Mr. Speaker, I will address the comments made by the members of the opposition in the last few minutes. Nowhere in this debate in which the members of the official opposition have participated have they mentioned anything about the Citizenship Act. The reason behind this debate is to make suggestions to the minister responsible regarding the bill before us now. Nowhere have I heard any creative or constructive suggestions regarding this bill. I remind the Canadian public that those members are talking about immigration and not about citizenship. My own remarks will touch directly on the subject.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to participate in the debate on Bill C-63 introduced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This is a bill I support fully, for a number of reasons.
Canadian society and its values have changed since the citizenship law of 1977. Canadians have changed. They now have friends and neighbours of various origins. More than ever they do business all over the planet. They adopt children from overseas and they travel more often than ever before.
With all these social changes, the distinction between citizens and immigrants has now often become synonymous with the distinction between existing citizens and potential citizens.
The wording of the new legislation on citizenship reflects what each of us feels increasingly in our identity as Canadians. By touching on political identity, this legislation reflects Canadians.
This legislation is the people of Canada. It is itself a citizenship act, because it does more than simply create legal Canadian citizenship, that is official citizenship for legal purposes. It also draws on Canadian citizenship, everyday citizenship as reflected in the love we feel for our country, the specific way we are Canadians.
I would like to emphasize two important aspects of Bill C-63. First, it corresponds to our modern way of understanding citizenship. Second, it recognizes the increased importance we give to the sentiment of belonging.
Traditionally, the Canadian concept of citizenship was better defined as the law of the soil rather than the law of the blood. Since the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, a child born of Mexican parents, for example, automatically became a Canadian citizen at birth if he was born on Canadian soil.
Even then, Canada was innovative. Our country was beginning to distance itself from narrow nationalism based on the law of the blood, which had twice brought disaster to Europe.
Our citizenship supports our values, which lead to the law of the soil, and in turn, based on acceptance and collective construction, support citizenship. Our citizenship is thus a constitutional identity rather than an organic, a tribal or even a mystic one.
This logic brings us to consider adopted children who, when this bill becomes law, will no longer be differentiated from natural born children. This is one of the important changes proposed by Bill C-63. Our government recognizes the importance of adoption for the family. And in fact for family members this will probably be one of the most critical events in their life.
An immigrant who becomes a citizen enjoys the same rights as any other Canadian, but in return, he or she has an obligation to respect the values and standards that make these rights possible. These exclusive rights we must not forget are actually acquired privileges and such privileges do not come free of charge to anyone.
Bill C-63 introduces a modified oath that places greater emphasis on the defence of Canadian civic and democratic values, rather than merely seeking to create a formal attachment to an abstract Canada.
Canada represents a particular set of values, experiences and feelings for each of us. The suggested oath briefly summarizes the rights and responsibilities inherent in our citizenship and identity as Canadians.
Canada is proud of its democratic principles and these principles apply to all residents. Non-Canadian landed immigrants have the same rights as Canadians, with one exception: they may not take part in the political aspects of democracy in this country.
Other than that, a landed immigrant may enjoy all aspects of life in Canada and the accompanying economic and social rights.
Later on if immigrants decide to really get involved in building our country, they will have to show that they are willing to do this in full knowledge of the requirements and responsibilities expected of citizens. They will have to ask explicitly for the privilege of citizenship and show that they understand all the implications of this new status.
I would now like to look at the second aspect of the citizenship bill, the key role a feeling of belonging plays in national unity.
We are all aware that the rules of trade have changed a great deal. Economic borders have become more permeable. International organizations and agreements such as NAFTA, APEC and WTO have codified laws and informal agreements that manage, encourage and facilitate transnational trade. Because trade is increasingly carried out across borders, business men and women travel much more often than they have ever done.
The government therefore understands the constraints faced by businessmen and women and recognizes the economic contribution they make.
Under the present legislation, three years of residence in Canada are required during the four years preceding an application for citizenship. However, in response to this new economic reality, Bill C-63 will allow a landed immigrant to reside in Canada for three years during a five-year period in order to qualify for citizenship.
We must not lose sight of the fact that citizenship is the cornerstone of political participation, a participation which is not fully possible for someone who has not had the opportunity to assimilate the country's values.
Thanks to Bill C-63, however, we will now require physical presence by the immigrant, and “cut-rate” citizenship will no longer be available.
I would now like to address the most important topic, the loss or the denial of citizenship for reasons of serious crimes.
Our government through Bill C-63 has shown that Canadians are not naive. Because citizenship is such an important notion, utmost vigilance is required. Immigrants who have come to Canada by the use of fraud and who come here to take advantage of the Canadian way of life through a false declaration will find the door closed to them.
Moreover, persons guilty of serious crimes or deemed to be a threat to national security will continue to be unwelcome. Bill C-63 enables us to tighten up this important means of rejection still further in order to protect Canadians properly.
In the same vein, the mechanisms for cancelling citizenship provided in Bill C-63 make it possible to do away with potential fraud or error by revoking the citizenship of persons who ought not to have been granted it.
This does not in any way mean that we will treat old and new citizens differently by threatening new citizens with a punishment inapplicable to old ones, namely loss of their citizenship. All citizens are equal; this is an inviolable principle.
No, this is an acknowledgment that, since the conditions necessary for recognition of citizenship have not been met by certain persons, it will be as if citizenship had never been granted to them.
Canada wants good honest citizens who are able to integrate. Someone who has committed fraud in this connection has, quite obviously, never met the prerequisites of the law. What is more, the serious crimes he has committed may rightly be interpreted as constituting a danger for all Canadians.
In addition, in certain cases citizenship will no longer be as readily passed from generation to generation as in the past.
In a family who has lived abroad for two generations, the third generation could now lose their citizenship at age 28. Let us use as an example a Canadian couple who today seeks a residence in another country. Their children will remain Canadian citizens throughout their entire lives. However, their grandchildren will have to come back and live in Canada for at least four years in the five years preceding their request to remain Canadian citizens and this before their 28th birthday.
In conclusion, I would like to add that Bill C-63 proposes legislation that is better suited to the Canada of today, while still retaining the historical, cultural and linguistic elements that have shaped the identity of our country, and continue to do so. They will even be enhanced and enriched by the contributions of new arrivals from all of the world's regions and all of the world's cultures.
Whether refugees or immigrants who have come to Canada to rejoin family members, to invest or to make new lives for themselves, these newcomers will understand, thanks to this new process of naturalization, that they are becoming members of a big family that owes them much but—and it is vital to keep this in mind—to whom they owe just as much.
