they chose Canada. This is the first country they chose to come to, as a new host country. I completely agree with the minister that we must acknowledge, encourage, and reward the choice that individuals make to come live in Canada.

What we must ask ourselves is why did these people choose Canada as their country? Why did they make that choice? The answer is obvious. They did so because Canada has always been a welcoming country, not just for the past 10 years or 100 years, but from the beginning.

It may not seem like it, but I am a very distant descendant of a German immigrant, a mercenary who came here to fight in a war and who chose to stay.

That is the nature of our Canadian citizenship. It is recognized around the world. When we travel, being Canadian is a little bonus wherever we go. Therefore, in my humble opinion, we must do everything we can to protect our values and this identity.

As I said earlier, as parliamentarians it is our role to make good decisions for future generations, just as parliamentarians in the previous 41 parliaments did before us. We have a responsibility towards Canadians. I would like to quote the member for Calgary Midnapore, the former minister of citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism, who said in his speech yesterday:

Canadian citizenship should be the gold standard; it should not be the bargain basement of citizenship in the world.

That brings me to Bill C-6. I am sure that the government's intentions are very honourable. Every single one of us is here to try to make things better, but we have to admit that sometimes we make mistakes. Sometimes it is because we want to do too much a little too fast. We rush into things that we will regret sooner or later.

Unfortunately, the consequences of such precipitous actions cannot be undone. When a government makes a promise, such as a slight $10-billion deficit, and then realizes that it did not look at the books properly and that its promises will cost Canadians a fortune, it cannot break its promise. It has to live with that and try to explain to Canadians why a slight deficit is now a huge one. Actions and words cannot be undone. There is no going back. It is a broken promise.

Fortunately, there is still time for the government to avoid making a mistake with Bill C-6. I would like to take the Minister of Immigration up on his offer. Yesterday, he said, “We do not claim perfection.” We suspected as much. Then he said, “If some members on the committee, of any party, have ideas for how to improve it, we would be open to such suggestions.”

Here is my idea. I urge the government not to rush this, to take its time and listen to the official opposition's point of view on this bill.

For example, yesterday, the member for Calgary Nose Hill gave the minister some excellent suggestions based on her personal experience as the daughter of immigrants who chose Canada. I invite all of my colleagues to read her story and her reasons for opposing many aspects of Bill C-6.

My hon. colleague was quite eloquent, and there was a great deal of wisdom in her comments. She said:

My concern with the bill is that it puts the cart before the horse in a lot of ways. It looks at issues that perhaps are not of the utmost concern with regard to immigration policy in Canada. I hope we can come to some sort of consensus because this is something that is going to affect our country over the next 10 years.

Those are wise words of openness and collaboration that our critic said here in the House yesterday. The government still has a chance to show wisdom by taking the necessary time to introduce a bill on citizenship that will help maintain the high standards of Canadian citizenship.

What are we to make of a bill that allows an individual to keep his citizenship after he has been found guilty of terrorism and wanting to kill and spread fear in his adopted country? Is that the type of bill that should be hastily passed without consultation? Since the beginning of the session, every time there is talk about reform, we have heard, “We will consult Canadians on electoral reform, we will consult Canadians on the budget, we will consult Canadians, we made promises, and we will consult Canadians on those promises as well.”

It is good to want to consult Canadians, but sometimes, in other cases, the government says, “This is how it is. We are not holding consultations, we made a promise and we are taking immediate action to forget the bad years of the Conservatives”.

In this case, the government members would do well to consult people and listen. As the minister suggested in his speech yesterday, they should take the time to listen to the official opposition and understand the issues behind this decision to abolish Bill C-24 in the way that they have done.

Canada continues to be one of the safest countries in the world. That is why thousands of people from around the world choose us as a safe haven. However, Canada will not be a safe haven to anyone who wants to destroy it through violence and hatred. We need to send this very clear, straightforward message to anyone who wants to become a Canadian citizen.

To be Canadian means to want success for all one's fellow Canadians, regardless of race, gender, religion, beliefs, or culture. That is what it means to be Canadian. There is only one type of Canadians: those who share these values, as every one of us here in the House does.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

The NDP is proud to support Bill C-6 because it is a step in the right direction. The bill corrects the mistakes made by the previous government, which created two classes of citizens. That is a major concern for us as progressive social democrats.

I would like to ask a fairly specific question. As I mentioned, Bill C-6 is a step in the right direction. However, it does not fix all of the mistakes. The minister has the discretionary power to grant citizenship in exceptional circumstances. Unfortunately, the nature of those circumstances remains secret.

Given that the minister has this exceptional discretionary power, if the Liberal government really wants to be transparent, it could at least inform us of how many cases are processed, the number of people who are granted citizenship under these rules, and why. We would like this information to be made public, not kept secret.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we are not doing here is debating the issue of immigration and the value it has on Canadian society. We are all clear on the fact that immigration has contributed to the success of our country.

Although I was not here then, if we look at the numbers under the Conservative government, they speak for themselves. It is true that 1.6 million new Canadians were brought into this country, with an average of almost 12,000 more a year. From my understanding, there would have been more had there not been the backlog that stemmed from the previous government to when the Conservatives took over.

With respect to Bill C-6, we are talking about a very narrow band and the revocation of citizenship as it relates to terrorist acts. I know that the member opposite spoke a lot about immigration and immigration policy in her speech. However, I am curious to find out why she thinks those citizens in our society who commit acts of treason and acts against the state should maintain their citizenship.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to stand up and support Bill C-6 in the House.

I know that during the last 11 weeks of our election campaign, I must have heard from hundreds of my constituents about this bill. Many of them were dual citizens. Some of them were new citizens. Some of them were not new citizens but had been here for quite a while. They were concerned that citizenship was meaningless, that no matter how much they were Canadian citizens, no matter how long they had lived in Canada, and no matter what they had done, they could easily be deported for crimes against the interests of this country.

No one is suggesting that by repealing the Conservative decision to deport people with dual citizenships because of crimes that they should not be held responsible for, tried, and brought to justice under those crimes. What we are saying is that they are now citizens. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. If people who are Canadian citizens have committed a crime against Canada and against Canadian security, then they should be tried in this country. They should be kept under guard here to ensure they are not a continued threat and that they face justice in this country, because they are Canadian citizens.

This is a promise we made in the last election, that we would repeal this bill, and we are now keeping this promise. This is going to be very important, not only for my constituents, but for many Canadians across this country who were concerned about this issue.

The second thing has to do with the ability to become a citizen and how fast we can do this. Right now, applicants have to have four years of permanent residency out of six years in this country before they can become citizens.

This is so illogical. It is not common sense. We have people who come and are not yet permanent residents. They are waiting to become permanent residents. They have businesses. We are living in this global economy where people have one foot in businesses all over the place. They are carrying on their businesses. They are travelling for all kinds of reasons for business purposes. These people come bringing a business agenda to Canada, bringing their skills, knowledge, and investments into Canada. Sometimes they should be able to move back and forth as they are awaiting citizenship.

I know there are many young people who have come to this country with their parents, who have finished university, and who are doing internships in other countries. They are doing all kinds of work in other countries in various areas. They not only have to spend periods of time out of the country, but have to spend a lot of time outside the country to study and do business there. This opportunity for Canada to have global citizens is extremely important. This assists international students who come here and who want to become citizens.

The path to citizenship is an important path. I just came from Europe where the OSCE, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, was talking about the whole concept of refugees and immigrants coming into the country. What we have in Canada, and possibly the United States to some extent, that they do not have, is that we try to make citizenship a pillar of what it is to be Canadian. The moment we are citizens, we suddenly belong. We are equal to everyone else in this country, whether we have only become citizens a day ago, or whether we have been citizens for 20 years or were born here. We all belong, and that sense of belonging gives people a stake in Canada. Suddenly what is good for Canada is good for them, and what is good for them is what is good for Canada. They want to bring their children up with the opportunities they can get in this country.

Most immigrants and citizens are pulling for nation building. Citizenship, for us, is a path to nation building.

When I was a minister, one of the things we heard, when we had good information from the long-form census, was that by 2011 we were going to be dependent for our net labour force on foreign-trained workers, whether temporary or permanent ones, who wanted to come here and become citizens. Canada's labour force is dependent on this. We do not have enough people being born here to continue to fulfill our requirements, especially for very skilled workers. This is a good step in the right direction, not only to encourage people to come here, but to become part of the society, to make Canada economically, socially, and culturally strong.

