Debates of May 28th, 2014

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, people cannot get a Canadian passport until they get their Canadian citizenship, so if they are waiting for three years to get their citizenship and their country of birth passport has expired and they have an emergency and have to leave Canada, that means they are obligated to get the passport renewed by their country of birth. That is costing people time, money, and resources, because the government has not been able to reduce the processing period for citizenship. Those are the types of real issues people are having to deal with because the government has been negligent in terms of processing times for citizenship.

Another example is the provincial election in Ontario. Whether it is the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, or British Columbia, there have been tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of individuals who have not been able to vote in provincial elections, because the government has allowed the citizenship processing time to hit that two to three year mark. If the government had done its job and kept that processing time to 12 months or less, we would have had more Canadians participating in our democracy. There are hundreds of thousands of people who call Canada home and qualify for citizenship, and the government's priority has not been to try to get into the hands of those individuals their citizenship.

Even by the minister of immigration's own admission, this bill is designed to reduce the processing times. We did not need legislation to reduce the processing times. It might help, but we did not require the legislation to do it. What we require is that the minister and the government have the political will to reduce processing times for citizenship. Although the current minister of immigration would argue that we have a huge demand of 333,000, some of the lowest demands on the citizenship branch in the last 15 years were while the former minister of immigration, his colleague, was responsible for the department and the processing time was making its greatest jumps. Therefore, the argument the minister of immigration was using this evening is bogus. That is the reality.

The reason we have the legislation in the first place, the government and the minister of immigration will tell us, is that it is all about reducing processing times, at least in good part. I would argue that the minister has not. That is why I suggested at the beginning of my comments that what the government is good at doing is talking about fixing problems, when what it does not tell people is that the problems it needs to fix are the problems it has created. The biggest problem for the government is that it creates problems in immigration, whether it is the processing times for citizenship or issues relating to the temporary foreign worker program.

The Liberal Party did create the temporary foreign worker program, but the problem was created from that government. We did not have a problem. We did not have the calls that we have today.

When the Liberal Party was in government, the average was about—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I want to remind members that there will be a question and comment period in just about five and a half minutes. If they could just hold off all their comments until then, I know the Chair would appreciate it. I am sure the member for Winnipeg North would appreciate it as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I appreciate your intervention, Mr. Speaker. The point is that the government is constant in spreading misinformation. It created the problem within the temporary foreign worker program. That is why the Conservatives have had to make the changes today. They created the problems with the backlog in immigration. That is why they have to do things such as hit the delete button on the skilled worker program, which wiped out the applications of 300,000 skilled workers. The former minister of immigration created half of those in three months when he issued his ministerial instructions on the skilled worker program.

It is the government that has created the problems within immigration and there is no difference in this legislation. Why do I say this? Because I believe there are important issues that need to be dealt with in regard to immigration and the government has been unable to address many of those issues.

Let me give a good example of one that comes up every week at my constituency office. It is the issue of visiting visas. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of visiting visas that I believe ultimately should have, and could have, been approved if the government had done its work and improved the system.

I have a very difficult time when, for example, people are in a hospital on their deathbeds and they cannot get a sibling into Canada to visit them. These types of cases happen far too often. It is about priorities and the government has not been doing a job in addressing these priorities.

When I look at Bill C-24, it deals with the issue of citizenship, but it also deals with other issues that will have a fairly profound impact. We are establishing a two-tier citizenship. If the government were to take that aspect of the legislation out of Bill C-24 and have a free vote on the issue, I would suggest that it would not pass. I know there are a number of Conservative members of Parliament who are uncomfortable with the bill. We saw a sampling of that when a minister stood in his place and challenged the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in regard to that very issue.

There are issues within citizenship such as the cash grab. When the government introduced the fact that it would bring in this legislation, it dropped the legislation and dropped the increase at the same time to the public. The Conservatives are going to increase the application fees. When we say 300,000 a year and get an extra $200-plus from each individual, we are talking about a significant cash grab.

When we say we have to get English language testing done, or IELS tests, who pays for that? What was the problem? Was there a huge outcry saying that we had to force people to get the IELS exams done? There will be a substantial cost for that.

The Conservatives are making it more difficult for individuals to acquire their citizenship. I do not understand it, and I have not heard the argument for that from the them. They seem to stand in their place and say that this bill is all about patriotism, about Canada and how wonderful it is to be a Canadian, and how proud we should be. That is their only justification for all of their increases and changes.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the member relating how many immigrants the Liberals had on their list and how many we had on our list. I have been in the House for 10 years. I was here when the Liberals were in power, and I was here well before the hon. member. When we took over in 2006, the Liberals had 800,000 people on their list. The prediction was it would take six years to get through that list.

