Debates of June 9th, 2014

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it was a promising beginning for the member opposite. There was some praise for the bill. Then, as we suspected, he repeated the criticisms of some of his colleagues, that there should not be grounds for revoking citizenship for dual nationals when we would be unable to do that for those with only one citizenship. The member then went on to make a more serious point, which was that those tried for and convicted of acts of terrorism, espionage, or treason in our country might not actually have received due process.

I thought I heard the member say that in some countries of the old Eastern bloc these were political charges, politically inspired, ideologically applied in a court system that was never just and that in our country sometimes there had been this kind of miscarriage of justice for those very serious crimes.

Could the member cite one case where someone has been prosecuted for the crimes of terrorism, espionage or treason in our country and the conviction has been unjust, overturned or not accepted in the eyes of the Canadian people?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is right. I made somewhat of a convoluted statement. However, I was not suggesting that the court systems was wrong or that there was a miscarriage of justice in that they did not follow through with the proper procedure if people were charged with crimes of treason and did not get due process. They do.

Some of my constituents are suspicious when they hear that perhaps a minister of the Crown will have the authority to do something. They feel this is not necessarily due process, that somehow this is a slippery slope.

With all fairness to the minister, I was not accusing the government. Those passionate Canadians are dual citizens. When we say to them that the rules will be changed and the minister could have a certain authority, they want to know what that means. There is always that sense around things about how one sees it versus the reality.

Yes, if people are charged with treason, they go to court., they are found guilty and they should go to jail. Quite frankly, the key should be thrown away.

In my book, you're quite right to send them to jail if they are guilty. Take the keys and I will hide them in the bottom of the Welland canal for you. How is that?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I remind all hon. members to direct their questions and comments to the Chair rather than directly at their colleagues.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague for his speech about citizenship. His speech was very passionate. He obtained his citizenship when he was younger. I am not saying that he is no longer young, but that is a debate for another day.

I would like to come back to the fact that we must have a fair and equitable process if we really want to move forward with revocation of citizenship. Considering the importance of Canadian citizenship to Canadians, it is important that people follow a fair and equitable process and that the decision is not made by only one person or as a result of rather secret processes, something that we find hard to swallow. In the case of this bill, why is it so important?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having an open and transparent system ensures that the rule of law is not only done but is seen to be done. That is why we have a transparent legal system and a court system. That is the essence of it. It cannot be about secret tribunals hidden behind a curtain somewhere. This leads to suspicion that perhaps it has been unfair, and I used the word “perhaps”.

The issue becomes how we ensure everyone is treated equally. Presently, people do not get their citizenship revoked. In the case of a heinous crime it should be revoked, and no one dismisses that fact, but this would allow it to happen to those who have dual citizenship.

For those of us who do hold dual citizenship, whether we choose it or not, sometimes we just end up with it. We do not get a choice to say no, but quite often cannot revoke it. It seems that those of us who have it would be treated under a separate standard than those who perhaps would not have it. However, as I said earlier, if people commit heinous crimes, they should be sent to jail if they are found guilty, full stop.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to this bill, which proposes significant amendments to the Citizenship Act and, as a result, to the lives of our immigrants.

I am particularly interested in this issue because there are many immigrants in my riding. There are also a lot of refugees, who also struggle to get citizenship, and I see that this bill will not make their lives earlier, even though they in no way deserve to be treated like this.

To provide some background, on February 6, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration introduced Bill C-24, which significantly amends Canadian immigration legislation.

The minister said that Bill C-24 represented the first comprehensive reforms to the Citizenship Act since 1977.

He went on to say:

[The bill] will protect the value of Canadian citizenship for those who have it while creating a faster and more efficient process for those applying to get it.

I doubt it. I have had a chance to carefully study this bill and I do not see a single change that will make the process faster and more efficient. This remains to be seen, but there is nothing concrete there.

Since March 2008, about 25 major changes have been made to immigration procedures, rules, laws and regulations. More and more changes have been made since the Conservatives won a majority, including the moratorium on sponsoring parents and grandparents. There have also been fewer family reunifications, which is very problematic. There is no point in elaborating on this because the expression “family reunification” is self-explanatory. I believe that in life we need to be with our family.

