Debates of June 12th, 2014

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, anything our government does always has all of our citizens in mind, particularly our children, our most vulnerable citizens in our country.

I am keenly aware of the convention that she has spoken about and the different articles. In this bill, we are actually looking after the best interests of the children. I do not think there is a Canadian who would deny that throwing terrorists out of the country is in the best interest of our children and communities. I do not think there is a Canadian who believes that there is a child 14 to 17 years old who has spent four years in the Canadian education system who cannot speak in one of our two official languages, English or French.

I am keenly aware of the convention and I can tell the hon. member wholeheartedly that the best interests of children are always taken into consideration by our government, as I am sure they are taken into consideration by every member in the House.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the former minister of citizenship and immigration ensured was that there were multiple welcome centres set up for newcomers to Canada to have the opportunity to get instruction in a variety of issues that would help them integrate into the community.

I am very privileged to have a welcome centre in Newmarket—Aurora, which I visit on a regular basis and interact with many newcomers to Canada.

One of the things they appreciate so much at that centre is the value of learning English as a second language. I know we do the same thing in Quebec, where people learn the French language. However, the value is having a language so they can work in the community, can learn to do their banking, and enrol their children in school.

Could the member speak a little about how that integration helps to build into the fabric of our country?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her hard work and dedication, and the attention she gives to the citizenship and immigration file. I know how important it is to her. The member is also from a very diverse greater Toronto area riding.

I also want to pay tribute to the former minister of citizenship and immigration, current Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, for his leadership on the matters of citizenship and immigration for a great many years now.

In my riding of Richmond Hill, I also have a welcome centre. It is a wonderful facility. It is a great place for new Canadians to go and learn some of the skills they need to better integrate into Canadian society.

The answer to my hon. colleague is that I believe the services provided there are outstanding. I have visited the welcome centre on a number of occasions, as have both ministers, current and former. New Canadians of all ages are getting the skills they need to better integrate into Canadian society, which will ultimately lead to better outcomes for them as they contribute to Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary has told us tonight that we can trust that Bill C-24 is compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it would not be before the House if it had not gone through justice department lawyers, and the fact that it is before us means it is charter compliant.

Could he explain how so many bills passed in the last little while have gone before the courts and been struck down? Is it only a recent practice that the Conservatives are letting justice department lawyers look at the legislation? Will the government please table before us any justice department opinion that is prepared to disagree with a large number of lawyers who have looked at this bill, me included, and looked at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and are finding the bill, on its face, non-compliant?

The fact that it is before us and the tautology that because it came through the Department of Justice it must be okay is absolutely proven false by the fact that so many bills are being struck down, bills that were passed in this place in a hurry, like Bill C-24.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although the premise of the member's question is way off, her mathematics are off as well. She said “so many bills”.

I wonder if the member could look back to when we formed government in 2006, look at the large number of pieces of legislation that have gone through the House, and then look at the very few, not many, that have had an issue. We are happy to respect what the courts say.

The member is making it sound as if this is an overwhelmingly huge problem. I have every confidence in the Minister of Justice and in the legal professionals who have advised us on this bill prior to bringing it to the House. I am confident that it is charter compliant. I am sure we will see that in fairly short order.

I urge her and everybody else in the House to pass this legislation swiftly. It is good for Canada and it is good for Canadians. Over 83% of Canadians are supportive of the important measures in this legislation.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24. Before I go on, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

As we know, this bill was studied in committee. Unfortunately, even though we proposed good amendments to address the major problems in the bill, the government decided to reject those amendments.

We are concerned about the constitutionality of this bill, and that is a big deal. Immigration is a significant part of our government system, and when the government brings in a bill, the least it can do is ensure that it is constitutional and will not be struck down. Nonetheless, there are some good measures in this bill and we encourage those. Unfortunately, there are also some very worrisome measures as well.