At the moment, our list is 350,000, and if the bill is passed, we will get it done in two years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has an issue because he is listening to the Conservative spin.

I may not have been in the House of Commons for as long as the member, but I have been an elected official for over 20 years and I have been dealing with immigration and citizenship throughout that period.

Even as an MLA, I dealt with it. Manitoba excels in the provincial nominee program more than any other province per capita. I understand the way immigration works The absolutely worst increase to the backlog was when the former minister of immigration brought in the special ministerial instruction for skilled workers. Then the worst action ever taken against immigration is when that same minister hit the delete button on skilled worker program, deleting 300,000.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this whole mess of backlogs was created by the Liberals first, then compounded by the Conservatives.

Let me tell the House how the Conservatives want to solve this. If an individual is on a waiting list to have surgery, the Conservatives say they want to reduce the waiting list, but we do not want anybody else getting on the waiting list. That is how they want to reduce the backlog.

I heard from many citizens, from England, Romania, Germany. Their concern is that if they are convicted in our country, they be deported back to where they migrated from.

Could the hon. member answer that question for me very clearly? Unfortunately the government is not answering the question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, based on the legislation, if it passes as it is, in certain circumstances, those who are dual citizens will in fact be deported, because they will be stripped of their citizenship.

Let me get to the member's first comment, because he saw fit, as other New Democrats do, to take shots at the Liberals. I can tell the member that the worst increases in backlogs in the provincial nominee program, which is an immigration program in the province of Manitoba, occurred under the NDP administration. Even though the New Democrats have never been in office in Ottawa, they should at least attempt to try to give the impression that they would do better.

I can assure the member that when the Liberals were in government, the only area in which there was a lengthy backlog was in fact being improved upon, and that was through the parents. That is because we believe, as Liberals, that it is important to have a family class. We were very critical when the government of the day, the Conservatives, froze that program.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned the fact that he was having trouble getting visas, or some visas were not being accepted for family members who were sick or ill and wanted to have siblings come and visit them.

Our office in Montreal is aware of a lot of young immigrant families having children. In some cases both parents are working, or there is already more than one child, or the other spouse is probably working two or three jobs just to keep the family afloat. Therefore, there are a lot of requests to have the parents come over. Nine out of ten of these requests are refused.

I am not sure if the hon. member sees the same thing happening in his neck of the woods.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It gets right down to the issue at hand. There are some very important immigration issues we should be dealing with and the government has failed in dealing with them in a fashion.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Name one.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member asks me to “name one”. There is the very issue that my colleague just mentioned. We have family members who are living abroad and want to come to Canada to visit, to support families, to provide care for their grandchildren, or to be in Canada while a sibling is dying, or to participate in a marriage of a child. There are numerous reasons.

It is amazing. We are not talking about hundreds. We are talking about thousands who are being denied that opportunity. In some cases what this is saying is that a brother will never be able to see his brother who is dying in the hospital. That is just wrong. These are the types of changes we need to push for, reforms of our visitors visas.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech very carefully and I am quite confused. He is jumping all over the place. The issue of visitors visa are dealt with by the visa officers at the embassies. The rules are clear. They have a lot of discretionary power. It was no different when the Liberal government was in office. I do not think the rules have changed that much.

There was mention of the backlog. When I came to the country, over 28 years ago, the waiting period for applicants was six months. That was during a Conservative government. When the Liberals left office, over 800,000 people were waiting in line and the waiting time was anywhere from two to three years.

Is there a relation between the number of applications that you accept and the number of people who you admit to the country?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would just remind colleagues to address their comments through the Chair, not directly at their colleagues in the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member throws numbers all over the place and at the end of the day my problem with government members on the whole backlog is that they are listening to the wrong person. They want to listen to the Minister of Immigration, believing that he is being straightforward and honest with them on it. The worst backlogs that were created were under the former minister of immigration. There were no higher backlogs. He created the highest in the history of our country. That is the reality. They might not like the reality, but that is it.

In regard to the visitors visas, I would strongly encourage us not to be content. The need for change is absolutely critical. I believe, as my colleague has pointed out, there are far too many that are being denied. We need to start doing more to ensure we have more families able to visit their family in Canada.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, under this legislation, could someone born in Canada have their citizenship taken away from them?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that if people are born in Canada and have dual citizenship, their citizenship could potentially be taken away. I could not say that as an absolute fact. All I know is, if someone is a dual citizen what has been implied is that the government could, under a certain situation, be able to take that citizenship away. What is a fact is a two-tier citizenship is being created.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North put forth some hypotheticals. One thing that has concerned a number of human rights organizations is whether this law would offend the Convention on the Rights of the Child? If a minor child whose parents lose citizenship and they have citizenship in another country, that child could be considered a potential dual citizen as well, even though born in Canada. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that child must be given the opportunity to become a Canadian citizen if that is his or her choice.

