House of Commons Hansard #102 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was prostitution.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, the minister went on TV and claimed that Bill C-24 would respect Canada's charter because it is consistent with other NATO countries.
Can the minister please explain how NATO has anything to do with charter protections for Canadian citizens?
Chris Alexander ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite should know, NATO is the most successful military alliance in the history of the world. It is an alliance of democracies, all of whom take seriously the rule of law; and under the rule of law in Canada, terrorism, treason, and espionage are very serious crimes. That is why dual nationals should lose Canadian citizenship when they commit those crimes.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, the minister's antics may be entertaining for his friends, but he cannot drown out all of the critics of his bill. The Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Constitutional Rights Centre, and so many more are telling the minister that this bill does not work.
Why will he not acknowledge that removing Canadian citizenship for people born in Canada is clearly against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Chris Alexander ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member for Scarborough—Rouge River has been, but at an earlier stage of the discussion of these issues, my colleague, the member of Parliament for Calgary Northeast, did some public opinion research about how many Canadians support stripping dual nationals of citizenship for treason, terrorism, and espionage. It was 80-plus%, just under the number of Canadians who want the NDP to pay back the $1.17 million.
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians have dual citizenship. The minister is creating two classes of citizens with this bill. On one hand, there will be citizens who could have their citizenship arbitrarily revoked. On the other hand, there will be citizens for whom that is not the case.
Can the minister explain why Canadians such as I, who have dual citizenship, are going to be treated like second-class citizens?
Chris Alexander ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the NDP seems to agree that it is okay to revoke an individual's citizenship if it has been fraudulently obtained. They agree with that, but they do not agree that citizenship should be revoked for crimes as serious as treason, espionage, and terrorism. Every NATO country revokes citizenship for those crimes, except for maybe Portugal.
Why does the NDP not understand how common and necessary this is, and how inevitable it is that the House is going to pass this measure?
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, the minister has refused to answer this question repeatedly. He refused to answer it today in question period. He refused last night on the radio.
The question is very simple, and we want a simple answer. How many of the 200 government-sponsored refugees that Canada promised to help have actually made it to Canada? How many? That is the number we want to have. That is the number Canadians want to have.
Chris Alexander ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader proves, incontrovertibly, that he has no interest in relief for Syrian refugees and that he has no interest in our humanitarian effort over there.
Our question for him is this. How much of the $1.17 million have the members of the opposition paid back to Canadian taxpayers as of today? How much of the $1.17 million?
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's degrading comments yesterday asserted that immigrants who—
Citizenship and ImmigrationOral Questions
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
Order. The hon. member for Guelph has the floor, and I need to hear the question.
The hon. member for Guelph.
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's degrading comments yesterday asserted that immigrants who arrived in Canada after 1977 are less loyal and less faithful to Canadian values.
In essence, he is saying immigrants from India, China, the Philippines, Europe, and the rest of the world, Canada's nation-builders, are a lower class of Canadian citizens.
We know the Prime Minister agrees with his minister's despicable position, but how many other Conservatives secretly harbour the feeling that they are more Canadian than the new Canadians who arrived after 1977?
Chris Alexander ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, that is not at all what was said yesterday.
What I said yesterday was that Trudeau had cheapened Canadian citizenship by reducing the residency requirement, by opening the door to abuse, and by putting aside these fundamental issues of principle, of allegiance to Canada, of loyalty to Canada, and making absolutely no mention of them for the years after 1977.
We think it is important to punish those who commit terrorism, treason, or espionage against this country. We would also like to know how much of the $40 million that party has not yet paid back has—
Citizenship and ImmigrationOral Questions
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, the minister speaks far too recklessly about cheapened Canadian citizenship. He casts a slur across generations of newcomers since 1977, lumping them with traitors.
There is the cardiologist in Regina who came from Syria, the neurosurgeon from Nigeria, the university president from South Asia, the architect from the Philippines, and thousands more hard-working, tax-paying citizens. The minister must surely regret depicting these honest, loyal, decent Canadians as cheap. Are they not every bit as good as he is?
Chris Alexander ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, yes, they are. Absolutely, we are proud of every Canadian citizen.
What we are not proud of and what does not impress any Canadian is the fact that there are still thousands of cases of residency fraud being investigated by the RCMP, abuses of our citizenship program to which the Liberal Party of Canada turned an absolute blind eye. It did nothing over 13 years.
My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Social Development started the job, and we are finishing it with this bill.
Emmanuel Dubourg Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said that the 1977 act “actually cheapened Canadian citizenship.”
My family and I arrived in Canada, like many other people, under the program opération mon pays during that period.
Does the minister think that my family and I are traitors and citizens of convenience?
Chris Alexander ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the 1977 act cheapened citizenship for all of us as Canadian citizens.
We are proud of the stories of immigrants like the member opposite, the sacrifices they have made, the things they have done to make this a better country, and the contributions they have made.
What we were not impressed with in the years after 1977 is the abuse that went unaddressed and the reduction in the residency requirement to three years, which was too little. That is why we are taking measures in this bill to restore the integrity and value of Canadian citizenship, and that is why it is popular with Canadians.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, two months ago we heard shocking revelations about the extent of sexual assault in the military. The minister promised a review, but only dealing with policies and procedures. The internal review is now out, and it claims “There are no assessed gaps in policy”.
Every day five individuals in the Canadian military are victims of sexual assault. Could the minister explain how that can leave him satisfied with current policy?
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, any allegations of sexual harassment in the armed forces are truly disturbing. This is why the Chief of the Defence Staff is conducting an external review, not the internal review that the hon. member just referred to. I look forward to that review, because this kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps saying he takes this seriously, but he talks about sexual harassment, not sexual assault.
It has been two months since we have had these revelations, yet the military's internal review says no serious changes are needed. It hardly even mentions the subject of criminal sexual assault. What could be a better sign that an independent review is necessary?
Would the minister now agree that we need a truly independent inquiry, led by someone who is not hand-picked by the military brass and supported by independent counsel?
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, that member has no confidence in the military leadership of this country. He missed the point again. An external review is being conducted for this unspeakable and unacceptable kind of behaviour. He should get onside with us. We are the ones who stand up for victims of sexual assault in this country. That is our record, and I am proud of that.
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, even though an estimated one-third of women in the Canadian Armed Forces have been sexually harassed, an internal report concluded that a significant overhaul is not necessary because, it says, harassment rates are falling and the existing administrative policies are just fine. Seriously.
When the senior ranks of the Canadian Forces continue to deny that the army has a sexual harassment problem, how are victims, citizens and military personnel supposed to believe that anything will be done to address the situation?
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, the senior ranks are not denying the problem.
As I pointed out to the member's colleague, an external review is being conducted on the orders of the Chief of the Defence Staff. We look forward to that report, because this is a priority for this government and for the military.