I feel very strongly about that. This whole requirement that they be here to live is important. It helps to be flexible. It gives people the opportunity to be able to do those things.

The other issue, again, is let us have common sense. We are now saying that the language requirement, as it used to be, will be between the ages of 18 and 54. Most young people under the age of 18 are learning English or French in schools. Most seniors over 54 who come as family class, family reunification, are too old to get a job here, so their ability to speak either language is not as important. They can learn that from the community integration service agencies.

In British Columbia, we have many service agencies that are doing an excellent job of helping people to be functional in the language. People between 18 and 54 need to be functional in their professional capacity and in other areas, in language, to become good citizens, to get into the workforce and do that work well. I think that is important

One of the things I also like about the bill is that we are telling Canadians that we take very seriously what citizenship is all about. We will authorize the minister and/or his or her officials to seize any document that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe is fraudulently or improperly obtained, or could be fraudulently and improperly used. This is important. It is keeping an eye on people who are trying to become citizens with false documentation, pretending to be something they are not.

That is another way of tracking people who are coming to this country for reasons other than wanting to become full participating citizens, wanting to contribute to Canada. I think this is part of a concept of good security. This piece is important, as well of looking at the number of days in which a person would have reasonable grounds to suspect that they are a criminal. We are adding one more component to this. It will continue to say that if an individual is serving time in prison or on conditional sentencing in the community, then those days cannot be counted toward citizenship.

This bill is a common sense bill. It recognizes that citizenship is very important for this country, that the ability to nation build is what we have done from day one in this country, when we all first came to the shores. Some of us have been here a longer time than others, like me. The point is that we all came and built a nation. It is today seen as an important nation because it is a global nation. We think of the ability of people to come to Canada, to maintain their language, their culture, and their sense of attachment to where they came from. It allows us, as a trading nation, to globally assist Canada in understanding the needs of countries we want to trade with, and how to do that in a culturally sensitive manner.

This is part of a bigger picture. This is part of building a nation. This is part of building a labour force. This is part of allowing people to bring their families together.

I think we learned a lesson a long time ago, when we brought in the Chinese and for 25 years we did not allow them to bring their families. How awful and cruel that was. None of us want people to be away from their families. Families are a solid unit. An individual who brings their family here is able to develop roots, to dig those roots, so that everyone can pull in the direction that Canada wants to go, that children can grow up feeling safe and secure and have the opportunity to become fully functioning Canadians.

This is all part of who we are. We have much to teach the world. When I was in Europe, again recently at the OSCEPA, there are so many people in Europe who see immigrants and refugees as “other”. They feel that these people will change the face of Europe. I am here to say that our face in Canada is changing daily and yearly because of all the people who come to our shores as immigrants and refugees. They have contributed, and they have built a fantastically important global nation, which has brought to the world an ability to have peaceful resolution to conflicts, an ability to see the world in a true light, and to contribute fully.

I want to say how much I support the bill and what a good piece of common sense legislation it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite and his party for their support of Bill C-6. It is always nice to have support on both sides of the House for the common principle of protecting the equity of citizenship and having just one class.

With respect to his question regarding wait times, as the member well knows, the last 10 years have done no service whatsoever to seeing any of those backlogs reduced. In large part that is because we have seen resources cut to those departments.

I know the Minister of Immigration is working very hard. In fact, no one is working harder than he is to ensure that we have those resources allocated to the departments to get at those applications so we can reduce backlogs and improve pathways to citizenship. I can assure the member that where we are able to be transparent with regard to where those backlogs occur, we will do so.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for participating in this debate, but it is unfortunate to see what has been the strategy of the Liberal Party when it comes to the original Bill C-24 and then continuing on. That strategy was to spread misinformation about the bill and the effects of those provisions, and then to warn us that the bill was creating fear when in fact it was the misinformation about the bill, not the bill itself, that was creating fear.

It was clear again in this member's speech. He talked about the expectation of residency. Let us be clear. There is absolutely no requirement that Canadian citizens reside in Canada, whenever they acquired their citizenship. That was the case before Bill C-6 and that was the case under Bill C-24, as well as before that. To suggest that this is not true or that there is a fear means that if there is a fear out there we all need to step up and clarify that it was not in any way part of Bill C-24. There was an expectation that people reside in the country, but there was absolutely no such requirement. I wonder if the member is willing to acknowledge that fact and correct the record in terms of his speech.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise this morning to speak to an issue of great importance for the riding of Fredericton, for New Brunswick, and certainly for all of Canada.

Canada is both diverse and inclusive. These characteristics are wound into our identity. In fact, Canadians' respect for diversity of neighbours in our communities, and our tendency to include others who may not resemble us in appearance or in mind, is a hallmark of the very best of Canada.

The government has and continues to demonstrate through its actions that it will ensure that what it does reflects this type of country, the very best of what we have to offer and the very best of what we can be.

Legislation to amend the Citizenship Act, which was introduced in the House last month, lays out changes that will provide greater respect for diversity and inclusion, as well as flexibility for those who seek to contribute to our country and are trying to meet the requirements of citizenship.

It will help immigrants obtain citizenship faster, help them contribute more fruitfully to our communities, and help us build a stronger socio-economic fabric in Canada.

Proposed changes in Bill C-6 would also repeal provisions of the Citizen Act that allow citizenship, the prime tenet and characteristic of what it means to be Canadian, to be revoked from dual citizens who engage in certain acts against the national interests. These provisions will ensure that there is only one class of Canadian.

Additional changes that are proposed will further enhance program integrity and ensure that our immigration system reflects the fact that we are an accepting, welcoming, and caring nation.

Fredericton is home to over 6,300 immigrants, who have arrived from over 60 countries. Of the over 600 permanent residents in Fredericton in 2012 alone, over 40% were opening new businesses and contributing to the local and regional economy.

Immigrants invest their own money to be successful. They buy existing businesses. They start new businesses. They hire professionals and employees. Other immigrants in the Fredericton region are specialized professionals who are needed in specific industries, and international students who have come to our community and decided to make New Brunswick their home.

Newcomers contribute so much to our communities.

That is why the government encourages all immigrants to begin the process for full and permanent membership in Canadian society. We know that one of the best foundations for successful integration into life in Canada is Canadian citizenship.

With Bill C-6, the government will help immigrants become citizens more quickly by reducing the period for which permanent residents must be physically present in Canada before being eligible for citizenship by one year. The proposed change would reduce the requirement for physical presence in Canada from the current four years out of six to three years out of five.

The government would also remove the requirement for applicants to be physically present in Canada for 183 days per year during each of four years within the six years prior to applying for citizenship. Keeping this requirement would not allow applicants to benefit from the shorter physical presence requirement or the new non-permanent resident time credit.

Because of changes made by the previous government, since last June adult applicants must declare on their citizenship applications that they intend to continue to reside in Canada if granted citizenship. This provision has created great concern among some new Canadians, including those in the riding of Fredericton, who fear that their citizenship could be revoked in the future if they move outside of Canada, even for a short period of time. This is just one example of the mean-spirited approach towards newcomers that people in Fredericton and across this country gleaned through the previous government's imposition of changes to the Citizenship Act.

The current government is proposing to repeal this provision, as well as other provisions. All Canadians are free to move throughout and outside of Canada. This is a right that is guaranteed through our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Recognizing that immigrants often begin building an attachment to Canada before becoming permanent residents, Bill C-6 proposes to provide applicants with credit for the time they are legally in Canada before becoming permanent residents. This change would help to attract international students and experienced workers to Canada.

Currently, due to changes made by the previous government, changes that for the life of me I simply cannot understand, people cannot count time that they spent in Canada before becoming a permanent resident towards meeting the physical presence requirement for citizenship.

Again, the changes in this new bill would let non-permanent resident time count toward the new three-year physical presence requirement for citizenship, for up to one year. Under this change, each day that a person is authorized to be in Canada as a temporary resident, or as a protected person before they become a permanent resident, it could be counted as a half day toward meeting the requirement for citizenship.

