Debates of March 10th, 2016

Citizenship Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order, please. I would like to inform the room that the five hours of debate is done, and now we will progress. What that means is this.

During the first five hours, we have 20-minute periods for debate, which may be divided up. After that, we have 10-minute periods for debate, with five minutes of questions.

The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today to express my support for Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act. I plan to vote in favour of the bill, and I encourage all of my hon. colleagues to do the same.

Canadians know that our strength lies in our diversity, as the Prime Minister has been saying from the beginning.

We know that the cultural, political, and economic success of our country is because of our diversity, not in spite of it. We need to keep that in mind as we study the changes proposed in Bill C-6. These changes relate to Canada's success throughout its history as a cosmopolitan nation. What is more important, however, is the fact that this bill aims to bring Canadian citizenship and immigration into the economy and reality of the 21st century. From now on, diversity will be at the very heart of our success and what we offer the rest of the world.

Generally speaking, Bill C-6 amends the Citizenship Act in three ways. First of all, it repeals the 2015 amendments to the Citizenship Act that make it possible to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals who engage in certain activities identified as being against the national interest. Secondly, it gives citizenship applicants greater flexibility, and finally, it improves the integrity of the citizenship program.

How will these changes to the Citizenship Act affect Canada's future economic prosperity? That is what we are about to explore, because that is what I want to talk about.

Our changes are going to help prospective immigrants achieve their economic objectives, build ties, and create a sense of belonging in Canada, which will be beneficial to all Canadians.

The 2015 measures required anyone applying for Canadian citizenship to express their intention to stay in the country after obtaining citizenship. They extended the physical presence requirement for applicants by requiring them to be present in Canada for a longer period before being able to apply for citizenship. Applicants were no longer able to count the time they spent in Canada before becoming permanent residents in the calculation of the length of their physical presence. Finally, the age range of applicants required to illustrate knowledge of one official language, of Canada, and of the responsibilities of citizenship was increased to 14 to 64. Previously, only applicants 18 to 54 had to meet the language and knowledge criteria. We are going to get rid of the intention to reside rule.

Through our changes to the Citizenship Act we are fulfilling a promise that the government made when it received its mandate. Moving around constantly has become commonplace in the 21st century. Thanks to our changes, applicants will no longer have to worry about losing their Canadian citizenship for not staying in Canada, even though they said they would.

We will reduce the physical presence criteria. It will now be possible to apply for citizenship one year sooner than under the 2015 provisions. The path to a permanent place within Canadian society will be shorter.

We know that economic success and cultural integration work out better when newcomers feel an attachment to their new country, and that is what Bill C-6 will focus on for future generations of immigrants.

We will allow applicants to count the time they spent in Canada as temporary residents or protected persons before becoming permanent residents. We know that quite often, immigrants start to become attached to Canada before they become permanent residents.

This change will help encourage foreign students and experienced workers to come to Canada. These are the types of people who may be here temporarily but who ultimately decide to stay.

Canada remains an attractive place to study and learn. We want students from around the world to choose to study in Canada and, potentially, to make their careers here.

Currently, anyone between the ages of 14 and 64 must demonstrate knowledge of one official language and take a knowledge test on Canada and the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. These rules will now apply to people between the ages of 18 and 54.

Younger and older applicants will have fewer barriers and will feel a strong sense of belonging in our society as citizens of this country.

Our government is abolishing or amending some recent changes to the Citizenship Act for some very simple reasons: we strongly believe that Canada is a land of diversity and inclusion.

We place a high value on diversity and inclusion, which is consistent with our firm and ambitious resolve to make Canada and the world better and safer. We often take the importance of diversity for granted. There is no doubt that we are a better, stronger, and more prosperous country because of our diversity.

Canadians are proud of their country and its values. We welcome immigrants, and we help them settle in, integrate, and succeed. This is our past, our present, and our future.

When an immigrant succeeds in Canada, the whole country becomes stronger and more united. These newcomers bring their strength, which makes us all stronger.

The changes I presented today will benefit all Canadians.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I immigrated to Canada with my family in 1985. My wife is also an immigrant. She arrived from Singapore in 1990.

As the member knows, reducing the number of days that a person must be physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship and taking that into account does not really have anything to do with diversity. Diversity does not begin at four years or three years or six years. It is the Canadian experience. We experience it every day.

Would the member like to comment on that? What sense does it make to go from four out of six years to three out of five years?

