Thank you.
I think that my colleague Mr. Redekopp brought forward some potential questions about what we could consider in a broader open-scope review of the Citizenship Act. I'm happy to discuss what I would like to see, if we are going to open up the scope of the Citizenship Act. Some of the amendments I would be proposing to the Citizenship Act writ large would include things like....
There is broad disappointment across the partisan divide with the government's decision to eliminate in-person citizenship ceremonies, or to go to online applications. This isn't just me as a Conservative saying this. This is many people from across the partisan divide. There have been many op-eds that have talked about this.
I would likely be proposing amendments that I'm sure the government probably isn't going to be happy to discuss and that Senator Martin isn't going to be happy will be in her bill, but if we are going to be opening up this bill to look at the Citizenship Act, we should perhaps be talking about an amendment to reverse the government's decision on this front.
I believe former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi wrote a column about this recently, talking about why these in-person ceremonies are so important. I would be putting forward an amendment to the Citizenship Act to prevent the government from continuing on this course, and I would be holding the minister to account for this decision, as well. I don't think that was the intent of Senator Martin with her bill, but if the governing party decides to go forward with a review of this, that is something I would be seeking to amend.
Today in the CBC, as well, there's a headline that reads, “Canada's farming future in trouble unless 30,000 immigrants fill gap of retiring farmers”. The article goes on to talk about the fact that the government hasn't done a lot to address pathways for agricultural workers to come into the country on a permanent basis or to look at how we can address immigration to meet that need while addressing the cost of farmland in Canada. I would probably be looking at exploring some sort of amendment in that regard, given that it's a huge issue facing the country.
I know that many of my colleagues, as well—I would think everybody at this committee—are deeply concerned about the visa wait times from countries such as.... I think my caseworker said that in Vietnam now it's something like 800 days. I'm looking down the table. It's pretty high.
If we're going to be opening up the scope of the Citizenship Act for amendment with this bill, I would be seeking perhaps some legislated and mandated guidelines around wait times, which the government has far exceeded and which are preventing family reunification and causing other issues. It is actually a detriment to work in the country. That's an amendment I would probably draw up as well. I'm thinking about postgraduate work permits, accreditation for foreign workers, other things that the government has failed on that have created labour supply shortages and the structure of settlement support services for rural communities in Canada.
I recently had a meeting with.... Many of my colleagues here know that I work closely with the Yazidi community in Canada. The government has never addressed the fact that Canada still utilizes refugee selection criteria that may pose problems for genocide survivors, where the ethnic majority in a refugee camp may be biased against genocide survivors who have just survived ethnic cleansing. That's something the Citizenship Act has never really addressed either. I think I would probably be tabling a motion in that regard.
The point I'm trying to make here is that, if we as a committee are agreeing to open up the scope of the Citizenship Act much more broadly than what Senator Martin was considering in her bill, then what we're saying is that each of us here now has the opportunity to put forward each of our issues that are individual and outside of the private member's bill process, or outside of the government legislation process, and put them in here.
Now that I've laid this all out, through the chair, particularly to my colleagues in the governing party, do you understand that this is why the committee has processes around scope on private members' bills? It's so this sort of thing doesn't happen. If the committee is going to override those procedures, then I sure am going to be availing myself of that opportunity. It is going to be long. It is going to be fulsome, and it is going to draw attention to many issues that the government has failed on. I am more than happy to use committee time to do that.
The thing is, no matter how well-intentioned—and I would think any of the things I just mentioned are a well-intentioned effort—process has to be followed. If we are opening up the scope of this, I am fairly confident that what's going to happen is either the Speaker or the House is going to say that this is not in scope, which is going to delay the bill further outside of the extra 30 days that Ms. Kwan just moved for it to be delayed. Then it is going to go back to the Senate and likely be delayed further. Ergo, justice is not served for the people who are the original intent of this bill.
If somebody wants to amend the bill or put something forward outside the scope of the bill, the appropriate way to do that is for someone to table their own private member's bill or to lobby the government to put forward a bill because the government has the ability to put forward government legislation.
If this committee does decide to open up the bill, I have at least five or six amendments to the Citizenship Act that I am very excited to spend a lot of time discussing. I can't wait. I know there are a lot of people in my community.... I just had a long conversation with a colleague who works in settlement services who is very disappointed about the structure of the budget and settlement services, particularly in western Canada.
Giddy-up, I guess—or we could proceed in scope and get this bill passed to bring justice to the people who are in there who need a solution. We can make amendments that are in scope to address some of the concerns that were raised. Again, for things that are outside of scope, proper parliamentary procedure dictates that they're put forward in another separate piece of legislation.
Thank you.