In the riding I have the honour to represent, the riding of Fredericton, we boast of two world-class universities, which have a stellar history and reputation of recruiting high-calibre students to our community. The University of New Brunswick, Canada's most entrepreneurial university, and St. Thomas University, a leader in liberal arts, recruit prodigious persons from around the world each year. These students come to Fredericton, to New Brunswick, and they study hard, get active on campus, and quite frankly they engage with the broader community.

With so much to offer, and in a province with an age demographic that demands we do everything possible so these students can continue to contribute to our socio-economic wealth, why would we not do everything we can to keep these members in our community, ease their pathway to citizenship, and build a stronger Fredericton, a brighter New Brunswick, and a better Canada?

The changes introduced in Bill C-6 that I have just spoken about support the government's goal of making it easier for immigrants to build successful lives in Canada, something that is good for all Canadians.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-6 would fully repeal all the provisions of the Citizenship Act that make it possible to strip Canadian citizenship from dual nationals who are involved in activities against the national interest.

These grounds for revocation apply only to people with dual or multiple citizenship. The legislative changes implemented by the previous government in May 2015 created new grounds for the revocation of citizenship that make it possible to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals if they have engaged in activities against Canada's national interest. Bill C-6 repeals those new grounds.

Clearly, all Canadians who commit criminal offences must face the consequences of their acts through the Canadian justice system.

I began by talking about the diverse and inclusive nature of Canada. This characteristic and defining feature of our country has been on full display over the past several months as tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have been welcomed into our communities right across the country. Please let me acknowledge once again the tremendous effort of people in Fredericton and right across New Brunswick who have punched well above their weight in accepting more refugees per capita than any other region of this country.

We know that accepting and providing opportunity for newcomers has always been in our best interests as a country. It is in this spirit, through the intentions of this bill, that we would build that stronger Fredericton, that brighter New Brunswick, and quite frankly that better Canada.

The House resumed from March 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her excellent speech in the House today. I think we can all agree that immigrants have contributed a great deal to this country and have built our great nation.

Unlike some who have commented in the House today, I think it is very fortunate that we have Bill C-6 before us that intends to improve and speed up access to citizenship, which can help immigrants become successful people in our society.

I would also like to make a comment regarding terrorism, which keeps coming up today. We live in a society that has an excellent justice system, so does the minister feel that terrorists should be prosecuted in this justice system, and not be sent overseas to justice systems that may not be as great as ours and that may not have the security we have in place?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to split my time with the hon. member for Fredericton, and to be here to speak in favour of Bill C-6.

I would like to acknowledge our presence on this traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples. Indeed, had it not been for all the ways that settlers like me and the hon. member's father and great-grandfather were welcomed onto this land, we would not have succeeded individually or collectively.

The Government of Canada is committed to a Canada that is both diverse and inclusive. Canadians know that our government recognizes that we are strong because of our diversity and not in spite of it. Indeed, no one in the House would argue that efficient immigration is one of the key pillars to our success, economically, socially, culturally, and environmentally, as a nation that is aging.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship have been clear from the outset. Inclusion and diversity are crucial to our future as a country and also to the role we play on the international stage. We need to encourage that diversity and take steps to ensure the path to citizenship is not only a flexible and fair one, but also one that encourages all Canadians to take pride in the immense privilege it is to be a Canadian.

Speaking to an audience at the Canadian High Commission in London shortly after taking office, the Prime Minister eloquently said:

Compassion, acceptance, and trust; diversity and inclusion—these are the things that have made Canada strong and free. Not just in principle, but in practice. Those of us who benefit from the many blessings of Canada’s diversity need to be strong and confident custodians of its character.

I can speak to that personally. It is a great privilege and honour to call myself a Canadian. It is a strong attachment to Canada and those values of inclusion, compassion, acceptance, and trust that we hold dear that are at the core of what it means to be a Canadian. It is this deep attachment that motivates settlers like me to serve our communities and to give back wholeheartedly.

The proposed measures in Bill C-6 will increase and foster a greater attachment to Canada, and also ensure the integrity of our immigration programs and combat fraud. All Canadians need to be treated equally, regardless of whether they were born in Canada, naturalized, or hold citizenship in another country. As the Prime Minister famously said, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”.

I am pleased to support this bill for a number of reasons.

I think of my riding in Peterborough—Kawartha. This small rural riding that has welcomed over 100 Syrian refugees has allowed a new beginning and a new life for our new Syrian neighbours, but in that process we have come together. We are building networks, programs and relationships that allow us to tackle the more complex challenges of our time, like truth and reconciliation.

I also think about Trent University and Fleming College, two post-secondary institutions that are critical to the vitality of my riding in Peterborough—Kawartha, and the international students who proudly attend and take part in the academic and the co-curricular activities offered on these two campuses. Indeed, these international students bring an energy and a great deal of talent to our community and our economy, and this bill would recognize all that they contribute. We will work toward allowing them to stay to build their lives and start their families in our community.

I also think of businesses like General Electric. General Electric has been critical to the establishment of Trent University. It benefits immensely from the internationally trained professionals who come to our community, filling its labour gaps and contributing to our economy and through philanthropic activities.

Whether an international student, or someone who works at GE, or a new Syrian to our community, we should acknowledge, encourage, and reward the choice that individuals make to come to Canada and to call this place home. They are experiencing Canada, especially before citizenship matters. Their choice to be here matters.

This bill is essentially about Canadian identity. Canadians are proud of our country and our values. We welcome immigrants. We help them settle, integrate, and succeed. This is our history, our present, and our future.

We encourage all immigrants to take the path to full membership in Canadian society. One of the strongest pillars for successful integration into Canadian life is achieving citizenship.

I will take this moment to thank my mother, the women who took the citizenship test on behalf of myself and my sisters so that in the midst of being a teenager, new to a community, to a country, being homesick, experiencing culture shock, wanting to go back home, and missing those we left behind, my sisters and I would not have the added anxiety of preparing for a test. We benefited from the great equalizer, and that is the Canadian school system, and worked on our language and cultural understanding. It was my mother who stayed up night after night to ensure that she aced that test, and that she did.

I encourage all my hon. colleagues to join with me and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship in supporting Bill C-6.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. Bill C-6 leaves untouched the 1976 revocation provisions for those naturalized citizens who obtained their Canadian citizenship through misrepresentation. This would include, for example, the Nazi war criminals who did not disclose their participation in crimes against humanity in applying for and obtaining their Canadian citizenship.

However, I who was born in this country could never have my citizenship revoked under the provisions of the bill, but an immigrant could. The member is absolutely right: if we want to play the game about two-tier citizenship, it applies far more clearly to Bill C-6 than it did to Bill C-24.

My father was a fourth generation Canadian who had an Irish passport. He had dual citizenship. If he had joined the IRA, heaven forbid, and been convicted of that, with a penal sentence of two years, even though he was a native-born Canadian, he could have had his citizenship revoked. However, immigrants to Canada from India or China, for example, who automatically lose the citizenship of their country of origin in being naturalized to Canada could never have their citizenship revoked under the provisions of Bill C-24, because it excluded its application to people who did not have dual nationality pursuant to our obligations under the international Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are ambitious for new Canadians, for all Canadians, to know what our identity is and how, through the struggle of generations, through the organic development of these remarkable parliamentary institutions, through the core values of our society, such as the rule of law, the equality of opportunity, and equality before the law, we managed to develop this country that is something of a model for the world. It did not happen by accident, and this country is far more than just some kind of a post-modern reflection of the world. It comes from a particular set of institutions and values that are incarnated in our laws, and we are ambitious for new Canadians to know that history.

Canada is maintaining the highest sustained levels of immigration in its history. In the past decade, Canada welcomed over 2.6 million new permanent residents and swore in over 1.6 million new Canadian citizens. That was during the prime ministership of the now member for Calgary Heritage.

We are maintaining the highest per capita levels of immigration in the developed world. Some countries have aberrant years when they are a little higher, but on a sustained basis, what we are doing with respect to immigration in this country is unprecedented in our history and, indeed, in the modern history of the developed world.

I maintain that we cannot take for granted the success of our model of unity and diversity, that we must be very deliberate, intentional, about ensuring that there is unity in our diversity, that we do not end up replicating the failed experiences of certain other western countries which are struggling with problems of social exclusion, ethnic enclaves, ghettoization, often which become the precedent factors for radicalization, extremism, social discord, and even violence.