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

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

I would like him to know that I appreciate his concern. We must not forget one thing: Canada is competing with other countries today.

It is trying to attract those people who will make the best contribution in the long term. I am referring to people who will come here, want to settle here, start a family, pursue a career, grow as individuals, prosper, become part of a community, and integrate.

Nowadays, people can choose where they want to go. They have options. Canada will have rules that are clear, straightforward, and accessible, and that can make a difference.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that prior to the Conservative government making a change a couple of years ago, it used to be three out of five years. It was the Conservative government that ultimately made the change to increase the time one had to be living in Canada from three out of five years to four out of six years. In part, what this bill would do in qualifying for citizenship is bring it back to the way it was.

When this legislation came before us, I was here during that debate. From coast to coast to coast, there was significant opposition to it. Stakeholders were concerned, whether it was over the citizenship angle in terms of the time needed for qualifying or over the two-tier citizenship that was being created by the former government.

In good part, this bill would rectify a serious problem that the Conservative government created not that long ago. It was just a couple of years ago.

I wonder if the member would look at this in terms of the amount of resistance and opposition there was and agree that there was in fact a need to make the changes we have here today and that it is the right thing to do. Canadians ultimately support Canadian citizenship, and we want people to feel good about becoming citizens. There was never a need to make the change in the first place.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and for the introduction he made.

The member is entirely correct. The ideas behind the legislation enhance it. The fact is, we are in 2016. In this day and time, we do have to recognize the reality that we are faced with. People do come here to our country from everywhere. Canada is a beacon. People have a choice nowadays, and they want to commit to this country. When they come here, they want to know that we have clear rules that they will be able to comply with.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have done before in many previous speeches in this House, I will start with a Yiddish proverb: if you walk straight, you will not stumble.

This bill stumbles. It zigs and it zags. It takes too many leaps where a few minor tweaks would do.

I want to quote the late George Jonas, National Post columnist and fantastic author, who sadly passed away January 10 of this year, on patriotism and citizenship. He said:

My reservoir of patriotic feelings is exhausted by Canada, and citizenship without patriotic feelings is a sham.

My family is the culmination of two immigrant stories in Canada. My wife Evangeline and her family immigrated to Canada in 1990. They arrived from Singapore, a mixed family of Chinese and Jewish heritage, speaking Hokkien, a Chinese dialect, at home, as well as English from the British educational system in Singapore. I still debate my father-in-law on whether it is “stroller” or “pram”.

They became citizens in 1994, grateful to be here, grateful to be welcomed. My father-in-law has wanted to shake the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's hand ever since the comments he made in Singapore about being open and welcoming to immigrants.

My family left Communist Poland in the early 1980s during martial law and the rioting at the Gdansk shipyards in my birth city. I grew up in Montreal and for a time lived in Sorel, where my father worked at the shipyard. My mother learned French, my father English. It was a sort of division of labour.

I attended a French school, Guillaume-Vignal, then Royal George, eventually learning French and English. Many immigrants in my generation call themselves the Bill 101 kids.

We are proud to be Canadians who made the effort to learn Canada's official languages and who understand the importance of our country's linguistic duality. I am a Polish immigrant who is married to a Jewish Chinese woman, so a lot of this bill's content affects us. Of course, the communities we play an active part in have a variety of views on the content of the Canadian Citizenship Act.

I want to fully address the issue of revocation first. It is not two-tier citizenship. I do not feel two-tiered, anyway.

Thanks to international law commitments, Canada cannot and will not leave a person stateless. Their place of birth is not important in the current provisions of the law as they stand, and in cases of fraud, citizenship can still be revoked, a measure I thank the government for retaining.

Since 1977, the Government of Canada has revoked citizenship in 54 cases, seven of those connected to World War II. Legally they lost their citizenship because they lied on their forms upon entry, which is fraud, but morally, in the example cases I am going to use, Jacob Fast and Helmut Oberlander were found to have participated in crimes against humanity and genocide.

The technicality for refusing them entry and permission to keep their citizenship in Canada was that they lied on their CIC forms, but the truth is that many of those cases were revoked because of the moral imperative in rejecting acts of mass murder and systemic violence against civilians, which are war crimes.

The Toronto 18 ringleader, Zakaria Amara, whose citizenship was revoked, is serving a life sentence but is eligible for parole in 2016. I want to read what he was convicted of. He was convicted of knowingly contributing to, directly or indirectly, a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the group to carry out an act of terror and intending to cause an explosion that could kill people or damage property for the benefit of a terrorist group.