There is also the punishment imposed on vulnerable refugees. Do these people really need to be punished for crimes they did not necessarily commit? I doubt it. Then, there was an increase in the number of temporary foreign workers to meet the needs of large businesses, at the expense of many Canadian workers.

The significant changes made by the Conservatives to the Canadian immigration system did not improve the system's efficiency or fairness. Absolutely not. Some changes to the Citizenship Act proposed in this bill are long overdue. They address some flaws in the existing system and they should be mentioned. When our opponents do good work, we recognize it. We are not stupid.

However, certain clauses are changing the rules. They are totally unacceptable and, in my opinion and in my colleagues' opinion, they must be condemned. Before explaining the provisions that we will support and those that we will not support, I want to describe the changes proposed in the bill.

The bill gives the minister some major new powers, including the power to grant or revoke citizenship. It does not provide any real solutions to reduce the ever-increasing number of delays and the citizenship application processing wait times. It eliminates the use of the length of stay in Canada during a non-permanent residency. It bars individuals who have been convicted of what would constitute an indictable offence in Canada from acquiring citizenship. It includes a clause on the intention to reside in Canada. It increases residency requirements from three years out of four to four years out of six, and it specifies the requirements on physical presence in Canada before obtaining citizenship. It includes tougher sentences for fraud. It extends the granting of citizenship to lost Canadians. It provides an accelerated process to citizenship for Canadian Armed Forces personnel. It applies stricter rules to fraudulent immigration consultants. Also, applicants aged 14 to 64—it used to be 18 to 54—will now have to pass a test assessing their knowledge of French or English.

As I said earlier, we nevertheless support some provisions of this legislation. Other aspects raise a lot of concerns and must be condemned, such as the fact that Bill C-24 concentrates many powers in the hands of the minister, including the power to grant or revoke citizenship in the case of persons with dual citizenship.

I have often told the House that I am always uncomfortable when we give discretionary powers to ministers, because they are human. We all agree that they are not gods. These are very serious issues that should be examined by a committee made up of several individuals. Such issues, including the fate of political refugees, should not be in the hands of a single individual. It is unacceptable. Under the bill, the minister or an authorized official can revoke the citizenship if he is persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that the person obtained citizenship by fraud.

Until now, these cases were usually referred to the courts. That will no longer be the case. However, these situations lend themselves to interpretation. A person suspected of fraud still has the right to a fair trial, like everyone else. In Canada, we are still innocent until proven guilty. That principle also applies to these individuals.

The minister may also revoke the citizenship of a person convicted under section 47 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment for treason, high treason or espionage; or the citizenship of a person sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment for a terrorism offence under 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.

This provision does not in any way distinguish between convictions for terrorism in a democratic country such as Canada, with a credible and reliable justice system, and convictions in undemocratic regimes whose justice systems may be corrupted. We should look at this issue. I am going to give the minister the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he did not think about it, but I doubt it. Still, it would be pertinent to review these issues.

Bill C-24 also does not provide any real solutions to reduce the ever-increasing number of delays and the citizenship application processing wait times. I have said it many times, but it is important. Except for eliminating go-betweens and granting the minister a discretionary power, nothing is done to reduce processing times.

In other words, the quality of the processing is reduced. An application can be botched or it can be properly dealt with. A person could end up not being granted citizenship because the minister is not in a good mood. That is a little far-fetched. As I said earlier, I always feel uncomfortable when discretionary powers are given to ministers.

The declaration of intent to reside in the country also poses a slight problem. The bill introduces a requirement whereby a person to whom the minister grants citizenship must intend to reside in Canada after obtaining citizenship. The government maintains that this requirement is designed to send the message that citizenship is reserved for people who want to live in Canada. The law that is currently in effect does not include a provision on the intent to reside in the country.

The president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Lorne Waldman, said that this amendment gives public servants the power to speculate on a citizenship applicant's intentions and then refuse them citizenship based on that speculation.

I would like to briefly quote what he had to say. I find it very interesting. He said:

The provision also holds out the implicit threat that if a naturalized Canadian citizen takes up a job somewhere else (as many Canadians do), or leaves Canada to study abroad (as many Canadians do), the government may move to strip the person of citizenship because they misrepresented their intention to reside in Canada when they were granted citizenship.