We must not, through happy talk, pretend that there are no challenges to maintain social cohesion. This is not and should not be considered an exclusively conservative value or idea. It was, after all, the late Prime Minister Mackenzie King who adopted the Citizenship Act in 1947 with these clear obligations for new Canadian citizens. It was former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who, in 1997, spoke in the chamber about the need for civic literacy as one of the factors to bind us together. What did he mean by civic literacy? He meant a certain common vocabulary about who we are as a people, about our institutions, about from whence we came.

The citizenship program, the citizenship law, is designed, in principle, to help develop that sense of social cohesion, of common Canadian values. I reject categorically the notion of the Prime Minister that there is no such thing as a common Canadian value. There is. This country, this culture, rejects completely the attitude of certain cultures around the world which treat women as property rather than people, for example. That is why, as minister of citizenship and immigration, I was proud to work with new Canadian communities.

I was also proud to work with experts and departmental officials to renew the citizenship program by making legislative and administrative changes.

When I became the citizenship and immigration minister in 2008, I discovered that many new Canadian citizens could not speak even very basic French or English. They could not communicate with their fellow citizens. In a way, they were excluded from the Canadian community.

I discovered that even though they had received 100% on the exam to test their knowledge of Canada, some people knew very little about our country, because unscrupulous immigration consultants were selling the test answers to people who were applying for citizenship.

I also learned that there were networks that were helping people who did not live in Canada and had never lived in Canada to commit fraud.

They remained outside the country in tax havens but hired unscrupulous consultants to arrange for testing and fraudulent documentation for citizenship applications. That is appalling and unacceptable.

We are a generous and open country and we simply ask for those who seek to join the Canadian family that they respect our basic laws, customs, know something of our country, and ideally are able to communicate in one of our languages. That is why we needed to reform the program.

One of the ways in which we did so was a modest expansion of the residency requirement in Canada from three out of four years to four out of six years. That still gave people a great deal of flexibility, one-third of the time spent outside of the country to address the kind of exigencies mentioned by the previous speaker. However, I do not think four years is an unreasonable request for people to develop a durable, meaningful attachment to this country. Four years was still the lowest threshold for residency to obtain citizenship of any major democracy in the world.

Canadian citizenship should be the gold standard; it should not be the bargain basement of citizenship in the world. I do not think it is unreasonable to say 48 months is a period in which to develop a meaningful attachment to our country.

With respect to the provision on declaring the intention to reside in Canada, the regulations and the legislation were absolutely clear that people who became Canadian citizens, having signed that declaration, who had to leave for any reason, would not be penalized, and their citizenship would not be revoked. We simply wanted them to consciously declare that their citizenship was not just about obtaining a Canadian passport as a political insurance package.

Millions of Canadian citizens live abroad, including members of my family and most of our families. Most of them maintain a durable attachment to our country. However, regrettably many hundreds of thousands of them who the moment they obtained their Canadian passports left this country and have never come back. We can use politically correct happy talk to pretend this does not happen, but we all know that it does.

We all know cases where we have had to organize massive evacuations for tens of thousands of people who had not lived in our country for years, who had not paid taxes to it, who had not contributed to it, but who pulled out their Canadian passport as a document of political convenience. I believe that passport represents far more. It represents a loyalty of Canada to the citizen and a reciprocal loyalty of the citizen to our country. It is not a document of convenience. It should never be that.

That is why we simply said to these applicants to please express to us that it was actually their intention to reside in Canada, their new country. We welcome them.

I spoke as minister to citizenship judges who quite literally told me that they had seen people coming to take the oath at the ceremony with their bags packed. They were going directly from the ceremony to the airport to return to their countries of origin. That is not consistent with what we consider the sense of a durable connection to Canada. Therefore, I find it regrettable that the Liberals are eliminating this.

Perhaps what I find most regrettable in this is the perverse priority given by the government to the bill to restore citizenship to convicted terrorists. We have heard a lot of demagoguery from the government about the notion that the previous Bill C-24 in the last Parliament created some ostensible two-tier Canadian citizenship. What complete rubbish. Ever since the 1947 Citizenship Act was adopted by Parliament, there has been a power to revoke citizenship or to renounce it. When people say that citizenship is irrevocable, they simply do not know the law. It is revocable in this and every other country and always has been.

In the original 1947 act, adopted by a Liberal government, among the grounds for the revocation of citizenship was the conviction for treason or acts of war against Canada. That was a provision in our law under multiple Liberal governments from 1947 until amendments to the Citizenship Act in 1976 when that was repealed.

Essentially, what we did in 2014 in Bill C-24 was to re-establish the original Liberal law to say that if individuals violently hated our country we would take a conviction of their violent hatred as evidence of their voluntary, willful, and deliberate renunciation of the obligations implicit in their Canadian citizenship. That is what that provision, to be repealed in Bill C-6, permitted us to do, under judicial review and in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I mentioned a case that was immediately dismissed, because they do not want to address this issue. It was dismissed out of hand. However, I would invite any member and anyone viewing this to go on line and simply Google “Canadian burning passport in Syria”. They will get two or three images of Canadians who have travelled to join a group. It is not just some group of militants, but a genocidal terrorist organization that has declared hostility and war on Canada and inspired an attack on this very Parliament. It is crucifying children, beheading members of religious minorities, and raping girls as young as eight. They have gone to join that organization, whose membership is illegal in Canada. In more than one of those images we can see these “Canadians” burning and shooting their Canadian passports.

The position of the members opposite appears to be that, if those men who are clearly expressing their violent hatred for Canada were to download a form from CIC's website to renounce their citizenship, fill out the form, sign it, put it in an envelope, and send it to Ottawa, they could therefore renounce their citizenship. That is a terribly cramped and legalistic view of the facts and of citizenship.

I am sorry, but if individuals deliberately go and join an organization at war with Canada—parenthetically, committing genocide—destroy their Canadian passports as a clear indication of their renunciation of those passports and the citizenship they symbolize, we should have no compunction about saying we read their actions for what they are, they constitute renunciation, and we will renounce their citizenship if they are engaged in such acts of terrorism.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for whom I have great respect, raised a completely ridiculous, demagogic argument. This is not about having a sign of Che Guevara on a website requiring a conviction in a Canadian court of a terrorist offence or treason that would carry at least a two-year penal sentence. No one in the history of our legal system has faced a terrorist conviction of two years for expressing views. This is about violent terrorism.

What the government is telling us in the bill is that someone can take up arms against our country, so violently do they hate it, like that man in Toronto whose citizenship has been revoked. He was the ringleader of a plot that planned to kill thousands of his fellow citizens in an act of extreme political violence, to demonstrate his violent hatred for our country. In so doing, he renounced his citizenship. He did so through his volition.

The power of revocation simply reflects the volition of those who renounce it violently through such acts of treason or terrorism. The power of revocation does not apply to immigrants versus native-born citizens, as the demagogues in this debate have implied. The only reason it is limited to dual citizens in this application is our legal obligation under the international convention on the prevention of statelessness.

Therefore, I appeal to the members opposite and around this place to think seriously about the meaning of our citizenship and to oppose the provisions of the bill.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to again thank my constituents for the honour of serving them in the House for the seventh time.

I am here to speak to Bill C-6. Unfortunately, one of the government's priorities is to restore the Canadian citizenship of terrorists who are filled with hatred towards Canada. They hate our country and they hate being Canadians.

Like the vast majority of Canadians, I believe that citizenship is essential to the Canadian identity, especially since the passage of the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1947, which set out three requirements for citizenship applicants.

First, applicants must live in Canada for a certain period of time, so they can become familiar with their obligations, our customs, our laws, and our Canadian values.

Second, for over six decades, the Canadian Citizenship Act has required applicants to be able to communicate in one of Canada's two official languages. There is a reason why citizenship is an essential sign of our community and national identity. To be a full member of a community, a person must at least have the ability to communicate with other members of that community. It is no coincidence that “communicate” and “community” come from the same root word.

In a country as diverse as ours, it is essential that we have certain commonalities in order to be unified in our diversity. One of these essential commonalities is the ability to communicate in one of the two official languages. Obviously, there are a number of proud Canadians who do not currently speak one of the two official languages. However, since the Canadian Citizenship Act was passed in 1947, we have been encouraging them to work toward successfully meeting that goal and thus becoming full members of our community.

Third, the 1947 act requires a basic knowledge of Canada, our laws, customs, values, democratic institutions, and history because this great democracy did not happen by chance. Canada is far more than just a reflection of the world.