First, during the speech by my colleague from Winnipeg North, I talked about the fact that part of Bill C-425, a private member's bill, was added to this bill. The part that was added has to do with shortening the time requirement for becoming a Canadian citizen for members of the armed forces who are permanent residents.

That is a good measure and we support it. When someone provides a service to society, like a member of the Canadian Armed Forces does, then we can only encourage that. Unfortunately, this good measure probably applies to fewer than three people a year. To become a member of the Canadian Armed Forces you have to be a Canadian citizen unless you have permission from the Chief of the Defence Staff. That only happens when there is truly a shortage in a trade and someone has a specific skill. Then that person can be recruited. It happens very rarely.

When I was preparing my private member's bill, I was told it would affect only 5% of all volunteer firefighters, that that was not enough and that it did not apply to enough people. In this case, the government is bringing in a legislative measure that will apply to three people. I am glad that the government is supporting the Canadian Armed Forces, but it is still troubling to see that the government is implementing good measures that will apply to almost no one.

Now that I have talked about a good measure that applies to few people, I would like to talk about other specific aspects of the bill. What worries me the most is the possibility that the minister can revoke a person's Canadian citizenship in a rather arbitrary manner. There is no court or process, and he decides whether to revoke someone's citizenship. It could be someone who has dual citizenship, because of family ties, for example, and who has actually never set foot in the country where they hold the second citizenship.

It seems to me that this makes no sense and also does not comply with practices. When some other countries apply a similar measure, it is done in accordance with a very comprehensive process. That looks much more like a process where there are detailed explanations of the reasons why it can be done.

There is another measure that I find particularly troubling and that is the fact that people will now have to declare their intent to reside in Canada. If they make this declaration, they will obtain their citizenship, but it could be revoked.

Citizenship could be revoked if the person does not comply with the requirement of remaining in Canada. However, there are special cases. I was thinking of students, for example. Take a young person who obtains his citizenship and who intends to remain in Canada. Then, by a stroke of luck, he is accepted at Harvard or Oxford, which are renowned universities.

It would be very tempting for someone who has an opportunity to go to one of these universities, especially if they were offered a scholarship. His intent to reside is still valid, but he has an opportunity. His intention is not to leave Canada permanently; he simply wants to take advantage of the opportunity he is being given at a certain point in his life. This could give rise to a real sense of insecurity that is truly untenable for people who would have to decide between an extraordinary opportunity and perhaps losing their citizenship.

There is also the example of professional athletes, people who are here in Canada and have dual citizenship. They may have obtained their citizenship when they were young and then become high-performance athletes. If they go abroad to train and are successful at their sport, they could ultimately lose their citizenship because they did not comply with the requirement to reside in Canada, even though they said that they wanted to. In that case, they might be presented with an opportunity that they might not be able to take.

I am also very concerned about another aspect of this bill and that is the fact that it prohibits people who are convicted abroad for crimes punishable in Canada from acquiring citizenship.

We understand that a person who is accused of homosexuality in a foreign country, for example, would not be affected because that is not a crime in Canada. However, many countries have fairly corrupt justice systems. The actual guilt of a person who was accused in a foreign country may be in question. We have to be careful.

This bill does not take into account the fact that the justice systems of many countries are often lacking. The system of evidence is lacking. We may therefore be dealing with people who have been falsely accused or who may have been persecuted at some point. That is likely why they chose to leave the country that this government would be trying to send them back to.

There are some very worrisome measures in this bill. The government is talking about changing the age for language testing. The fact that the Conservatives are increasing the upper age limit to 64 is fairly reasonable, but the fact that they are lowering the age for children and adolescents is particularly worrisome.

Our immigration system currently has an unbelievable backlog. Some people wait months or even years. They come to see me in a complete panic. They say that nothing is happening with their file. They are wondering what is going on and they ask me to call to find out.

It is completely ridiculous how many people are waiting for their immigration file to be processed. The government's priority should be dealing with these excessive wait times, which make the immigration process more complex. I have seen some unbelievable cases.

