Debates of March 10th, 2016

Citizenship Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we resume, I just want to take a second here to say that normally members hear from the Speaker when there is something bad happening or something not going on, but I just want to compliment the members who were here this afternoon. It was very respectful, and the tone was very nice from up here, and so I thank all of you.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in opposition to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

Let me say at the outset that Canada is a country built upon immigrants. People come from all corners of the world, people of all backgrounds, ethnicities, faiths, and creeds. People come here to build a better life for themselves and their families, and as a result of their contribution, they help shape and build a better Canada each and every day.

Hundreds of thousands of new Canadians are welcomed into the Canadian family each and every year. Indeed, as a result of important reforms to Canada's immigration system brought forward by the previous Conservative government, a more than 70-year record number of new Canadians were welcomed into the Canadian family. I would say that is a record of which all Canadians can be proud.

Each time an immigrant is welcomed into the Canadian family as a Canadian citizen, we are all enriched by the ever-increasing diversity of Canada. It is precisely because of that, that I stand vigorously in opposition to Bill C-6.

Bill C-6 would do absolutely nothing to help the hundreds of thousands of good people who are waiting in the immigration line to build a new and better life in Canada. Rather, Bill C-6 would primarily help one individual, and that individual's name is Zakaria Amara.

Zakaria Amara is the ring leader of the Toronto 18. Yes, it is that Zakaria Amara. He is someone who built detonators, acquired explosives to build truck bombs to blow up downtown Toronto, and was responsible for a plot that the trial judge characterized as “spine chilling”. What is more, the trial judge determined that, but for the fact that Amara was stopped in his tracks, this plot would have resulted in loss of life on a scale never before seen in Canada, if it had been carried out.

Amara's citizenship was rightly revoked under the previous Conservative government, and now, if Bill C-6 were passed, Amara's citizenship would be reinstated. Effectively, Bill C-6 would put Amara at the front of the immigration line, ahead of the hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people who want to join the Canadian family.

I agree with the hon. members opposite when they say that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. I would add that a law-abiding Canadian is a law-abiding Canadian is a law-abiding Canadian. Also, a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

However, Bill C-6 would do nothing to create equality or treat newcomers equally. I can see that the government's bill may be well intentioned, but what Bill C-6 would effectively do is give dual citizens convicted of terrorist offences preferred status over other dual citizens.

What happens to dual citizens who conceal their criminal record? The answer is that their citizenship may be revoked, and the government supports that.

What happens to dual citizens who enter Canada on fraudulent pretenses? The answer is that their citizenship may be revoked, and this government supports that.

However, what happens to dual citizens who are convicted of terrorist offences? If Bill C-6 were passed, they would be able to keep their Canadian citizenship.

How can that be? How is that fair? How is that just? How is that fair to, frankly, multi-generation Canadians, to first-generation Canadians, to new Canadians, or to any Canadian?

It is not fair. It is fundamentally unjust, particularly to dual-citizenship Canadians. Not only is it fundamentally unjust to dual-citizenship Canadians, but it is out of step with literally every other country in the western world. Almost all countries in the western world have laws on their books that take away the citizenship of those who perpetrate terrorist acts.

It is out of step with literally every democracy in the western world, because Bill C-6 is inconsistent with the principles that underlie citizenship; namely, reciprocity. Canada is loyal to the citizen; the citizen is loyal to Canada.

Let me just say that I hope the government takes a step back and reconsiders this ill-advised piece of legislation. Rather than moving forward with this legislation, I would encourage it to work with us, work with all parties, work with all Canadians to find ways to help streamline the immigration process; to find ways to give immigrants the tools they need so that they can prosper here in Canada; and to, frankly, work to help every new Canadian enjoy the Canadian dream by creating conditions for long-term growth and prosperity, instead of the reckless tax-and-spend schemes it has brought forward over the last six months, which are slowing economic growth, including that of new Canadians, making us all poorer, and burdening future generations of Canadians with mountains of debt, including future generations of new Canadians.