He admitted to a leadership role in organizing a winter camp north of Toronto in December 2015, where recruits were given basic combat training and indoctrination in extremist jihadi causes.

Montreal jihadist Sami Elabi burned and shot his own passport in a video published online. Does he deserve to keep his citizenship? I accept their acts of violent disloyalty and I do not need a form from CIC to confirm that. That is legalism.

A Canadian of Somali heritage, a student, burned his passport in a video posted in Somali news on BartamahaOnline. That video was posted November 28, 2014. Does he deserve to keep his citizenship?

The line “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” is a slogan. It is not public policy discourse.

When writing on the prosecution of war criminals, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies wrote on the Helmut Oberlander case I mentioned before:

As Canadians, we have to ask ourselves if we are prepared to share buses, playgrounds, offices or community centers with mass murderers. These people may not be an immediate threat to one's safety, but they are certainly a threat to the morals and values held by this country as a whole.

Convictions for terrorism, high treason, and espionage are matters of loyalty to our country and to our communities, and the government could have amended the law to target only the most egregious of terrorism cases. The government could have narrowed it down and clarified it further to very limited cases of revocation if there was a concern out there. However, it did not do that. Rather, it is wiping out the entire section, and I am deeply disappointed by that decision.

I asked a question earlier on the residency requirement, and I will speak a bit to this aspect.

The move from four out of six to three out of five years would reduce the length of the residency requirement and also remove the clause that relates to the intention to reside in Canada. I believe in the positive declaration of principle and intent to reside in Canada. It is a clause that should be retained. Like many new Canadians, I expect those who are seeking citizenship to join us permanently and live with us here in fellowship as we continue to build a Canada we can all be proud of and pass on to the next generation afterward.

If there was a concern over the wording or the phrasing of the law as it is, then why did the government not propose an amendment to it, instead of simply erasing that wording in the law? The intention of the original section was correct in that we welcome new citizens such as myself. I received my citizenship in 1989, four years after I came here. We welcome new citizens with the understanding that they have joined the great Canadian family to help us build a society based on natural freedoms. What groups or stakeholders are calling for reducing the time spent in Canada before applying for citizenship? I am looking for the groups or the studies out there. What is better about three years versus four years?

The time spent in Canada is not time wasted. It is time spent learning languages, as I did, and learning about the culture. It is not idle time but time adjusting and time integrating. It takes four years to earn a bachelor's degree to be an expert in Canadian studies. Why not keep four out of six years for Canadian citizenship? Why can we not be both welcoming and vigilant?

The Liberal member for Markham—Unionville stated the following concerns in the 41st Parliament while debating an immigration government bill. I will quote from the Hansard on February 27, 2014, the House of Commons Debates, pages 3321 to 3322, where he stated:

There is some sense to the fifth, the idea of increased physical presence, that in four out of six years people should be here more than half the year, some 183 days. I have some sympathy with that because I have some concern with the phenomenon of citizens of convenience.

The member also suggested:

Why not have strict...requirements for health care? That would really target people who are citizens of convenience.

He further stated:

It speaks to the question of citizens of convenience. We want measures in place to deter that. I sympathize with that goal, in principle. However, with this specific measure, I agree that the minister could, in theory, take someone's citizenship away because he went to work overseas for a length of time, when he had previously stated his intent not to.

I do not always agree with the Conservatives, but I do not think it likely that a minister, even a Conservative minister, would do that. I do not take this risk that the professor raised too seriously.

That member is no less than the current member for Markham—Unionville, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship in the Liberal government, who is moving Bill C-6. Some of this is not in the bill and some even contradicts itself. I think reducing the length of years necessary to apply for citizenship and eliminating the intent to reside clause represents a contradiction there.

To conclude, over the past years that the Conservative government was in power, over 1.6 million immigrants became citizens, and record numbers came to Canada and became permanent residents. I know my colleagues and I welcomed them all.

I am an immigrant; my wife is an immigrant. We grew up at opposite ends of this country. We actually met here in Ottawa in a parliamentary internship program, of all things. What is more Canadian than meeting in the capital of our great country?