The immigration file of one of my constituents was frozen because he did not have a criminal background check for his two-month-old baby.

I believe that there is cause for concern when the immigration system requires paperwork that does not make sense. The government should address many of these problems, decrease wait times and try not to make an already flawed system even more problematic.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)]

Mr. Speaker, the member has missed the point of the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, which has been on debate tonight.

What she has said is, in fact, not true. It would only be revoked from dual citizens if the person served as a member of an armed force or organized armed group engaged in an armed conflict with Canada; was convicted of treason, high treason, or spying offences and sentenced to imprisonment for life; or was convicted of a terrorism offence or an equivalent foreign terrorism conviction and sentenced to five years' or more imprisonment. The member is misleading Canadians by suggesting that it is anything less than someone who has indeed compromised our safety in Canada.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that this bill contains some very worrisome measures, including the discretionary power being granted to the minister. This measure is very worrisome and the minister cannot deny that. That is what worries me.

This is why this bill should have been drafted differently and the government should have accepted the NDP's amendments to at least ensure that this bill is constitutional.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives chose to stick their heads in the sand, and that is why I am so disappointed in this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, during the 1970s and the 1980s, millions of people actually received their Canadian citizenship and today they are in fact very proud Canadians. Yesterday, the member was here when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated in the House that the 1977 Citizenship Act actually “cheapened Canadian citizenship”. What he was referring to was the residency requirement in part, which the government now is increasing from three of four years to four of six years.

My question for the member is this. Does she believe that increasing the residency requirement would give more value to the citizenship, or was Mr. Trudeau's change in policy back in 1977 the right direction for us to have been going, as we believe is the case today?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, increasing the residency requirement in no way changes the value of Canadian citizenship.

I believe that people are capable of proving that they belong and that they have a desire to become Canadian citizens after a reasonable period of time. If we have not been able to establish that a person would contribute greatly to Canadian society by becoming a Canadian citizen in four years, I do not know how increasing the residency requirement would change anything.

What is important is that we process these applications within a reasonable amount of time to allow people to build their lives. It is unreal to see how complicated it can be to get Canadian citizenship and to build a life. Many people who earned university degrees in Canada are turned down for jobs because the employer is very concerned that something could happen and the individual would not be able to stay in the country.

It is essential for people to be able to build their lives and become full citizens by exercising their right to vote, among others, and actively participating in their communities. For example, someone could become a municipal councillor in their town to truly get involved.

For this to happen, we need to process applications within a reasonable amount of time and exercise due diligence. If we had an adequate organizational capacity, I am certain that we would be able to assess an individual's case in four years. That seems reasonable to me.

The current residency requirement is reasonable, so I do not see why the government wants so badly to increase it. The system already has massive delays.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to take advantage of this opportunity, because the holidays are coming.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues for their excellent speeches. The end of the session is fast approaching, and I would like to take a moment to recognize all of the work my colleagues have accomplished over the year.

I would also like to share my thoughts on the bill before us this evening, namely Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. When the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration introduced the bill last winter, he said he wanted to protect the value of Canadian citizenship for those who have citizenship and create a faster, more efficient process for those who are applying for it. I think that everyone here agrees with that basic principle. As legislators, we have a duty to protect the value of our citizenship, and we all recognize that there are measures that must be taken to make the citizenship process faster and more efficient.

While we agree with the objective, I must point out that we have different opinions as to how to reach that objective. I will begin by focusing on the aspects of the bill that must be implemented in order to strengthen the value of our citizenship, while also protecting Canadian citizens.

First, there must be stricter rules for fraudulent immigration consultants. Bill C-24 would give the government the authority to designate a regulatory body whose members would be authorized to act as consultants.

The bill also recognizes that people who sell immigration consultant services are capable of committing an offence. The goal here is to punish fraudsters, not law-abiding immigrants. That is why we are pushing the government to create strict laws to crack down on fraudulent immigration consultants. I also feel that access to citizenship could be expedited for those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces, since they make a commitment to represent our country and defend our values.