In closing, let me say that a bill that would put terrorists ahead of dual-citizenship Canadians, a bill that would be inconsistent with long-standing principles respecting citizenship, a bill that would put one of the worst terrorists, Zakaria Amara, at the front of the immigration line, is a bill that must be defeated.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I also want to thank him for what he said in his introduction about welcoming immigrants. He also supports welcoming immigrants, so that fits in with what our party is advocating.

However, a leopard does not change its spots. My colleague is trying to frighten Canadians by talking about terrorism and other such things.

He also mentioned that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. Can he please explain how he can say that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian and, in the same breath, that he is favour of dual citizenship?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when people commit terrorist acts, when people seek to kill other Canadians, when people seek to destroy the institutions that bind us as Canadians, those individuals, as a matter of fact, renounce their citizenship.

What the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act did was merely affirm that fact.

What Bill C-6 does is seek to revoke the renunciation and reinstate it solely to the benefit of terrorists. We think that is fundamentally wrong, and it is why we do not support Bill C-6.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion with which my colleague speaks. It adds greatly to this debate.

My colleague has been vigorously defending Bill C-24, and I get a sense from the questions and the speeches that perhaps it did not go far enough for him.

Can he envision a bill that is stronger than Bill C-24 that he would perhaps like to see replace Bill C-6?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 falls short in just about every way imaginable.

Take, for example, the fact that under the Strengthening of Canadian Citizenship Act, we recognized that new Canadian applicants in an increasingly globalized world needed flexibility. In terms of the period of time that applicants were required to remain in Canada, the Strengthening of Canadian Citizenship Act gave them one third of the time that they could be outside of Canada. The Liberals now want to take away that flexibility, by reducing that to only 25% of the time that applicants can be outside of Canada.

This legislation would be bad for new Canadians. The only beneficiaries of it would be terrorists.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned in his speech that this legislation would do nothing to help the long line of immigrants waiting to become citizens. Bill C-6 proposes to reduce the number of days needed for international students by reinstating 50% of their time here credit. It would also reduce the time that they are in Canada, from four out of six years to three out of five years in order to apply as citizens.

Would my friend agree that these measures would help those who want to become citizens and reduce the waiting time?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are some positive aspects of Bill C-6. I will admit that not all aspects of the bill are bad. We need to look at the changes carefully.

Unfortunately, there are too many provisions in Bill C-6 that are problematic, so barring the legislation being drastically amended, I and my colleagues in the Conservative Party cannot support it.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of Bill C-6. The bill will restore the fundamental principle of equality of citizenship, and also restore common sense to the process of becoming a Canadian citizen.

There are few privileges on earth greater than being a citizen of Canada. In our country, we cherish our freedom, our democracy, and our inalienable rights that attach to our citizenship. Canada has long been a beacon of hope and opportunity to many around the world. Our country is blessed to have been enriched by people who have become Canadians by choice.

In my riding of West Nova, we have an incredible history which started the foundation of the country, with rich contributions from Acadian, Mi’kmaq, Métis, British, and African Canadians. Also, we know that through many generations at Pier 21 in Halifax, many more immigrants began their lives as Canadians and together helped build this great country.

The most fundamental principle of the rule of law is that all citizens are equal before the law. We cannot have two classes of Canadians. Once someone is a citizen of our country, certain rights and privileges attach to that. They cannot be taken away. Bill C-6 restores the fundamental principle of our system of citizenship. It rightly seeks to reinstate this principle, which was taken away under the Conservatives' Bill C-24 in the last Parliament.

I have heard all kinds of claims by the opposition members in the debate so far on Bill C-6. However, the most intellectually frustrating argument I have heard is their claim that Bill C-6 leaves in the law the ability for revocation of citizenship in some cases. Therefore, the argument we are making on this side of the House, that it is fundamental that we cannot revoke citizenship, is somehow inconsistent with leaving that provision in the law. I have heard this from the other side. The argument has been made that Bill C-6 in fact creates two tiers of citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the opposite is true. The bill remedies the fact that in Bill C-24 there are two classes of citizenship.