I recall the Prime Minister saying in an interview recently that Canada is “the first postnational state” and that it has “no core identity. I, and I believe the vast majority of Canadians, flatly reject that fatuous notion. Canada is a proud nation with a particular history rooted in—

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

Madam Speaker, I want to raise two hypothetical situations for the hon. member for Surrey—Newton.

I want to say on the record how pleased I am that the new government is bringing in Bill C-6. I wish that the Liberals would repeal Bill C-24 in its entirety.

I will give another example to the member for Calgary Midnapore, who paints the worst case. I will take that worst case and ask how does it benefit world peace and security to take someone who is dangerous and put them back in their country of origin? Would that government feel well with them? Are they barred from ever coming back to Canada?

Let me take another example. The reckless Bill C-51 passed by the previous government included offences of so-called terrorism. Part 3 of Bill C-51, which I call the “thought chill section”, deals with things placed on websites that might encourage “terrorism in general”. It could include a Che Guevara poster the way it is worded. Therefore, a person who is innocent, but might have dual citizenship, could be found guilty of a terrorism-related offence for something as innocuous as an image on a website. It is anti-democratic and wrong, and thank God the current government is bringing it down.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, as an immigrant to this country, I fondly remember the day, July 17, 1987, when I became a Canadian citizen. It was one of the proudest days of my life and something I had dreamed about ever since I moved to Canada in January of 1984.

This is my frame of reference in speaking in support of Bill C-6. I always understood Canada to be a country that welcomed refugees and immigrants and inspired them to strive to become Canadian citizens, to take that step toward full membership and permanent belonging in Canadian society. This is why Conservative Bill C-24, introduced in 2014 by the previous government, is so concerning to Canadians across Canada.

Even the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn, a former parliamentary secretary and the longest continuously serving Conservative MP in the House, has publicly said that he has always opposed the bill.

The member has been quoted as stating that he was “taken to task” by members of his own party for being one of the few MPs on that side of the House to vote against Bill C-24.

Bill C-24 was an attempt by the Conservative Party to fundamentally change what it meant to be a Canadian as part of political branding exercise. The act created two classes of Canadians: those that only had Canadian citizenship and those who were at risk by having dual citizenship. Using their typical rhetoric of being tough on terrorism as justification, the Conservatives completely devalued what it meant to hold a Canadian passport.

One of the most troubling aspects of the act is the way that Canadian citizenship could be so easily revoked. For example, convictions abroad that convinced a government official that an individual was a national security threat may prompt a process where Canadian citizenship could be stripped away.

By no means does our government support citizens involved in terrorist offences, or espionage, or treason inside or outside of Canada's borders. However, this ability to remove citizenship from dual citizens is a problem.

First, a Canadian citizen without dual citizenship from another country could never have their passport revoked for the same crimes committed abroad.

Second, it makes Canadian citizenship a tool for the criminal justice system. Punishment for crimes should be decided in courts of law, either in Canada or outside of Canada, but the possibility of losing one's Canadian passport as a form of punishment is completely inappropriate.

Last, for the minister to have such wide discretionary powers in the review and revocation process is a complete breach of due process and fairness.

There are also aspects of the Conservative's Bill C-24 that only serve to discourage immigrants from wanting to become Canadian citizens. Immigrants want to apply for Canadian citizenship are automatically treated with distrust. The act measures their loyalty and attachment to Canada by the days they were physically present in the country. As a result, thousands of immigrant applicants are forced to sacrifice academic and employment opportunities or family obligations abroad just so they do not put their citizenship application process in jeopardy.

Bill C-6 will correct and repeal many of the wrongs contained in Bill C-24. Allow me to outline some of the significant changes being proposed by sharing stories I have heard over the past few months in my riding of Surrey—Newton.

To the young man I met in November who was scared about travelling to the country of his dad's birth for fear of being targeted and arrested by a repressive government regime, I say that Bill C-6 will remove the grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security.

To the immigrant mother of two young children who came to my constituency office worried about what might happen to her application if she temporarily returned to her homeland to care for her sick mother, I say that Bill C-6 will reduce the number of days that someone will have to be physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship, and that they will receive credit for the time they have spent in Canada before becoming a permanent resident.

There was also a man who was very nervous about applying for citizenship for his quite elderly, sick mother, who struggled with English.

When the Minister of Immigration was giving his speech, I got a call from one of my constituents, Dawinder Mann. He came to this country many years ago as a refugee. His mother, sister, and all his brothers and children are settled here, but unfortunately his wife was not able to apply for Canadian citizenship. She is in a position where her country of origin will not issue her a passport. Now she is not able to pass the English requirement. She is 54. Therefore, she would not be able to get a passport either from Canada or her country of origin. Now her husband is very happy that his wife, Harjinder Mann, under the new legislation, in a year's time will be able to apply proudly for Canadian citizenship and be able to carry a Canadian passport.

These are the types of stories that encourage me to support the Minister of Immigration, the work he is doing, and the bill he has brought forward.

I believe passionately in the power of Canadian citizenship. I believe that the Government of Canada should do everything in its power to encourage newcomers to become Canadian citizens. The Canadian passport is sacred and highly sought after across the globe.

This is why using Canadian citizenship to fearmonger or as a means of control or simply as a political prop is so very wrong. As our Prime Minister has said, and I say again, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, and our Minister of Immigration has also said that. This is why he brought Bill C-6 forward, so that every Canadian can feel that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

I encourage all members to support Bill C-6 so that what it means to be a Canadian can once again to be used to unite rather than divide us.

I am thankful for this opportunity to share my thoughts with my fellow members.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my friend from Surrey—Newton.

It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the government's plan to repeal the unfair provisions found under the Citizenship Act that were passed in the previous Parliament under Bill C-24, which allowed for the revocation of Canadian citizenship of dual or multiple nationals on the grounds of national interest.

Once again, our government is delivering on the commitments we promised Canadians during last year's federal election. From my perspective, Bill C-24 is not only a bill that personally affects the lives of many of my constituents but it also affects many Canadians across this country.

I note that in the speech by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, he articulated two broad principles that governed the intent behind Bill C-6.

First and foremost, he enunciated the concept of a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, which was something that we had heard throughout the campaign, and that we found the notion of two different types of classes of Canadian citizens to be offensive.

The second concept that was articulated by the minister was with respect to peeling back the changes found in Bill C-24 that imposed new barriers on welcoming immigrants to this country and becoming Canadian citizens.

There are a series of four provisions within Bill C-6 that attempt to bring back a much more welcoming atmosphere to becoming a Canadian citizen. Those are very important principles. However, I want to focus on two different principles.

I first want to note that I appreciated the speech made by my friend from the New Democratic Party, the member for Vancouver East, who I thought articulated in very clear terms the reasons why her party would be supporting the provisions of Bill C-6. She also put forth some legitimate criticisms that she found, namely, that we did not necessarily go far enough in Bill C-6.

I take the point the minister raised that this government remains open to making reasonable changes, which is a reflection of this particular government. For example, this government would definitely entertain some of the issues the member articulated.

I want to get to those two broad principles that I would like to articulate in the short time I have to talk to Bill C-6 that I feel were particularly offensive under Bill C-24.

The first concept I want to advance, which was a central theme that had been articulated by the previous government and in particular by the former minister of citizenship and immigration, Chris Alexander, is the concept that citizenship is a privilege as opposed to a right. I strongly disagree with the former minister's position on this substantive fate.

The whole concept of strengthening the Canadian Citizenship Act, as minister Alexander had framed it, was that citizenship was somehow a privilege. From my perspective, once it is conferred, it attaches rights. There are obligations and responsibilities that come with citizenship, but it confers rights that are protected specifically under the charter, as my friend from Vancouver East had noted. Therefore, once it is legitimately acquired, the concept of citizenship should not be taken away capriciously.

That brings me to the second concept. My friends in the New Democratic Party touched upon this particular theme both in the comments made by my friend from Vancouver East and in the question from the finance critic for the NDP, which is the concept of the encroachment of executive power and the lack of procedural due process that was found under Bill C-24. Again, I deeply oppose this concept.

I take the comments that my friend from Vancouver East noted seriously. She remains concerned that there needs to be procedural due process whenever citizenship is stripped away. This government would be amendable to those kinds of amendments to the legislation.