Another positive aspect of this bill relates to conferring citizenship on more lost Canadians. The NDP has taken an interest in this issue since at least 2007. In response to pressure from our party at the time, the government instituted measures in 2009 to confer citizenship on most lost Canadians. However, the changes did not apply to people born before 1947. Bill C-24 closes the loop.

I would also like to express my approval of the harsh penalty for fraud. Bill C-24 significantly increases the fines for fraud from $1,000 to $100,000, as well as the maximum prison terms, which will now be from 5 to 14 years depending on the circumstances. This measure will give those contemplating fraud reason to stop and think before committing a crime.

I also support the proposal to institute stricter residency requirements for those seeking citizenship. This measure specifies the number of days during which a person must have been physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship. This clarifies the process and, as immigration lawyer Richard Kurland pointed out, it will simplify things for permanent residents trying to plan their lives. Some parts of this bill will fix problems with the system.

However, other parts of Bill C-24 should be changed. There are many reasons for this. First is the fact that the bill hands too much power over to the minister, including the power to grant citizenship to or revoke it from dual nationals. This measure raises major legal concerns and makes new immigrants vulnerable to arbitrary, politically motivated decisions.

I want to make it clear that Canadian law already includes mechanisms to punish people who commit crimes. It should not be up to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and his department to make these decisions.

Another issue with the power to revoke citizenship for dual nationals is that it will result in two-tiered citizenship. Some Canadians could have their citizenship revoked, while others found guilty of the same offence would be punished under the Criminal Code. I believe that aspect of the bill could face a legal challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically under section 15.

Treating dual citizens differently and exposing them to potential loss of citizenship creates a double standard, which raises some serious constitutional questions. However, section 15 of the charter could not be more clear:

15. (1) Every individual...has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Is the government hoping to once again be scolded by the Supreme Court? How can it consider giving a single person that kind of authority without putting in place a system of checks and balances to avoid abuses? Moreover, why refuse to release the names of the people whose citizenship the minister has revoked or to whom he has secretly granted citizenship?

Until now, such cases were generally referred to the courts and cabinet. It should stay that way. Otherwise, the minister would have the power to revoke citizenship based on suspicion alone, without an independent court ruling on whether or not the accusations are true. On that point, why not follow the lead of the United States, where the government may file a civil suit to revoke an individual's naturalization if it was obtained illegally or if the individual concealed or falsified relevant facts in the naturalization application process? In that situation, the individual in question has the legal right to take the case to court. Every ruling can be appealed, and the individual is guaranteed due process.

That is what should happen in a democratic and egalitarian country like Canada. What is more, the minister can revoke the citizenship of someone who was convicted under section 47 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for treason, high treason or espionage or convicted of a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code—or an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence as defined in that section—and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment.

At first glance, this measure may seem fair, but what will happen when the person is sentenced in a country with a judicial system that is corrupt or beholden to political interests? For example, Canada cannot, on the one hand, denounce the elections of a country that it considers to have absolutely no democratic system, but, on the other hand, accept the foundations of its rule of law in order to justify revoking someone's citizenship.

The last point I find troubling is related to what I believe to be the most serious problem with our immigration system: the delays and wait times for processing files, which is completely ridiculous. Despite more than 25 major changes that were made to the methods, rules, laws and regulations concerning immigration since 2008, the Canadian immigration system is still no more efficient than it was and the wait times are getting longer.

Under Conservative rule, there has been a moratorium on sponsoring parents and grandparents, a decline in family reunifications, punishment of vulnerable refugees and an increase in the number of temporary foreign workers to meet the needs of big business. There are currently more than 320,000 people still waiting for their application to be processed, and the usual time it takes is approximately 31 months, compared to 15 months in 2009.