Does the opposition not see the obvious difference between taking away citizenship from someone who never would have or should have obtained citizenship but for fraud or misrepresentation, and revoking the citizenship of an otherwise valid citizen for egregious behaviour done after they have been conferred with all rights and privileges that come with citizenship? To my mind, there is a clear distinction between something being void ab initio, that meaning from the beginning. They were never citizens. That is the difference between something void ab initio and something voidable in the future for future behaviour.

Furthermore, do they not see that maintaining the integrity of our citizenship application process requires a mechanism to prevent those who would lie in order to become a citizen? What kind of system is reliable if there is no mechanism to withdraw from it people who have lied, committed fraud, or misrepresented the statements made in order to obtain the thing conferred upon them? Of course, to have a proper system of citizenship requires a mechanism for those people who have misrepresented themselves to the government to obtain the citizenship to take that away.

That is vastly different from saying that someone should have their citizenship revoked for something done after they have become a citizen. There is no causal link. There is nothing between their bad behaviour afterwards and their citizenship. Therefore, it is fundamentally wrong to suggest that because there are provisions that remain in the law to revoke citizenship for someone who should never and would never have been conferred citizenship, versus someone revoking their citizenship for egregious behaviour after the fact, that the law is flawed

Let me be clear about this. There is no question that the behaviour associated with revoking citizenship in Bill C-24 is egregious behaviour. It is intolerable. It is criminal. It is repugnant. That is exactly why the criminal law in this country, to the fullest extent, should make sure that those people go to jail. That is where they belong. It should not be used as a punishment to revoke their citizenship because it does in fact create two tiers of citizens. It creates citizens who have dual citizenship who could be subjected to having their citizenship revoked on future behaviour, versus those who are Canadian and only Canadian citizens.

There is a big fundamental difference. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. I know that line has been used on both sides of the House, but it is true. It is true that if we go down the road of having more than one class of citizenship, it will render less valuable the fact that someone is a Canadian citizen.

Being a dual citizen means that an individual is a Canadian citizen. However, a Canadian citizen is the same, whether or not they have more than one passport.

I submit that most Canadians understand this obvious difference. It is unfortunate that it is being advanced as a proper argument to maintain these elements from the previous Bill C-24. I note that these elements were part of the election campaign, and Canadians rejected those ideas in the last election.

Bill C-6 also reduces the length of time that someone must be physically present in Canada to qualify for citizenship. This would help immigrants achieve citizenship more quickly and change the requirements to three years within five years total. It will mean that applicants can apply one year sooner in order to join the citizenship of this country. This offers greater flexibility for immigrants who travel outside of Canada but maintain the timelines. It does ensure that a new Canadian has significant ties and links with our country to be a full and proud Canadian.

Another element of Bill C-6 that I find very good is the part of the bill that restores the 50% credit, for international students in particular, who spend time at one of our amazing schools in this country. It does not make any sense to take away the credit for those individuals whom we hope to attract, for whom we are competing with other countries around the world to have them live in Canada, to participate in our country. It does not make any sense at all to make it harder for them. We are competing with other countries around the world to attract the best and brightest, and we must do what we can to ensure that they stay here.

They have links with Canada. They obviously have a linguistic connection, either English or French, or perhaps both, in order to attend one of our universities or post-secondary schools. Therefore, it makes sense with those links, those connections, their intelligence and innovation, that we should be attracting and doing everything we can to encourage these students to become part of the Canadian family.

We know that Bill C-6 also amends the age range for the language requirement. Bill C-6 proposes to amend the age range for those required to meet language and knowledge requirements from 14 to 64, to those aged 18 to 54, removing a potential barrier to citizenship for applicants in both the younger and older age groups.

All Canadians are free to move outside of Canada, of course, and this is a right guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many Canadians enjoy that privilege and maintain their strong ties and connections and pride in Canada. It is right and correct that Bill C-6 repeals the June 2015 change that required adult applicants to declare that they intend to continue to reside in Canada. This is a prime example of previous modifications to our law that treat certain citizens differently.

Bill C-6 attempts to remedy changes that were made that are against the rule of law, against the best traditions of this country, and that is why I will proudly support Bill C-6.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague's statements. I have been in the House most of the day and have listened to the debate over the last several days. He talked specifically about intellectual arguments on why this bill is not being supported on this side.

