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.