Our Canada is one that values citizenship and promotes loyalty to the community. It is a Canada that welcomes new Canadians with an expectation that they are joining our larger extended family.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-6 go too far. This bill does not walk straight. It stumbles repeatedly. Wording changes or further clarification would have achieved the goals of the minister. I see the striking out of entire sections. Where we could have used tweaks, we see too many leaps.

I cannot support this bill as it is presented today before this House, and I urge all members to oppose it.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for his very interesting speech.

It is always good to have Bill 101 kids who speak both languages and live in western Canada.

I appreciate his family's story. I also want to introduce a Yiddish proverb, which is, “Does it make a difference to the turkey if it is slaughtered for Passover or for Purim? No, because a turkey is still a turkey”, in the same way a Canadian is still a Canadian.

When we look at the issue with respect to citizenship, I fully understand there are different perspectives to this. We have every reason to think badly of people who tear up their Canadian passports or burn them. There is no doubt about it. However, we all know that a Canadian citizen who is purely and only a Canadian citizen cannot lose his or her citizenship for any of the acts that the law provides for, which essentially created two classes of Canadians: one who had dual citizenship and could lose that citizenship and another who could not. In the United States, as the member knows, this would be thrown out on equal protection grounds.

Does the member recognize that we cannot, through international treaties, remove Canadian citizenship from a Canadian who is solely a Canadian citizen on these grounds? Does the member not agree that on equal protection grounds we should not remove citizenship for anybody for these acts?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do have Yiddish proverbs, but I do not want to start a battle of Yiddish proverbs back and forth with other members. I do love them, though.

On people who renounce their citizenship nowadays, there is a line that is used on that side, which is 2016. I think we can go beyond just looking at CIC forms or a file with a department for those people who choose to renounce it for reasons of violent disloyalty to our country.

I do not feel any less Canadian because I came from somewhere else, moved to Canada and became a naturalized citizen. My wife feels the same way I do. It is not a two-tier citizenship. It is one tier. There is only one type of Canadian.

However, there are Canadians who engage in violent terrorism, espionage, and high treason. If the government wanted to, it could restrict it down to only the most serious of cases.

I do not know if the member was also implying that perhaps we should violate our international treaty obligations and pull out of these treaties, or make it possible to do this. I would disagree with that. However, in cases of violent disloyalty to the country, we have a responsibility to act accordingly.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague said that he was a Bill 101 kid. My colleague probably knows that the purpose of Bill 101, which was proposed by Camille Laurin, was to make French the official language of Quebec, in fact the only language of Quebec.

In light of his experience, does my colleague believe that Bill 101 was a good thing for him? What does he think of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada basically gutted Bill 101 based on the 1982 Constitution?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question, but I am not sure it has anything to do with the bill we are debating today.

My children are currently learning French in Calgary. The French language is very much alive in western Canada, and many people from Quebec have moved there. There are also many Franco-Albertans who are passing the language down.

I do not want to comment on Supreme Court decisions here in the House. I am not a lawyer or an expert in the matter. I would say that yes, learning another language was a good thing for me. I think that every Canadian should seize any opportunity to learn another language, whether it be French, German, Portuguese, or Italian. I do not think that we should limit ourselves to just learning English or French. There are many languages to choose from in Canada.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-6, for this is very much a bill that speaks to the heart of why I am so proud to be Canadian and what makes our country the envy of the world.

In my first speech in the House as the member of Parliament for Scarborough Centre, I spoke about how my husband and I came to Canada from Pakistan about 16 years ago to provide better opportunities for our children. Before we moved here, there was one big thing we knew about the country, which is why we came here, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

People around the world know two things about Canada. We love hockey and we are the country of the charter. This is a document that says every Canadian and everyone within our borders have certain inalienable rights: the right to associate with whom we wish, communicate what we wish, and worship how we wish. The charter speaks to choice and equality, that whether we are Canadian by birth or by choice, we all are Canadian.

I live in Scarborough, one of the most diverse communities in Canada, where many people have chosen to settle and build better lives for their families. During the election campaign, I heard from many families who were deeply concerned by some of the provisions in the previous Conservative government's Bill C-24. Of particular concern were the so-called two-tier citizenship provisions, which allow government ministers to strip dual citizens or those eligible to obtain one of their Canadian citizenship.

Let me be clear that terrorism is abhorrent and should be punished to the full extent of the law. However, let me be equally clear that terrorists belong in jails, not on a plane overseas. This is a matter of principle. We cannot create two different tiers of Canadian citizenship and we cannot ship our problems overseas for other people to deal with. That has never been the Canadian way.