I would suggest that we are talking about a very narrow band as it relates to the revocation of citizenship. Since Confederation, there have been eight cases, and just six since World War II. There are 52 countries that recognize how important this issue is, and those 52 countries actually revoke citizenship for circumstances similar to this.

I would like to hear an intellectual argument from the other side as to why Liberals are proposing that those who commit terrorist acts, acts of treason, and espionage in this country should not lose their citizenship when those in 52 other countries around the world do.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that this is a matter of principle. This is a matter that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, and having a system whereby there are different types of Canadians is an affront to what we hold dear as Canadian values.

I note my friend referenced 52 countries around the world. One that he will not find on that list is the United States of America. That country has a law and a body of jurisprudence similar to what we have in our country when it comes to citizenship, and it is in the best traditions of both the United States and Canada that we stand proudly when we say that there is one type of citizenship. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, and I reject entirely the premise that because another country has it in its laws, so should we.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to congratulate the member on his speech, but I would also like to put to him a question that may enlarge on the issue of citizenship.

I would remind him that something the Conservatives did, albeit in another piece of legislation in the last Parliament, was strip Canadian citizens who have lived outside the country for more than five years of their right to vote. Members may remember that actor Donald Sutherland and others publicly complained about this. These are people whose careers take them outside of the country, but they have no less of a connection. In fact, there are Canadian diplomats who live outside the country for more than five years who could potentially lose their right to vote.

I am wondering how the member feels about that. Would he agree with me that another useful amendment would be to repeal that piece of legislation by the previous government and restore the right of all Canadian citizens to vote in Canadian elections, even if they have resided outside the country for more than five years?

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtful question and suggestion from the member opposite. I certainly remember that issue being raised during the election campaign and I know that it affected many who wish to participate in our democracy and have significant links and ties to our country. I find it unfortunate that the right of those Canadians to vote was taken away by that measure.

It is obviously not part of this bill. It is certainly something that I believe we should look at. I would be happy to work with my colleague in bringing that forward, either as an amendment or perhaps in a different fashion. I know that it is tied directly to our election laws in this country. It is an excellent suggestion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what his experiences in the election campaign were like and what he thinks about the hundreds of thousands of Canadians with dual citizenship who will be affected by Bill C-24.

I talked to Americans, people from Europe, and a lot of people from the Middle East in my riding who felt, to be honest, let down by the government. They wonder why they are a different class of citizen than Canadians born here. They think this bill only affects one person, but it does not. It affects millions of Canadians who have dual citizenship, and they feel slighted by this act.

When I knocked on doors during the election campaign, I heard many people say that they could not believe a government would do this to its own citizens. I wonder if his experiences were similar in his riding during the election campaign.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that many dual citizens were gravely concerned about how this might impact them personally. It is important to remind everyone in this debate that dual citizens may be people who were born in this country and became, by birth, dual nationals, both Canadian citizens and citizens of some other country. The law as it stands now would actually mean that such a person could have his or her citizenship revoked for an egregious set of circumstances, as mentioned earlier, while having never lived anywhere else but Canada.

Therefore, yes, people were concerned about this issue in the election campaign, but, as I said, it is a matter of principle, and to say that it only affects a few who may actually get caught up by this provision makes no difference. It is a matter of principle. We should stand up for the values we believe in in Canada. I believe Bill C-6 is a good measure to do that.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-6 and to its provisions that would help provide greater flexibility for applicants trying to meet the requirements for citizenship and help immigrants obtain citizenship faster.

Bill C-6 proposes to help those Canadians who desire to work for companies that require travel as a part of their job description. I am sure the House would agree that in this ever-changing economic climate, it is essential for us to help those who reside in Canada and who want to become Canadians. As Canadians, we desperately need them to join us. That new generation of immigrants can continue to help build our country so it may remain one of the best places to live in the world.

We must also allow our people to be gainfully employed. I have had several people in my riding who are frustrated with not being able to work for companies that require them to travel and still have the ability to become citizens of our country, which would help them build a successful life in Canada. I am sure we can all recall situations where people have come to our riding offices wanting to work for these companies, wanting to be employed, and wanting to be Canadian citizens. We must help them.