That is rather problematic. In the end, people are basically trapped in the country. That is not really fair. People should be given the freedom to choose where they want to live. If they are not happy in Canada but they want to keep their citizenship, they should be able to study or work abroad and have that experience. I do not see what the problem is with that, and I do not understand why the government would prevent people from having that sort of experience.

In closing, I will quote section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

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.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

She mentioned a provision of Bill C-24 that concerns the declaration of intent to reside in Canada. It is quite obvious that this provision will be challenged in court. This was mentioned by one of the witnesses, who belongs to the Canadian Bar Association, because this provision is contrary to the free movement of people, which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What can our colleague tell us about potential court challenges?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question.

As I mentioned in my speech, I find it very problematic that the government is depriving future citizens of experiences abroad that could be extremely interesting. That is something that could be challenged under the charter and that, in the end, could be unconstitutional.

I would like to say to the government that this is not the first time that their bills have ended up before the courts and have failed. That will be the case with the bill before us. The government should do its homework and try to introduce bills that adhere to our constitution and do not violate human rights. That would really be something.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member opposite is simple. Bill C-24 would actually allow for a lot of flexibility for people to be able to move around if they need to leave the country. They would need to have been in Canada for four of the last six years, in accordance with provisions in the bill. That would allow for up to two years for someone to be flexible and move around.

It is not the government that wants the intent to reside to be a key element in the bill; it is Canadians who are telling us to put it in there. Canadians have worked all of their lives, as have those who are naturalized and work hard here in Canada to contribute to our nation. We think that it is only reasonable to expect people who want to have the benefits of Canadian citizenship to have the intention to reside in this country.

That is what citizenship is. It is someone who wants to live in the country and be a part of Canadian society. They have the intent to live here and actually be present in this country. I do not understand why the member feels it is asking a little bit too much of people who aspire to get Canadian citizenship to abide by what Canadians themselves are doing by being citizens.

The member is a Canadian. Does she not feel that it is important for those people who have the same benefits and rights that she has in this country to live in this country or intend to live in this country before they get the privilege, not the right, of Canadian citizenship?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally disagree with my colleague. In fact, I was born in Canada. I am not an immigrant, however I know many immigrants and political refugees. There are a number of communities in my riding, and I do not see why we would deprive those people of some great school or work experiences by forcing them to remain in Canada if they become Canadian citizens. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

I do not see why that is so important. I do not understand that and I find it somewhat stupid.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-24, particularly in light of the fact that later this week, on Friday, I will be at a citizenship ceremony in Thunder Bay. I try to get to as many as I can. I have not been to all of them, of course, but I will be there.

A citizenship ceremony is a wondrous thing. It is filled with people who have worked long and hard and who have spent a lot of time, and in many cases a lot of money, to get to where they are at that citizenship ceremony. One thing that really stands out above all at a citizenship ceremony, as I know my colleagues will agree, is that it is clear from looking at the faces of these new Canadians that Canadian citizenship is something of enormous value. For everyone who is becoming a new Canadian on Friday, with their families, friends, and relatives in attendance, Canadian citizenship is really something that is an apex for many people in their lives at this point.

Unfortunately, with Bill C-24 and with many other things the government does, we see an approach that plays politics with the issue. We have seen that a lot with the government. I would like to take my time today to speak about the good—because there is some good that I can certainly agree with—the bad, and in some cases, the ugly in the bill. I will try to use my time wisely.

First, as a little background, we were hoping that the minister would commit to working with the NDP to bring real improvements to our citizenship laws. Instead, he opted to go on with a bill that in many cases is likely to be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Conservatives on the committee rejected every one of our proposed amendments to the bill, amendments that perhaps could have made it good and good, instead of good and bad.

Canadians expect us to collaborate in this place and come up with absolutely the best bills possible for the benefit of all Canadians. However, since the 2011 election we have not seen that. We have not seen the collaboration that Canadians expect in this place.