My husband Salman and I have two sons. Umaid is 17 years old and Usman is 15. They are like many Canadian children. They love basketball and the Toronto Raptors, and were two of my best door knockers during the campaign. Usman was born in Canada, while Umaid was born just before we left Pakistan and came here as a baby. They have much in common with their classmates, but there is one difference. While Usman was born here and Umaid was not, both are still dual citizens and both could be stripped of their citizenship under Bill C-24.

How can I tell my two sons that they are different from their classmates? They both feel Canadian to their core and deeply love this country and all it stands for. Should Umaid and Usman really be treated as second-class citizens? This is wrong, and it goes against the fundamental values of the country they both grew up in, which shaped them into the fine young men they have become.

That is why I was so proud, not just as a candidate but as a mother, when the Prime Minister came to my campaign office for a rally during the first week of the election campaign and promised to repeal this provision of Bill C-24. My sons and many more sons and daughters heard the Prime Minister reassert those core Canadian values when he told us, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”. With Bill C-6, none of our children will ever again have to feel like second-class citizens in the country they love.

Our diversity is our strength and we are stronger, not in spite of our diversity but because of its diversity.

There are a number of other worthy elements of Bill C-6 that I would like to draw to the attention of the House. Of particular interest to my constituents in Scarborough Centre are the changes to the language testing requirements, returning the age range required to pass the language testing to the age group 18 to 54.

Encouraging family reunification is an important goal of this government, including parents and grandparents, and these provisions will make a major difference in this regard.

I know many Filipino and Gujarati families in Scarborough where the grandparents have come to Canada to join their children and grandchildren, and are making vitally important contributions to both our society and our economy.

With one Filipino family in my neighbourhood, the grandmother comes to take the kids to school first thing in the morning, and then takes them home afterwards and looks after them into the evening. In the summer, she takes the children to summer camp and on activities and outings around the city. By taking care of her grandchildren during the day, she allows her son and her daughter-in-law to both work full time, contributing to our economy and allowing them to provide more opportunities for their children.

I know one Gujarati families in Scarborough grandmother who looks after six grandchildren. I do not know how she does it, but these grandmothers and grandfathers and the child care they provide, as well as the emotional support they provide to their children, are invaluable to our economy.

I agree that new Canadian citizens should be required to meet a certain level of English or French proficiency. However, do we really want to force the 64-year-old Filipino grandmother to pass a demanding language test? I would rather have her grandchildren teach her while they are at the park.

Finally, I would like to touch on the various changes to residency requirements to applying for Canadian citizenship that would be made by Bill C-6. The proposed bill will help permanent residents become Canadian citizens sooner by reducing the time they must be physically present in Canada before being able to apply, from four years to three years. Applicants will also receive credit for time they were present in Canada without being a permanent resident, for example, if they were studying on a student visa or a skilled worker.

My feeling is this. If individuals are hard-working contributing members of society, if they love our great country as much as we do and want to take that next step and join us as a citizen, then I see no reason to make them wait so long. They are exactly the kind of person we want to join our Canadian family.

With Bill C-6, this government delivers on its promise to restore the integrity of Canadian citizenship and reaffirms our Canadian values of openness, fairness, and equality. Today, we can proudly say once again, with our heads held high, that we live in the greatest country in the world, and that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, oftentimes today, as we have sat through this debate, we have heard references to the effect that what Bill C-24 did was effectively designate people as second-class citizens.

This morning my colleague from Durham talked quite eloquently about the privileges of having citizenship. The expectation is that those who become citizens of our country would live by the principles of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

Why should those who wish to do harm to Canada, to their fellow citizens, be able to keep their citizenship?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need to be concerned about security. We also need to be concerned for our Canadian values. If we allow terrorists to change who we are as Canadians, if we allow terror groups to alter our fundamental Canadian identity, then the terrorists will have succeeded.

Terrorists belong in one place, and that is in jail. We need to put terrorists in prison, not on a plane. We must punish those who commit acts of terror to the fullest extent of the law, but we cannot create a two-tier justice system, and we cannot allow politicians to decide who gets to be Canadian.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will support the bill, which repeals many of the discriminatory and unconstitutional changes that the previous government made to the Canadian Citizenship Act. However, like my colleagues, I am disappointed that Bill C-6 does not go further.