Under the renewal process in place now, it takes s a lengthy time for people to renew their PR cards that allows them to travel around world. We want to encourage diversity and take steps to ensure that the path to citizenship is flexible and fair. However, we also want to encourage Canadians to take pride in obtaining their citizenship.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship have been clear from the outset. Flexibility and diversity is crucial to our future as a country and in what we offer the world. We know from decades of experience that immigrants who become Canadian citizens are likely to achieve greater economic success in our country and make a greater contribution to the Canadian economy. This commitment benefits the country as a whole. Furthermore, one significant predicator for a successful integration into Canadian life is achieving Canadian citizenship.

During debate on this very issue yesterday, a member from the Conservative Party stated that in order for one to value his or her citizenship, it should be difficult and take a long time to obtain citizenship. I highly disagree with that. In fact, it took my parents less time to get their citizenship when they arrived in this fine country in the late 1970s. I do not know of people who could be prouder to have chosen this country to make it their home. They have contributed greatly and have worked extremely hard to make their lives and the lives of their children a success here.

I have a senior in my riding who helped me with my campaign. I have never met a prouder man. He came to Canada as a senior with little knowledge of the English language or Canadian history. However, he always reminded me of how honoured we should all feel to be involved in the democratic process. He always made sure my office had a Canadian flag. He also insisted that I wear a Canadian pin on my jacket when campaigning. At events, he reminded me to play the national anthem. He stood proudly as he attempted to sing the words. This is a person who never had to take the test because he was above the age that required him to do so. Does it seem as if this individual does not value his citizenship? I think not. If anything, at times people who are born here and have never lived anywhere else can end up taking their citizenship for granted.

Bill C-6 provides for a flexibility that benefits both the lives of new Canadians and the social cohesion of our diverse country. The first way it would do this is by amending the physical presence requirement to the equivalent of three years out of five. More specific, the proposed changes would reduce physical presence requirements to three years out of five immediately before the date of application. This is a change from the current four years out of six. This would allow individuals to apply for citizenship one year earlier than under the requirements that came into force in May of 2015, making the path to citizenship a shorter one.

The five-year window in which to accumulate three years, or more specifically, 1,095 days, of physical presence would also provide greater flexibility for those who are absent from Canada during the five-year qualifying period, for work or other personal reasons.

I have had many people in my office, whom I have met over the last few months, who have sick parents in their country of origin, who have to travel in order to take care of loved ones. Should we not grant these people the ability to do so in these extenuating circumstances, but also the ability to come back and gain citizenship quite quickly?

There are people who are selling their homes and wrapping up loose ends, who have moved to this country because their children have enrolled in school or for other reasons. They need to be able to wrap up their old prior business and still be able to come back to this country and move on with their lives in a successful way.

This bill supports the Government of Canada's goal that I spoke of earlier, the goal of increasing flexibility and making it easier for immigrants to build a successful life in Canada, reunite their families, and contribute to the economic success of all Canadians. In a world where individuals are more mobile than ever before, where employers increasingly have an international presence, it is crucial that we build flexibility into our immigration system.

As well, permanent residents who choose to study abroad, do voluntary work in other countries, or work for NGOs abroad would be able to, provided they are physically present for three years within the five-year window. They would be able to then bring this rich, international experience back to Canada, benefiting us all.

Similarly, Bill C-6 also proposes to repeal the supplemental physical-presence requirement that citizenship applicants be physically present in Canada for a minimum of 183 days of each of the four calendar years within the six years before the date of application.

Keeping this requirement would not allow applicants to fully benefit from the shorter physical presence or the increased flexibility that I just described, or the new non-permanent resident time credit that Bill C-6 also proposes. Removing this requirement would also provide more flexibility for prospective applicants to meet the requirements of citizenship.

Another way Bill C-6 would increase flexibility is through the removal of the intent-to-reside provision. Under current law, applicants are expected to have an intention to continue to reside in Canada if granted citizenship. Applicants are required to hold this intention from the time they submit their application to the time they take the oath of citizenship.