I believe the bill could offend the convention. Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North have a view on this?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day this whole issue will ultimately end up in court. This is one of the issues that has been raised. I suspect it is only a question of time. What I have seen is that the government has brought in legislation that is not family-friendly. All we need to do is take a look at the fast removal of foreign criminals where the government would actually deport a father and leave a wife with two children in Canada. If I had more time, I would be able to expand, or if the government—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time this evening with the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's, and I will be directing my comments to the residency requirements portion in Bill C-24.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to add my voice in support of Bill C-24. It is a long-overdue piece of legislation that would restore value to our Canadian citizenship after decades of neglect and abuse. The Liberals had 13 years to fix the Citizenship Act and did not do anything to crack down on citizens of convenience. This important piece of legislation would also deliver on the government's promise in the most recent Speech from the Throne to strengthen and protect the value of Canadian citizenship.

Canadians recognize the important role immigration has played in building our country throughout its history. Canadians welcome newcomers who wish to become citizens and contribute to the political, social, and economic life of this country. However, Canadians have little patience or tolerance for people who do not play by the rules.

We have all heard the stories about individuals who lie or cheat to become citizens of this great country. These people concoct schemes and pretend to be living in Canada but have no real intention of ever moving and planting roots here. Instead, they only wish to abuse the privileges of our citizenship, using their Canadian passports or citizenship whenever it is most convenient for them. This is something that must end. We must protect the value of our citizenship and take action against those who seek to cheapen it, to protect the system for those who use it properly and who play by the rules.

That is why we have introduced Bill C-24: legislative changes to the Citizenship Act that would strengthen the program and the value of citizenship by helping to ensure citizens have a real connection and commitment to Canada.

One big problem is the residence requirement for Canadian citizenship. Currently, adult applicants must reside in Canada for three out of the previous four years. However, residence is not defined in the act. As a result, it is possible under the current act for someone who has spent little time in Canada to become a citizen. Under proposed changes, the rules around citizenship residence requirements would be strengthened so that adults applying for citizenship would have to be physically present in Canada for a longer period: four years in the six years prior to applying for citizenship. In addition, applicants would also be required to be physically present in Canada for at least 183 days for four out of those six years. Not only is this common sense, but it also is important because physical presence in Canada assists with newcomer integration.

Let me read what Canadians have been saying about strengthening the residency requirement.

Immigration lawyer Raj Sharma said we do know that citizenship fraud has been rampant, especially out of certain places in Canada such as Montreal. He thinks that unilateral revocation for the purpose where there is fraud or identity fraud or other fraud is not necessarily a bad thing. We need to recognize that Canadian citizenship is a sought-after benefit or a commodity and certain unscrupulous individuals will lie or deceive to exaggerate their time in Canada.

Then there is also Simon Kent, a Toronto Sun columnist. He said he thinks a lot of people would say it is a reasonable expectation if they want to live in Canada. If they want to enjoy living in a free and prosperous country like Canada, they should spend time there and they should live and contribute according to civil society. While that sounds like something out of politics 101, basically saying living here, enjoying the fruits of one's labour, paying taxes, showing that one is committed, and extending the period of permanent residency here from three to four years or maybe even five years before one can take up citizenship is a very fair and reasonable proposition.

Nick Noorani, the managing partner of Prepare for Canada, said:

I congratulate the government on its changes Citizenship Act that combat residency fraud and ensure new Canadians have a stronger connection to Canada. With the changes announced today, processing times will be improved and new Canadians will be ready to fully participate in Canadian life.

Martin Collacott, with the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform and a former Canadian ambassador in Asia and the Middle East, comments:

The government's new citizenship legislation addresses a host of long overdue issues relating to the acquisition of citizenship. Its provisions, such as strengthening residency requirements for applicants, will increase the value and meaning of Canadian citizenship and will be warmly welcomed by both Canadians and newcomers serious about becoming full members of the Canadian family.

Then there is Gillian Smith, executive director and chief executive officer of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, who said:

Our organization works extensively with Canada's newest citizens who tell us that measures taken to foster their attachment and connection to Canada have a positive effect on their successful integration. New citizens' sense of belonging comes in large measure from experiencing Canada first-hand¾its people, nature, culture and heritage.