After hearing her eloquent remarks in support of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I would like to ask my colleague from Scarborough Centre whether she intends to press the minister not to revoke anyone's citizenship without giving that person the opportunity to participate in a court hearing.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Liberal Party promised to repeal the unfair and reprehensible parts of the previous Conservative bill, Bill C-24, and that is exactly what we are doing with Bill C-6.

The two-tier citizenship provisions that were contrary to the Canadian values of equality and inclusiveness will be gone. We are allowing hard-working permanent residents who are contributing to Canadian society to become citizens more quickly, and we are making it easier for grandmothers and grandfathers to join their children and grandchildren without language testing.

To repeal the bill entirely would be irresponsible and rash. The legislation did several things that I agree with, and I hope that the hon. member would as well. For example, the act restored the citizenship of so-called lost Canadians, such as the descendants of Canadian citizens, who were born abroad and were shocked to discover they were not Canadian citizens. The legislation also allowed for a faster path to citizenship for those who were serving or had served in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Surely, the hon. member would agree that these are measures worth keeping.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question regarding the duration before one could obtain Canadian citizenship. I would like to have her brief comments regarding the reduction from what is now a rule of four years, for all intents and purposes, to a rule of three years.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we are reducing the time period from four years to three years because we feel that those people who are contributing to the economy and want to join us and enjoy their rights as Canadian citizens should be allowed to apply earlier. The time period will be reduced from four years to three years before they can apply for Canadian citizenship.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in the House to the important changes, proposed by the government, relating to the Citizenship Act. These changes would go a long way to encourage immigrants to take the path to full membership and permanent belonging in Canadian society.

Obtaining Canadian citizenship more quickly would ensure the best transition possible for newcomers into Canada. Immigrants who become Canadian citizens tend to achieve more economic success. That is good for all Canadians. The proposed legislative change would allow greater flexibility for applicants to meet citizenship requirements, thereby also helping to foster a sense of belonging and connection to Canada.

Overall, the changes would make an impact in three major areas of concern. First, the changes would remove portions of the act that were implemented in 2015, which clearly created two-tiered citizenship. Second, the changes would provide a higher degree of flexibility for applicants to meet requirements for citizenship. Third, the changes would further enhance the integrity of the citizenship program.

Today, I want to address the proposed changes that would give people applying to become Canadians greater flexibility to meet these requirements. These changes would allow immigrants to achieve citizenship faster, which is a goal worth pursuing. The rationale behind the proposed changes lies in the government's goal to encourage immigrants to more fully integrate into Canadian society and to help them build successful lives in Canada.

I want to look at one specific change among several that the government is proposing. It concerns the ability of prospective citizens to count the time they spend in Canada before they become permanent residents toward meeting the citizenship requirements. In the legislation that received royal assent in 2014, this ability was removed. Our government simply wants to restore it.

Under the new proposal, time spent in Canada as a temporary resident or a protected person prior to becoming a permanent resident would count toward meeting the physical presence requirement. The Citizenship Act would be amended to allow each day that a person was physically present as a temporary resident or protected person to be counted as a half-day toward meeting the physical presence requirement for citizenship, up to a maximum of 365 days. Moreover, every day that a person was physically present in Canada as a permanent resident would count as one day of physical presence for citizenship. This means that an applicant could accumulate up to 365 days as a temporary resident or as a protected person. They could accumulate the remaining required 730 days as a permanent resident to meet the 1,095 days of physical presence required to become a citizen.

Who could benefit from this credit? Temporary residents, such as international students, would be one group. Foreign workers would benefit as well. Also, parents and grandparents in Canada with valid temporary resident status could apply this credited time to their citizenship application. In addition, protected persons, those whom Canada has accepted as convention refugees, who went on to become permanent residents could also apply this time in Canada toward the physical presence requirements. This is about recognizing that immigrants often begin building an attachment to Canada before they become permanent residents.

These priorities draw heavily from our election platform commitments. As the minister said earlier, allowing time spent residing in Canada before becoming a permanent resident to count toward citizenship requirements would be received favourably, especially by post-secondary students who come to this country to study and want to stay here and build their careers here and continue contributing to Canada. The Prime Minister has also asked the minister and his cabinet colleagues to reinstate the credit given to international students for time they spend in Canada before becoming permanent residents, and to eliminate the provision that requires citizenship applicants to intend to continue to reside in Canada if granted citizenship.