The provision created concern among some new citizens, who feared their citizenship could be revoked in the future if they moved outside of Canada. For example, although the period covered by the intent-to-reside provision does not apply after a person has become a citizen, it has created great confusion.

Some new Canadians whose work requires them to live abroad for extended periods may feel that their declaration of an intent to reside in Canada could negatively affect their ability to work abroad as Canadians.

The government has made a commitment to repeal the provision. Doing so, and making it clear that no citizens are bound by it, would eliminate any misperception that new Canadians would have.

We want our immigration system to be flexible to the needs of those who make Canada their home. More broadly, the changes proposed by Bill C-6 support the Government of Canada's commitment to fostering a diverse, fair, and inclusive country.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-6 today. I encourage all my honourable colleagues to support the bill, as I will.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton North for her comments and her articulation of the important facets of this legislation.

I know the member as a passionate advocate for immigrants and the economic outcomes for newcomers and new, hard-working Canadians.

I want to ask the member for Brampton North if she could articulate to this House, from her perspective and her perception, how facilitating pathways to citizenship and facilitating integration of new Canadians would actually help improve some of those economic outcomes for our new Canadians.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I just outlined in my speech, people who know they have a good chance for citizenship are more likely to invest in our country. They are more likely to wrap up their ties in the nation they left behind and bring their money and investment to our country here. This improves our economic stability here and the stability of their families here and abroad. They have security knowing that their children will one day become citizens, and it allows them to make long-term plans for their future in this country. That is exactly what we want. We want the people who come to our great nation to feel a part of the fabric of our society and to make Canada a home, and to ensure that they are proud to be Canadian, as they will be if granted citizenship in a fair and quick process.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech, particularly the story of her family's arrival in Canada.

This morning, in my speech on Bill C-6, I said that I have tremendous admiration for parliamentarians from all walks of life. Here in the House, we have more opportunities to meet people than we do in my riding, which is in a part of Quebec where there are fewer people from many different cultures.

My colleague said a lot about the importance of immigration and inviting people to Canada. She did not, however, say anything about terrorists.

When her parents came to this country, they intended to live here, to participate in and contribute fully to Canadian society, and they should be very proud that their daughter is now sitting in Canada's Parliament.

That is not at all the same as what the government wants to do with Bill C-6. It would restore citizenship to people who do not share these values and have no desire for their children to do something like become a member of Canada's Parliament.

Can my colleague comment on that situation, on that change of heart? When people want to come to Canada, they want to be Canadian; they do not want to destroy this country.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a very important one that has been raised in the House several times since yesterday. Terrorism is a grave crime and should be treated as such. I do not believe any member has stood and said that terrorism should not be taken seriously.

I also feel that terrorism should be taken extremely seriously. However, as we talk about Canadian values we must not forget that one of our Canadian values is equality before the law. As we have stated many times, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. We cannot treat some sets of Canadians differently from other sets of Canadians.

We have to ensure that we have a justice system that we are proud of. Our Canadian justice system is quite well equipped to handle these situations. The previous bill before talked about terrorism, people who were convicted in a Canadian courtroom for a certain duration of time. These people will be dealt with by the harshest penalties of the law of Canada, and that is how they should be dealt with.

I do not believe it is necessary to create this two-tier system where we treat one Canadian differently from another Canadian. We can still accomplish the goal of fighting terrorism without the outrageous law that currently stands.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a great debate today. I have enjoyed listening to both sides of the House, where there seems to be quite a polarity between the Liberals and Conservatives, but the debate nonetheless has helped me reflect on the idea of what a citizen actually is and what is citizenship.

It is a very ancient concept, perhaps developed by the Israelites, but really made famous by the Greeks who expanded the idea of what a citizen is. It used to be that we organized ourselves. Humans were not very mobile and we lived in the same spots most of the time. We organized ourselves first by family and then by clan. Whom we were loyal to and whom we conceived ourselves to be was really the people in our immediate area.

However, once society started to expand and urbanize, which the Greeks were a great example of, all of a sudden it brought us into contact with different people who were not from our family groups, not from our clans. What developed as a result was the idea that we are something outside of ourselves. We could conceive of the idea that it was not just about us and our families, that not only could we co-exist with other groups, but we could believe in this broader group as something bigger than ourselves. That is really where the idea of citizenship began, as we began to think of ourselves as a group beyond our family members.