Now, here is a bill that will likely be passed. It is a majority government. The Conservatives were not willing to listen to any amendments. On top of everything else, they do not care if it is challenged in the courts. They just want to go right ahead and do it and let someone else worry about it. That is not what Canadians expect us to do in this place.

Let me speak about some of the provisions that I just cannot agree with and some that I can. Let me start with the ones that I cannot.

Bill C-24 gives the minister many new powers, including the authority to grant or revoke citizenship of dual citizens. It should not be the job of the minister of citizenship and immigration to make these kinds of judgments. Before it was done by Governor in Council, by cabinet. It was done by a larger group of people. At one time, up until now, a judge would be involved. The judge would have to make some details known and make a determination of some kind. However, this government has a very strong tendency to develop legislation that concentrates more powers into the hands of ministers.

Needless to say, we condemn this practice. We do not trust the Conservatives, and by giving a minister new powers, we open the door to arbitrary and politically motivated decisions. The very idea of giving the minister, by himself, the power to revoke citizenship raises serious concerns, and it is on this principle that we can talk about this issue.

Another problem with revoking the Canadian citizenship of dual citizens is that it would create two-tier citizenship, where some Canadians could have their citizenship revoked while others would be punished by the criminal justice system for the same offence.

Let me talk about how the minister, under the provisions of the bill, could revoke citizenship. If he or any staffer he authorizes is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that a person has obtained citizenship by fraud, until now such cases have all typically gone through the courts and cabinet, but that will not be the case anymore.

A person could be convicted under section 47 of the Criminal Code, and these are serious offences, such as treason, high treason, or spying, or of an offence outside Canada that if committed in Canada would constitute a terrorism offence, for example, as defined in that section, or sentenced to five years imprisonment.

We cannot rely on justice systems outside of this country. We have a justice system in Canada that we believe is fair, honest, and decent, but frankly, some countries in the world do not have the same kind of justice system we have. To base the revocation of citizenship on something that may have happened in another country, and I will go into more detail about that later, does not make any sense at all.

The minister would have the authority under the bill to grant citizenship. At present, and I think I mentioned this before, it rests with the Governor in Council, which is the cabinet. Bill C-24 would transfer this power directly to the minister. This measure was introduced by the minister as a means of improving services for applicants by simplifying and speeding up the process. Specifically, the measure raises concerns, because the minister has indicated that the list of persons to whom he would grant citizenship would not be disclosed. Once again, we see the government's lack of transparency, and that should raise red flags. It certainly does with us, and it certainly does with the third party, and it should with all Canadians.

Bill C-24 provides no real solution to reducing the growing backlog and citizenship application processing delays. There has been some money allotted in the last two budgets to help speed up the process, but the fact remains that there are 320,000 applications still waiting to be dealt with.

Let me go back very quickly to Friday when I will be at the citizenship ceremony. The people who are becoming new Canadians this Friday in Thunder Bay are very fortunate and very, very lucky, because 320,000 people are still waiting to have their applications dealt with.

I do not want to belabour this point, because some other speakers have talked about it, but it is about the declaration of the intent to reside. The bill would introduce a requirement that if granted citizenship, a person would intend to continue to reside in Canada. I do not know what the government would do if a person became a Canadian citizen and then received a job overseas and was gone for two years working in another country and was not actually resident here in Canada. It is not addressed in the bill, and it is going to be a problem.

The bill would prohibit the granting of citizenship to persons who have been charged outside of Canada with an offence that if committed in Canada would constitute an indictable offence. Again, we would have the minister, who would be the sole arbiter now, if the bill were passed, of who could stay in Canada and who could not stay in Canada, which would depend partly on the justice systems of other countries. In other words, a person convicted of practising homosexuality in another country, and we know that there are many countries where this is illegal, would be prohibited from becoming a citizen of Canada. That just does not make any sense.

I see I have three minutes left, so I will try to be very quick here. There are some provisions we can support.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The member has about 10 seconds left, if he would like to wrap up.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will forego some of the things we do like. I know I have a question or two from the other side. I would just ask the other side if someone is going to stand and explain to us how it is that his or her government feels that it is acceptable to bypass judicial due process in revoking citizenship. I would like someone to explain that to me.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to allow the member to continue and conclude all of that important speech.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There does appear to be unanimous consent but not for the position the member is putting forward.