I found particularly odious the previous government's perspective to grant the minister the arbitrary right to decide which individuals would get to keep their citizenship and which ones would not. It was particularly odious because it could be done capriciously and without any sort of procedural due process. There would be no capacity to appeal. There would be no capacity to bring new facts to the table.

I know what members of the Conservative Party are ultimately going to say. They are going to say we would only be stripping citizenship from convicted terrorists. All we heard in the debate in the House from the previous minister and from my friends in the opposition is that at the end of the day once individuals are convicted of a particular crime, they should serve their time, and that is the ultimate sanction. Stripping citizenship from certain classes of individuals is not fundamentally appropriate. More important, it would undermine the whole concept of the fundamental principle of rule of law, where all citizens are treated equally. I note that concept was very well articulated earlier, and I want to reinforce that principle in my comments today.

These are really the fundamental issues of why I will be supporting Bill C-6 in addition to the principles that were enunciated by the minister.

My sense is that this is about what it means to be Canadian, what it ultimately means to create conditions where we are a welcoming society, as noted in the opening comments of the minister, a society that values people who come from around the world. My friend from Calgary Nose Hill articulated the same principles.

I do not agree with my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan that somehow this is about an elevation of values. This is very much a values debate, but the value we are attaching is to the protection of fundamental principles, principles that are found in the charter, the principle of rule of law, the principle of equality. That is why we are here in this place. If we cannot protect those fundamental principles for the people we find most offensive in our society, then why are we here? That for me is the core of the debate and why Bill C-6 must be supported.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that during the campaign the Prime Minister made a commitment to the Chinese community, particularly through the Chinese media, that if the Liberals formed government he would repeal Bill C-24 in its entirety. If we use that as a barometer to what is happening right now with Bill C-6, it actually falls short.

That being said, I do support the measures brought forward under Bill C-6 for the most part. There are areas I have identified where it needs further action and I hope I can count on the member's support in that regard.

I know the member made a comment in the media regarding the citizenship language issue, particularly the proficiency, or the level of the language. I hope I can count on his support to get his government and his minister to move in the right direction to reduce the proficiency level and to recognize the contributions of immigrants in that regard.

I hope I can also count on the member's support on the financial barriers and reducing the citizenship application fees.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for supporting the intent of Bill C-6.

I am sure the member will agree that the immigration file is one of the top files that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is handling. The former government brought in a regressive policy for 10 years and the minister tried to correct that in the first 30 sitting days of this House.

Is she satisfied that the minister is doing great work and is heading in the right direction?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, the critic for finance. He has a history, having been here when Bill C-24 was tabled, and has gone through the debate. I appreciate the concern around discretionary powers given to the minister.

Bill C-6 does not actually address that. It still allows for the minister to have the discretionary power to revoke a citizenship. What I hope the government will do and would urge it to do is to, in fact, go back to the way the system was and put the authority to revoke citizenship before an independent body through the Federal Court system and for a Federal Court judge to make that decision.

That is the best way to do it, openly, with accountability, and to ensure politics stays out of somebody's citizenship.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which I think most members appreciated.

I am very pleased that we are going to vote in favour of Bill C-6 at second reading. I was here during the previous Parliament when the House passed Bill C-24, and this bill does address a number of problems.

However, like most members of the NDP, who made up the official opposition at the time, I opposed the discretionary power that the bill gave to the minister. Bill C-24 was not the only example of this. Various other bills gave discretionary powers to the finance minster, the public safety minister and, in this case, the immigration minister. I remember quite well that, at the time, the Liberal opposition agreed with us and was opposed to giving ministers new discretionary powers that would allow them to make decisions without necessarily going through the proper channels.

I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks of the provisions that grant this sort of discretionary power and how important she thinks they are. How does she suggest we make the process fairer than just allowing the minister to make decisions at his or her discretion?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments and for sharing some of his family history with us. I wholeheartedly agree that individuals who have dual citizenship, or can have dual citizenship, or multiple citizenship for that matter, should be treated the same as any other Canadian in this country. That is the premise of who we are. That is exactly the Canadian value we talk about.

It is not just I or the NDP who says this. Lawyers and people who are well versed with our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with international law echo that point of view as well.

To that end, I am glad to see Bill C-6 being debated in the House to address some of these concerns. The member is absolutely right. There is still much more work to be done, and I look forward to his support on some of the issues that I have identified as missing in Bill C-6, on which we need action. Let us hope, and let us work together to make Canada a better place.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 is an act that would amend the Conservatives' Bill C-24, the so-called strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. To put Bill C-6 in context, we must first examine the content of Bill C-24.

During the 41st Parliament, the Conservatives made significant changes to the Citizenship Act under Bill C-24. Effectively, the Conservatives' Bill C-24 created two classes of citizens in which Canadians with dual citizenship were treated as second-class citizens. Many experts repeatedly pointed out that the bill was likely unconstitutional and did not respect international law.

The NDP opposed Bill C-24 from the beginning and at second reading, the NDP called on the Conservatives to withdraw the bill. The Conservatives refused and, despite our opposition, rammed Bill C-24 through without amendment. Then, in June 2014, Bill C-24 received royal assent. Since then, the NDP has been asking for the bill to be repealed.

As it happens, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister made the promise, particularly in the Chinese media, that he would repeal Bill C-24 if he formed government. Well, as members may have guessed, Bill C-6 does not repeal Bill C-24 in its entirety.

The NDP is disappointed that the Prime Minister is failing to deliver on his promise to repeal Bill C-24, but we welcome the provisions of Bill C-6.

Worth mentioning are the following amendments: removing the ability to revoke citizenship on national interest grounds; removing the obligation for a new citizen to declare intent to reside in Canada; restoring the length of time a permanent resident must actually be present in Canada to qualify for citizenship to three years, which is 1,095 days over the last five years; restoring the right to count two years of temporary residence toward the required presence in Canada; eliminating the requirement that an applicant must have been present in Canada for 183 days in four out of the six years; and removing the requirement for the language and knowledge examinations to permanent residents aged 14 to 17 and 55 to 64.

The NDP supports these provisions. First and foremost, we fundamentally believe that all Canadians should be treated equally under the law.

The Conservatives' Bill C-24 created two classes of citizens, some with more rights than others. Disproportionately, immigrants to Canada, their children and grandchildren, and those with dual or multiple citizenships are deemed to have less rights than those who were born in Canada.

If a Canadian is charged with a criminal offence, let him or her be brought in front of the Canadian judicial system and be tried fairly, independently, and equally under the Canadian judicial system. If found guilty, let him or her be sentenced under the same principles of fairness, independence, and equality.

The Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, and many respected academics all said that the former Bill C-24 was likely unconstitutional and did not respect international law. In fact, there was already a court challenge on Bill C-24. Josh Paterson, the executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said:

All Canadian citizens used to have the same citizenship rights, no matter what their origins. We were all equal under the law. Now this new law has divided us into classes of citizens—those who can lose their citizenship, and those who can’t. Bill C-24 is anti-immigrant, anti-Canadian, and anti-democratic. It undermines – quite literally – what it means to be Canadian.

I am glad that Bill C-6 addresses this concern and this concern will be no more after the passage of Bill C-6.

Building from that basic fundamental principle, repealing the intent to reside provision of Bill C-24 is also a step in the right direction. The freedom of mobility, including the ability to leave the country, is very clearly enshrined in section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The intent to reside provision in Bill C-24 was vague, difficult to prove, confusing for citizenship applicants, and ignored the changing realities of people. Somone can intend to reside, but life circumstances, such as a relative in another country becoming severely ill could interrupt that intention.

Work obligations could also alter that intention. In fact, during the campaign, I came across someone who has dual citizenship in the United States. As it happens, she is in the film industry. She travels a lot with her work. Sometimes she is away for a week. Other times, she may be away for a year or more. There is no telling. It is all subject to her work.

With Bill C-24, she was concerned that her intent to reside in Canada could be challenged and that she might lose her citizenship. This is just plain wrong. I am glad that Bill C-6 addresses this concern.

The Conservative Bill C-24 also made the pathway to citizenship for immigrants harder, longer, and frankly with other measures, more expensive to obtain. Accessibility to citizenship is the ultimate pathway to a person's right to fully participate in a democratic society. The cornerstone of a democracy is imbedded in having the right to vote. Creating additional barriers to access this citizenship only serves to undermine our democratic institution.