The reasons the government has for repealing some of the recent changes to the Citizenship Act are simple. We are committed to a Canada that is both diverse and inclusive. It is easy to take diversity for granted in a country like Canada. We have raised children who think nothing of hearing five or six different languages spoken on the playground or at school.

One-fifth of Canadians were born elsewhere. They chose to immigrate to Canada. More than half the citizens of Toronto were born outside of our country.

Against this backdrop, the importance of diversity can sometimes be taken for granted. There is no doubt we are a better country, a stronger country, a more successful country, because of this diversity. Canadians are proud of our country and proud of our values.

We welcome immigrants, we help them settle, we help them integrate, and we help them succeed. This is our history, it is our present, and it is our future. We encourage all immigrants to take the path of full membership in Canadian society. One of the strongest pillars for a successful integration into Canadian life is achieving citizenship.

I am sure, as members of Parliament, we have all been at citizenship ceremonies and we can all attest to how moving these functions can be. It is an important step in the life of immigrants.

The success of our immigrants is our success as a strong and united country. The strength of our new Canadians is what makes us all stronger.

I urge every member of this House to consider supporting Bill C-6.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Newmarket—Aurora, for his fine speech, and I would like to congratulate the Liberal government for bringing forward this bill. There are a lot of provisions that we, in the NDP, can support.

However, there is one thing I would draw to my colleague's attention. I want to reference the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because I think that is a very important document when we deliberate in this chamber, specifically section 11, under legal rights, which states that anyone charged with an offence has a right to a trial before a court that is unbiased and independent of political or any other influence.

I realize that an offence is different from revocation of citizenship, but I think in this chamber we have to look at all of our laws with the spirit of the charter in mind.

Bill C-24 eliminated the right to a judicial hearing for people who are about to have their citizenship revoked. Civil liberty groups, including the Canadian Bar Association, were against this. I would ask my colleague if he agrees with organizations like the Canadian Bar Association that people who are about to lose their citizenship should always have the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial decision-maker, keeping in line with the spirit of the charter, specifically section 11.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer, I am of course supportive of the charter and agree that it is an important facet of our life and our legislative process in Canada, and it needs always to be taken into consideration when we deliberate legislation in this chamber. I agree.

If members recall, the CBA spoke out and was highly critical of BillC-24, for many reasons. Part of it was that it got rid of the Federal Court of Appeal being able to hear appeals under the revocation of citizenship.

So, our new bill, our new act, would be in line with charter values, would be constitutionally sound, and has been vetted. I appreciate the member raising this question because it is important, as we deliberate, that we ensure that all legislation in this House is aligned with charter values. I am a proponent of that. I thank the member for that question.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I also acknowledge the fine comments made by the member for Newmarket—Aurora and his contributions in this chamber on behalf of his constituents.

I wonder, in his experience in noting the diversity of his own riding and the diversity of other areas in and around Toronto, for example, if he would comment on the path to complete integration. People talk a lot about countries that accept newcomers, whether they are asylum-seekers or refugees, but sometimes they are stuck in the status of permanent resident or landed immigrant for a long time and do not have the rights or the ability to complete that journey all the way to citizenship.

Would the member for Newmarket—Aurora comment on the value of citizenship for new Canadians, how it facilitates their integration, their economic achievements, and their health outcomes in his riding?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the parliamentary secretary's important question, I would say that on this side of the House, we do not pretend to have a monopoly of concern for immigration or the diversity of ridings. As Canadians, we all think that becoming a Canadian citizen is an important and integral step for immigrants and newcomers to Canada.

As I mentioned, we have all been to citizenship ceremonies in our role as a members of Parliament and these are very moving ceremonies. To look into people's eyes who are becoming Canadian citizens and to see their beaming pride, I think is perhaps akin to becoming a parent for the first time. That is what we sense when we see them. It is a monumental step in their lives.

Anything we can do to facilitate that, to make it more efficient, is better for newcomers and better for Canada, because we want immigrants and we want new Canadians to contribute to Canadian society as soon possible. They are more than willing to do so when they are Canadian citizens and are fully integrated into our society. So it is an important step. Moreover, like many of my colleagues, I have a diverse riding in Newmarket—Aurora, and that the diversity continues to grow.

I am a third generation Canadian, but my grandparents came from Ukraine on my dad's side. My mom's mom came from Ireland and my mom's dad came to Upper Canada 250 years ago, after the American Revolution.