This is not a point of order. If the hon. member is making a legitimate point of order, it will be heard.

I appreciate that it is getting well into the evening, but at this point we will have questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech and congratulate him in advance for attending the citizenship ceremony in his riding this Friday. It is an emotional time for a lot of people, and it is certainly rewarding for us to see the bestowing of citizenship on new Canadians. I wish him the very best of luck with that experience on Friday.

Unfortunately, the member's speech was fraught with a lot of inaccuracies, one of which was the fact that the minister will be the ultimate decision-maker. If the member has a good read of the bill, he will see that there is provision in the bill for an appeal to the Federal Court. Of course, the Federal Court is not controlled, managed, or influenced by the minister.

My question to the member opposite, who I happen to have a lot of respect for, is simply this. He mentioned the possibility of someone convicted of an act of homosexuality in another country being able to lose their citizenship in Canada. Does he not realize that the bill speaks to an equivalent crime, something that would be a crime in Canada as well, before he or she would lose his or her citizenship? The example he stated is absolutely false and would not happen.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Before I go back to the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, I would like to remind all hon. members in this place that the Chair gives the members signals when their time needs to be wrapped up and would appreciate the co-operation of all hon. members, even at this late hour.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for wanting to take a little more time, but there is a lot to say about this bill.

The preface to the member's question was interesting. He is a member I have a lot of respect for. We work together and have had a number of chats. Why would the Conservatives introduce a bill that they know would be challenged? There is a provision to go to the appeal court and so forth. Why even introduce a bill that they know would be challenged in court? One of the things I mentioned is that there is a real possibility that this would be found unconstitutional and would go to higher courts to be appealed. It just does not make any sense.

I used that example in the question my friend had. However, there are situations in other countries where something could be considered aggravated assault but really was not. Perhaps that person was living in a country where he had to defend himself. There are so many instances, it just does not make any sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier today in debates we heard the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration say that he did not understand why members of the opposition parties were not prepared to accept the advice of the Department of Justice lawyers and were instead relying on advice from numerous jurists as well as the Canadian Bar Association.

The difficulty I have, as a former practising lawyer and a member of the Canadian Bar Association, is that I have not seen the advice from the Department of Justice. I do not know that the advice from the Department of Justice has not included that which any lawyer, I believe, familiar with the charter, would raise as a concern. The bill violates the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Does the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River think we can press the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Justice to have presented to this chamber the so-called advice from the Department of Justice?

Over and over, these bills passed by the Conservative majority are being defeated in the Supreme Court of Canada. I want to know what the advice is from the Department of Justice.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not being transparent in the bill, as with just about every other bill the Conservative government puts forward, is a hallmark, a trademark, of the current government. Even in the situation where the minister grants automatic citizenship, he does not have to provide a list. He does not have to name who these people are. He does not have to provide that kind of information.

There were 29 individuals who spoke on Bill C-24 in committee, and the vast majority, to varying degrees, were opposed to the bill. It has all kinds of problems.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. I will say a couple of things at the outset.

First, with regard to the question that was just asked, that point is worth underscoring. Traditionally, laws are passed here in good faith. There is a requirement to check to make sure that they are constitutional. If advice is given that they are constitutional, then they proceed. In the rarest of cases, there are occasions when a law is challenged in the courts, all the way to the Supreme Court. It would be big news if the Supreme Court ruled against a piece of government legislation not only because it was a big deal but mostly because it happened rarely.

Now we seem to have a system where the government really does not care about the appropriateness of a bill. I believe this is true. It does not care about whether it is building the right kind of legal infrastructure that a modern democracy like Canada should have. It does its polling, focus groups, decides what the hot button issues are, and how it can turn those into some policies that it can make into laws. If it happens to be unconstitutional, so what, and besides, it will go to the Supreme Court and it will fix it, for anybody in the cabinet who has that kind of a conscientious moment.

[An hon. member]

They are smoking something over here.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I thought I had the floor, Mr. Speaker, but it seems that maybe somebody else actually has the floor over here, or at least heckle louder so I can hear you.