To that end, the NDP also supports the measure in Bill C-6 that returns physical presence requirements to what they were prior to Bill C-24, allowing time in Canada prior to obtaining permanent residence to partially count toward the physical presence requirement.

As I previously mentioned, there is a countless number of legitimate situations that would require a permanent resident or citizen to leave the country for an extended period of time. Restoring the old physical presence requirements is a step in the right direction, as is giving at least partial credit for the time spent in this country before obtaining permanent residence.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, officials take their work seriously and work judiciously to ensure that every permanent resident meets the requirements to become a new Canadian.

The Conservative former Bill C-24 was brought in under the pretext that the provisions within the bill strengthened the meaning of being a Canadian, when in fact I would argue it served to undermine many of our strongly held Canadian values and principles.

As stated by Mitch Goldberg, president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, “Instead of welcoming new Canadians, the new Citizenship Act discriminates against them”.

Bill C-6 would rectify this, and the NDP welcomes the amendments proposed under Bill C-6.

With that being said, I would be remiss if I did not turn my attention to what is missing in Bill C-6 as well. First, on the right to judicial review before losing citizenship, I was glad to hear the minister reference this, and his willingness to entertain amendments.

Prior to Bill C-24, individuals who were accused of fraud and risked having their citizenship revoked could request a hearing before a Federal Court judge who would review the minister's evidence. A final decision would then be made by the Governor in Council.

Bill C-24 allowed the minister to make a decision based on a review of paperwork with no right to a judicial hearing. The NDP believes that a citizen facing revocation should always have the right to a hearing before an independent and impartial decision-maker.

Under Bill C-6, which was tabled, we believe that the Liberals agree with that as well. In fact, the Liberals tabled an amendment to Bill C-24, which would provide the right to a full appeal to the Federal Court in the case of citizenship revocation proceedings. In support of the amendment, a Liberal member stated quite clearly that Canadians deserve the right to appeal with regard to citizenship.

However, today the Liberal Bill C-6 does not deliver on that sentiment. The Liberals' failure to address this feature of Bill C-24 means, I am afraid, that there may still be a constitutional challenge of the Citizenship Act, which would be viable.

Second, on the issue regarding people charged with a criminal offence abroad, Bill C-6 does not amend the provision that prohibits granting citizenship to anyone charged with or serving a sentence for a criminal offence abroad. This broad measure fails to account for countries dealing with corruption within government and the judicial system, as well as governments engaging in political prosecution.

The Canadian Bar Association and others have further argued that this prohibition was far too broad and created significant inequalities between applicants, depending on their country of origin.

Additionally, the Canadian Bar Association has suggested that these cases are best dealt with by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Immigration and Refugee Board, where cases can be determined upon their individual merits, and the NDP agrees with the recommendation of the Canadian Bar Association.

Third is discretionary citizenships granted by the minister. Bill C-6 would not require the minister to disclose cases where citizenship is granted for discretionary reasons, the frequency of citizenships granted, or the reasons for granting citizenship at all.

We want to ensure that privacy rights are respected, and we should work within those boundaries. However, it is problematic to not make information available, because it speaks to the lack of transparency. Given the recent example we have seen of, I think, the hyperpartisan former minister of citizenship and immigration, under the Conservatives, I think we need more transparency and accountability.

Fourth is the issue of language. While Bill C-6 would revoke the changes made by Bill C-24 by bringing back the language knowledge requirements for applicants aged 18 to 54 instead of 14 to 64, the threshold for language proficiency under Bill C-24 remains.

Under the current system, they must send in results of an accepted third-party test at the equivalent of Canadian language benchmark level 4 or higher in speaking or listening, or provide proof of completion of a secondary or post-secondary program conducted in French or English. If they do not send in documents to prove that they have met this requirement, their application for citizenship will not be accepted.

The higher language requirement does not demonstrate that they are somehow more Canadian.

As well, Bill C-6 would maintain the requirement for citizenship applicants to pass a knowledge test about Canada in one of the two official languages.

Effectively, this would amount to double testing and would not really represent an individual's ability to function and succeed in Canada.

Many immigrants have come to Canada who have not been able to read and write in French or English at the proficiency level that is currently required, but they have worked hard, paid taxes, raised their families, contributed to our society, and become an integral part of our communities.

I can share with members the story of my own family. We all came, and none of us spoke English. To this day, I would say that, if my mother were put to a test such as the one that exists right now, she would likely fail that test. Yet, all of her life since she immigrated here, she worked, first as a farm worker, making $10 a day to support a family of eight. Then she got a minimum-wage job at a restaurant, which she retired from at 65, and she supported her family every single day with those efforts. She spoke minimum English—enough to get by, enough to support her family, enough to vote and understand what voting means and what democracy means.

With that being said, I would argue that the proficiency test is way too high for far too many immigrants, and that must change.

Fifth is the issue of financial barriers. Bill C-6 does not address how much permanent residents should pay for their citizenship applications to be processed by the ministry.

Citizenship processing fees have increased from $100 to $530 since February 2014, under the Conservatives. This is on top of the additional $100 right of citizenship fee. A family of four would have to pay $1,460. That is more than a month's rent for many. A family's bank account should not be the deciding factor on whether or not they can become Canadian citizens.

I really hope that the Liberal government will change this. Access to the pathway to citizenship is critical for all immigrants. Let us make it easier, not harder, to attain.

Bill C-6 would not make access to citizenship financially accessible for many permanent residents and their families. I do hope that the Liberal government acts to reduce the financial barriers along the path to citizenship.

Sixth is ensuring fair processing delays. Under the Conservatives, the processing delays for citizenship applications exploded to 24 months for regular cases and 36 months for non-routine cases.

The Liberals have committed to processing all applications received before April 1, 2015, by March 31, 2016, and to processing new applications within a 12-month period.

However, this one-year delay does not apply to non-routine cases, which are often only called this because a residence questionnaire was issued. This creates an enormous gap of 24 months, perpetrating a two-tier system, and we believe this should be changed as well.

The NDP will continue to push the Liberal government to take these measures and to act urgently on lengthy wait times, huge backlogs, the issue around family reunification for parents and grandparents, and the barriers to citizenship that still remain in place.

New Canadians provide countless benefits to this country every single day. We see many of those Canadians in this very chamber, some elected for the first time. Others are returning members. That is the testimony of who we are, and it speaks about the strength of Canada to harness that. Those rules that create barriers for access to citizenship must be changed.

This deserves a system that recognizes all immigrants for their contributions in making Canada the wonderful country it is. We are built on a multicultural community basis. Let us harness those strengths, eliminate the barriers, and make sure Canada in its process, in its policies, and in its approach is truly Canadian and reflects our multicultural values.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

moved that Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill C-6, which is an act to make major amendments to the previous government's Citizenship Act, better known in some circles as the noxious Bill C-24.

We are making these major changes for two general reasons: one, we promised to do that in our election platform and in my mandate letter; and two, the acts that we are carrying out in this new law are consistent with what we promised to do.

From the government's point of view and my point of view, we are doing what we said we would do. What is more important is why we want to do this. On this side, I would say there are two basic principles at stake.

That is unacceptable to us. There should be only one class of Canadians, not two. That is the first principle.

As far as the second principle is concerned, we want to welcome new citizens to Canada. The Conservative legislation put up a number of roadblocks that we believe made it unreasonably harder for permanent residents to become Canadian.

Therefore, there are two points of principle. First, there must be one class of Canadian, not two. Second, we want to welcome new citizens. We believe the Conservatives erected a number of barriers that were unreasonable to the welcoming of new people to become citizens of our country.

Let me go through each of these general areas one at a time.

In the previous Conservative bill, the minister of citizenship and immigration had the authority to revoke an individual citizenship if that person was convicted of a terrorist crime or some other crime. However, and this is a crucial point, the minister only had the power to revoke citizenship if the person involved was a dual citizen, not if the person was a citizen only of Canada. Similarly, the Federal Court had the right to revoke citizenship in other cases, but again only for dual citizens.

This is the nub of the point because once we say we can revoke one type of Canadian citizenship but cannot revoke another, then we have two classes of Canadians. We believe very strongly, and we fought long and hard during the election on this issue, that there is only one class of Canadian, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. All Canadians are equal and there cannot be two classes of Canadians, which is why we found this law unacceptable and why the new law would revoke that right to revoke citizenship.