Bill C-24 does not present any real solution to reduce these ever-increasing delays. The bill simply proposes that the processing be simplified by eliminating some intermediaries in the steps towards acquiring citizenship. However, nothing proves that these administrative changes will be sufficient to significantly reduce the wait times.

In light of the concerns I just mentioned, I am opposed to Bill C-24 in its present form. I urge my colleagues to work together to give Canadians and future Canadians what they deserve: a system in which citizenship and immigration are more balanced.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier tonight, Canada is a state party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The primary responsibility to ensure that the rights articulated in the convention are implemented in Canada rests with government, both federal and provincial. In 2012, the UN committee on the rights of the child recommended that Canada:

“...ensure the principles of the best interests of the child is appropriately integrated and consistently applied in all legislative, administrative, and judicial proceedings.... one approach to ensure children's best interests are given priority consideration...is through the use of...Child Rights Impact Assessments.”

Could the hon. member tell us if the government undertook one, or should the government have undertaken such an assessment with respect to this legislation?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's arguments are absolutely justified, and we have been hearing them all evening.

I can give an example of something that happened in my riding. Parents were asked to leave and their children had to stay because they were born in Quebec. Families are being separated and it is extremely difficult. Sometimes, the child's rights are not taken into consideration. A parent is deported because their country has become safer than it was, but the child can stay. The father is Canadian, the mother was born elsewhere, and families end up separated.

The interests of the child are not always considered fairly.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for yet another excellent speech that is representative of the extraordinary work she does in her riding.

In her speech, she suggested that the Conservatives are trying to get the Supreme Court to put them in their place. During their speeches today, the Conservatives repeatedly claimed to be making science-based decisions and listening to the people, yet they accepted not one single amendment.

I get the impression that they are trying to make work for lawyers because they know that so many of their bills end up before the Supreme Court only to be torn to pieces.

None of this is based on science. It is all about partisanship and opportunism. That is why I do not think they are listening to anyone. I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

That the House do now adjourn.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a motion to adjourn the House was just moved. There was unanimous consent to move the motion. As we can see, the motion was not agreed to, so there has to be a vote because there was unanimous consent to move the motion in the House. That changes things. There were two motions. The first motion was for unanimous consent. Some Conservative members said no to the second motion, but the motion was moved in the House, so we have to vote.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would ask for the advice of the Chair. My understanding is that a request to adjourn was made in the hope of receiving unanimous consent. Then you canvassed the House to see if there was unanimous consent and there was never any canvassing of the House to ask the question. If the answer to the initial request had been yes then you would have had to put the question to the House. I understand that you did not put the question to the House, so that is something that still would need to be done. Based on that, I would suggest to you that we have not actually adjourned as of right now.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I said no and I heard the member for Richmond Hill also say no.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I denied consent as well, quite audibly, and I heard several other members do the same.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, you actually put the question twice. The minister and the member for Newmarket—Aurora are quite right to say that the second motion to actually adjourn the House was denied consent, but the first motion was accepted, which means the question has been put. It overrides Motion No. 10 that was adopted two weeks ago. The motion has been put.

Mr. Speaker, you asked if there was unanimous consent to adopt the motion, which would have adjourned the House. I agree with the member for Newmarket—Aurora that a number of Conservative members of Parliament at that point denied consent to adjourn the House, but the question was put unanimously. No one denied consent to put the question, which means the House now has to be called to vote on that question.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are multiple people on this side of the House who have been sitting here for a considerable length of time listening to the debate, being part of the questions and comments, and speaking as well. We were certainly here when there was a call for unanimous consent. There was no canvass of the House by the Speaker in terms of the request for unanimous consent, so whatever the House leader of the official opposition is suggesting in terms of unanimous consent being granted just simply did not happen in this place. The only way around this, in my opinion, is to have a canvass emanating from the Speaker. As far as I am concerned, it is a very clear ruling that you would have to make.

It only makes sense that there cannot be this many people who would find anything to this. It is astounding to me that the House leader for the opposition would find this to be a realistic situation with all of us present here.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.