Shimon Fogel, from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, commented:

We also support the introduction of measures to ensure that those who apply for Canadian citizenship actually intend to maintain a meaningful connection to Canada after taking the oath. The “intent to reside” provisions are an important element in this regard and could have a significant impact on reducing the problem of citizens of convenience.

Paul Attia, of Immigrants for Canada, says the following:

I am in favour, and the organization is in favour, of the longer requirement. You want to be able to have the person experience life in Canada and establish life here before he commits to citizenship. Citizenship is meant to say that you are a Canadian now.

It is clear that a longer residence period may allow newcomers to develop a stronger connection to Canada, while at the same time helping to deter citizens of convenience.

It would also ensure that the residence requirement is applied consistently. Creating a clear physical presence requirement would strengthen the legislative tools to deal with residence fraud.

Meanwhile, a six-year window to accumulate physical presence would provide more flexibility to accommodate applicants whose work or personal circumstances require regular travel outside Canada.

Crown servants who are permanent residents, as well as their spouses and children outside Canada, would be permitted to use time spent abroad in service to Canada for the purposes of meeting the residence requirement.

That said, under the proposed new requirements, all applicants would be able to accumulate absences of two years within the qualifying period. This should accommodate newcomers who have to travel outside of Canada for their work.

Another residence change concerns time applicants spend in Canada before becoming a permanent resident. Currently, a day that citizenship applicants spent in Canada before becoming permanent residents counts as a half-day of residence toward their citizenship application, up to a maximum of two years in Canada as non-permanent residents. Under the proposed changes, to further strengthen the residence requirement and create a level playing field for all citizenship applicants, applicants would no longer be able to use time spent in Canada as non-permanent residents to meet the citizenship residence requirement.

While it may take people who came to Canada as temporary foreign workers or foreign students a little longer to meet the residence requirement under the new rules, this change is designed to deepen their attachment to Canada.

In addition, to be eligible for a citizenship grant, an adult applicant would have to file a Canadian income tax return for four years out of the six years before they apply, if required to do so under the Income Tax Act.

Canadians are pleased with this requirement. Hard-working, tax-paying Canadians expect this from all permanent residents and Canadians. The message is clear: if they have a serious connection and attachment to Canada, they should show it. It is not hard to provide proof that they have filed their taxes. We all do it at least once a year.

Immigration lawyers like Richard Kurland have praised this new requirement, saying that until today many people have been able to get away with being resident for immigration citizenship purposes but not for tax purposes. That meant that they had the benefit of Canadian citizenship without the burden of filing Canadian income tax returns like everyone else.

Salma Siddiqui from the Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations has also applauded our government and said:

The requirement for citizenship applicants to file Canadian income tax is a step in the right direction, but does not go far enough. I believe that even after the grant of citizenship, Canadians living abroad should be asked to demonstrate that they have contributed taxes to avail themselves of public services subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer.

Payment of taxes is an important obligation of permanent residents and citizens. This new citizenship requirement would help to further strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech.

There seem to be two sorts of principles he mentioned in his speech. Some of them are objective, number-based even, and some people will agree with them while others will not. However, they are easy enough for the majority of Canadian citizens to understand. On the other hand, some of the elements are very subjective and difficult to assess.

Can he tell me how to actually assess a person's intention to reside in Canada? How does the government intend to objectively measure someone's intention?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue, and I think my further comments will help to clarify that.

It is important to note that the new rules would not restrict the mobility rights of new citizens. They would be able to leave and return to the country just like other citizens. Rather, the purpose of the provision is to reinforce an expectation that citizenship is for those who intend to continue to reside in Canada. Once newcomers become citizens, they enjoy all the rights of citizenship common to all Canadians.

Let me be clear. New citizens have the same mobility rights as all Canadians. They can come and go as they please, but we must ensure that new citizens make a real connection to Canada, and that starts by actually living here.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his interesting talk about the Citizenship Act and the changes.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he believes that these changes would affect Canadians who have perhaps tried to take advantage of the generosity of the system as it stands, whether the changes would benefit very many people in his riding, if he has heard stories from his constituents about their experiences, and if any of these changes, had they been implemented earlier, would have helped any of his constituents.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding there are many immigrants. It is actually a hub in southeastern Manitoba, with Russian-German immigrants and Filipinos. The feedback I am getting from the people in my office has indicated very clearly that the new requirements we would put in place would actually help to clarify what is required to become a citizen. They feel that it would not be onerous at all to increase the residency from three years to four years and that actually living in and being present in Canada for 183 days of the year seems to make a lot of sense. They say it would be very useful in clarifying what is required.