We have said it for many months with the conviction of our beliefs, and once the law passes, we can also say it in the spirit of the law. It will say there is only one class of Canadian, not two.

In fact, we believe this so strongly that we are going to reinstate the citizenship of the one individual who had his citizenship revoked for reasons of terrorism. That individual, according to the new law, will have his citizenship reinstated.

It is a point of principle. When we say a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, that includes good and bad Canadians.

The bad Canadians who are convicted for terrorism should go to prison. If there are bad terrorists, they should go to prison for a long time, although it is the judges, not the politicians, who determine the sentences. The place for a terrorist is in prison, not at the airport. It is our strong belief that if a person is sent to prison for terrorism, there should not be two classes of terrorists: those who go to prison and have their citizenship revoked and those who only go to prison. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, for a terrorist and for others, and therefore in our view we will not have any citizenship revoked for this reason.

I would also make the supplementary argument that to revoke citizenship in this way is to launch oneself on a slippery slope, because the rules might be clear today about for what crime we have citizenship revoked and for what crime do we not, but those laws can change over time. I remember the former prime minister in the election campaign speculating about additional crimes that might be added. Who knows? It might be terrorism one year, and something else—whatever catches the attention of the government of the day—could be added the next year. It is a slippery slope, and one does not know where on that slope one will end up.

The definition of what constitutes dual citizenship is also a slippery slope. I am not a lawyer, but I know legal minds have debated the issue of who is a dual citizen and who is not. Some individuals might be born in Canada, have never been to some second country, but are nevertheless dual citizens of that country because of the laws of that country. Some people have claimed that Jews are dual citizens in a sense, because they have the right to live in Israel. Does that make them dual citizens of Canada and Israel? Under the previous law, that might have been a question that went before the courts.

Our view is that we should just terminate this slippery slope. We should abolish 100% the practice of revoking citizenship for any kind of terrorism or other crime. The debate would therefore be moot. It would not matter who is a dual citizen and who is not, or which crimes are included, because under no circumstances would a person have his or her citizenship revoked for these reasons. These other secondary, slippery-slope arguments would simply not arise.

The last point I would make on this issue is that there is one reason that is still the case for individuals to have their citizenship revoked, and that has always been on the books, and that is if individuals misrepresent who they are when they become citizens. In that situation that would imply that the individuals do not deserve to be citizens because they gave false information in order to become citizens. If that is the case, then their citizenship can be revoked. That has been the case in Canada since 1947, and that will remain the case.

There is one thing I might mention that the parliamentary committee may wish to consider. After we came out with our law, certain legal individuals said that, when a person has his or her citizenship revoked for this one remaining reason that is allowed, that person may or may not have sufficient right to appeal. If after listening to witnesses, the committee agrees that there is insufficient right to appeal such a decision, then the government and I would certainly be prepared to contemplate such an amendment to our bill.

This makes a more general point, unlike the previous government; but allow me to just talk for this government. We are certainly open to amendments, if there are amendments from either the Liberal side or the opposition side that would improve the bill. We do not claim perfection. If some members on the committee, of any party, have ideas for how to improve it, we would be open to such suggestions.

I just mentioned this one as a case in point: I heard in the debate following the introduction of the bill that there may not be an adequate right to appeal in the case of citizenship revocation flowing from providing false information.

That covers my first general point about citizenship revocation. The second area concerns barriers that we think in some cases are unnecessary or inappropriate barriers to citizenship, and there are four areas where we will change the previous bill, in some cases, substantially.

I can read the four items that we are going to change.

First, the 2015 measures required anyone applying to become a Canadian citizen to declare their intent to live in Canada once citizenship was obtained. We are going to get rid of that.

The measures also prolonged the residency requirement for applicants, requiring them to stay in Canada for a much longer period before being able to apply for citizenship. We are also going to change that, as I will explain.

They also eliminated the possibility of applying half of the time applicants spent in Canada before becoming permanent residents in the calculation of the duration of their physical presence here. This affects international students.

Finally, as for the fourth item, the measures required applicants 14 to 64 to meet language and knowledge criteria. Previously, only applicants 18 to 54 had to meet those criteria. We are going to reinstate the previous age requirement, 18 to 54.

Let me quickly go through each of these in turn. The first point concerns the intention to reside, that people have to declare before they become a citizen that they intend to reside in Canada. Some people in the legal profession were concerned that it could then become a reason to revoke citizenship. Let us say people stated an intent to reside in Canada, and let us say they were telling the truth, then their company shifted them to New York or whatever and the circumstances changed. It was feared that, having invoked this intent to reside, they could subsequently be challenged if their plans changed. The simplest way to deal with that is to get rid of that provision, which is what we are doing. We are repealing it. We think that was a legitimate concern, and we do not think there is merit to retaining that element of the bill.

The second part is the physical presence requirement. We believe that people should be required to be physically present in Canada for a certain length of time. We believe there is significant citizenship fraud or citizens of convenience, so we do want to continue to attack that. We do not dispute the principle of having a certain length of time in which people have to be physically present in Canada, but we are bringing it back to where it was, or at least changing it from what the Conservatives had, that they have to be physically present in Canada for four out of the past six years. We are moving to three out of the past five years, which is somewhat more flexible and also allows citizenship applicants to become citizens one year earlier than was the case under the previous bill.

The third item is one where I feel there is a particular lack of intelligence in the previous bill. If we look at international students, we see they are one of the most fertile grounds for new Canadians. We have an aging population. We really need more immigrants, and who better than international students, in the sense that by definition they are educated, by definition they know something about Canada, and almost by definition they can speak English or French? What better group to solicit to become Canadians than international students?

Why then do we sort of punch them in the nose, instead of courting them, by taking away the entitlement they previously had that 50% of the time they had spent in Canada as international students would count toward becoming citizens? I think they have clearly earned that entitlement by being here, learning about Canada, and so on. Therefore, I do not see why that entitlement should be removed, and indeed, in this bill, we are restoring it.

Someone asked me why not 100%, and we can have that debate. I think 50% might be a good number, but certainly not zero. I think we should go back to where it was, 50%.

Finally, this is a simple point on language. Again, we agree in principle that knowing English or French is really important, and we are not abolishing that requirement at all. Research has shown that knowledge of one or more of the official languages helps to predict an individual's success in this country, economically and job-wise. Therefore, we are not eliminating that, but we are restoring the age range to where it was, which is the age of 18 to 54, rather than 14 to 64.

In sum, we disagree with the Conservative government's legislation based on two general principles. First, a Canadian is a Canadian. All Canadians are equal. We must not have two classes of citizens. Second, we want to welcome newcomers as Canadians, and we do not want the conditions for becoming Canadian to be too rigid or too difficult.

In summary, it is for those reasons that I am pleased to present to the House our proposals in Bill C-6.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to inform the House that we are meeting this important campaign commitment.

Bill C-24, enacted by the previous Conservative government, set a very dangerous precedent. It created two tiers of citizenship in this country. Regardless of whether one is born here or whether abroad, like myself and many members of the House, we deserve a government that values and respects our citizenship.

A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. The Liberal Party believes this. Canadians recognize this. With Bill C-6, we will be implementing this important fundamental principle and putting it back into our immigration system.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with debate on the opposition motion that we began this morning.

Tomorrow, we will have the final day of debate at second reading on Bill C-4, concerning unions. I would like to note that the votes relating to this bill will be deferred to the end of the day on Monday, March 7, pursuant to an order adopted earlier today.

I want to sincerely thank my colleagues in the House for their co-operation in finding an agreement on this matter, and also on the ISIL motion, which was debated earlier this week.

Next week, as my colleague indicated, members will be working in their ridings.

On Monday, March 7, we will resume debate, at second reading stage, of Bill C-2 concerning a tax cut for the middle class. I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, March 8, will be an allotted day. On Wednesday, we will begin debate at second reading stage of Bill C-6 on citizenship, which was introduced this morning by my colleague, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. On Thursday, we will begin consideration of Bill C-5 concerning public servants' sick leave.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I know that you have been looking forward to this. Pursuant to Standing Order 83 (2), I would ask that an order of the day be designated for the Minister of Finance to present the budget at 4 p.m., on Tuesday, March 22, 2016.

Citizenship Act

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

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