We can all appreciate the importance of being integrated into a community, to feel that it matters what we do and that we are part of something bigger than ourselves. Becoming a Canadian citizen is a great step in newcomers' lives and it is important that we make it as easy as possible for these wonderful Canadians who will contribute to Canadian society for years to come.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to those of my distinguished colleagues in debating Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

Within Bill C-6, among other things, the Liberal government is seeking to repeal legislation that would allow citizenship to be revoked from dual citizens who engage in certain acts against the national interest. The type of acts that would warrant someone's citizenship being removed are not loosely defined or a slippery slope, as my colleagues across the floor have implied. Instead, they are clearly defined and limited to convictions for terrorism, high treason, treason or spying offences, depending on the sentence received, or for membership in an armed force or organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada. In short, the removal of citizenship for dual nationals only applies to those who show an overwhelming hatred of Canada, Canadian values, and Canadian citizens.

As an immigrant myself and a member of Parliament for a constituency made up of Canadians with rich and various cultural backgrounds, I am deeply upset by the implication that removing citizenship from a convicted terrorist somehow constitutes creating a second tier of Canadian citizenship. My caucus colleagues and I, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast, know that there is only one class of Canadian citizens and that all Canadians deserve to be protected from acts of terror. To imply otherwise is an insult to anyone who takes pride in our rich cultural values and freedoms.

I find it deeply troubling that the priority for the Liberal government when it comes to immigration and public safety legislation is to give back citizenship and to protect the rights of Zakaria Amara. To give some context for why this is important, Zakaria Amara was found guilty in a court of law of plotting to murder thousands of innocent Canadians by bombing strategic locations throughout the greater Toronto area and other locations across our country. This man, by both his convictions and actions, showed his hatred for Canada and lack of respect for all those who value their citizenship, who invest in their communities, and call this great nation home.

An act of terror against one Canadian is an act of terror against all Canadians and all future Canadians. I know that my constituents and I feel that deeply. In light of this, I believe that the Liberal government owes Canadians a credible explanation for their decision to offer Canadian citizenship to convicted terrorists, especially while our allies, including the United Kingdom, France, Australia, and New Zealand, are taking steps to revoke the citizenship of convicted terrorists. Therefore, I ask, why should Canada be so far out of step with our peer countries?

There is nothing inevitable about Canada's future prosperity. The government has an obligation to introduce policies and legislation that live up to the high standards Canadians rightly expect. Under the previous Conservative government, Canada benefited from the highest level of sustained immigration in our history. I am proud to stand on this legacy as a member of Parliament.

I emigrated to Canada as a young man, and I can say with absolute conviction that I understand both the joys and challenges that come as part of transitioning to life in this great nation. It is with this understanding that I would like to speak to another part of Bill C-6, specifically the Liberal proposal to limit the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of Canada and one of the official languages for applicants between the ages of 18 and 54.

There is no debate about whether or not those with a low level of proficiency in either English or French outside this range can still contribute to Canadian society. We know that these individuals work hard, care for their families, and are involved in their communities. Yet, I would like to share my own experience as a young immigrant in Canada two decades ago.

When I arrived in Canada, I began working in a factory. At the time, I was shy and spoke very little English, and as a result I had to rely on those around me to help me communicate to both my co-workers and supervisors. One day, I needed help asking my supervisor for some nails to finish the project I was working on. The young man I asked for help responded by demanding that I buy him lunch first. In this way, I was made to purchase lunch for this young man every day just to keep my job. It is because of this experience that I do not support the Liberals' changes to the language requirements.

Learning one of the two official languages is a valuable tool that helps immigrants to successfully transition into their new lives in Canada. Furthermore, it ensures that they are not isolated from the larger Canadian communities, and allows them to both learn and share with others the rich experience and perspectives they bring with them.

In conclusion, my colleagues and I on both sides of the floor recognize the value of calling this great nation home. It is my hope that we can continue to work together to strengthen the integrity of our citizenship, safeguard the security of all Canadians, and enjoy unity within our diversity for generations to come.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear that the changes in Bill C-24 passed by the Conservative government in 2014 turned millions of Canadians into second-class citizens with fewer rights than other Canadians. The changes were discriminatory, anti-immigrant, and un-Canadian. Bill C-6 would simply undo these changes.

No government should have the right to revoke citizenship, whether one is born in Canada or abroad.

Does the member opposite not agree that Bill C-6 simply restores equal citizenship in Canada to Canadians?