Along with that came the idea of defining what a citizen is. The safest way in ancient societies was to give citizenship to the most powerful people to make sure that males who were born in a particular area were given exclusive rights to citizenship and no one else. That eliminated women, slaves, and visitors from other places, so it was a very exclusive domain, this idea of who a citizen was.

What was important about that aspect of citizenship was that Greek males started to travel. Citizenship was important because they would be Greek citizens regardless of where they were in the world. Once people started to gather in urban areas and started to travel and explore, the idea of citizenship became even more important. A Greek male who travelled far away could always think in his head that he was a citizen of Greece. That was something beyond himself. It is not that he was a member of a particular family, but a citizen of Greece, and that was something important to him. It is something he would defend and try to contribute to.

We are in a parliamentary assembly now. The Greeks were famous for their parliamentary assemblies. Indeed, they not only expanded the idea of citizenship, but also started the first democracies. That is where they would debate who a citizen was, who would be included, who would be excluded, which is what we are doing here today. We are talking about what a Canadian citizen is.

Often we are caught up here with our partisan hats on, thinking about how this would benefit our own party and other parties, but I would really like us to pause and think about what we are doing here in this debate and will be doing at committee when the bill is passed. We will be having the same discussion that has been had in other assemblies. It will be about what a citizen is and how we define who we are. That will in turn will show the rest of the world how we think of ourselves and what kind of example we are providing to other people. This is a very important debate we are having because it sets the tone of how Canada is perceived worldwide.

Citizenship is actually codified by rules that give us privileges and responsibilities, but also gives us a sense of ourselves that is outside of our normal day-to-day living. We are all proud to be Canadians here, and I think a lot of people in the world would like to be Canadian, whereas others are very proud of their own nationality and will retain it. Furthermore, in some situations in Canada, we do not make people trade in their other identity, but allow them to become dual citizens. That is how our country works and it has worked very well. It is not the same in all countries. Some countries make people revoke their citizenship from another country.

What it really says is that Canada is an open place where one can come from afar, go through the rules, and become a citizen without having to jettison one's other identity. I think that is what makes Canada very strong.

My riding of Burnaby South, I would say, is one of the most diverse communities in the entire world, with over 100 languages. Most folks are from afar. We have a core group of folks of European descent who have been in Burnaby for 100 years or so, and now we have citizens from all over the world and a large population of refugees. They have come to Canada and are trying to move their conception of who they are to who they are going to be.

This is why we have to make sure that we get it right here and make it clear what it means to be Canadian. It is also why I so disagreed with the debates we had in the last Parliament, because they all came down to a very small part of what being a citizen is. It is important how we deal with people who are terrorists, but the focus on that clouded the idea of what citizenship is in Canada. I think what we need to do in this debate is clarify for both new and old Canadians what citizenship means to us.

Everyone thought Canadian citizens were equal, but then all of a sudden we had this whole discussion of whether or not citizenship was two-tiered, and whether someone could have their citizenship removed, which seems like an alien concept for people. If one is a citizen, either one has been born here to Canadian parents or one has moved here from another country and has gone through a series of very rigorous steps to gain citizenship. The state is totally in control of that process. The very apt government officials at Citizenship and Immigration Canada move recent immigrants to become permanent residents and then citizens, and these people are put through rigorous screens.

However, I have not really been getting an answer from the Liberals why they have retained in Bill C-6 the idea that a minister can revoke someone's citizenship without any kind of judicial review. I asked the parliament secretary that. If someone gains citizenship through fraudulent means, then their citizenship can be revoked, but I think that represents a failure on our part. If we fail to screen people properly and they gain citizenship by fraudulent means, that is a failure on our part, and I do not really count that person as having been a citizen to begin with.

If we move aside someone who has received citizenship fraudulently, under what other circumstances would we ever remove someone else's citizenship? Why does the minister need this power to remove someone's citizenship without judicial review? I have yet to hear an answer from the other side to that question. I am hoping that maybe in the question and answer period we can have a response from the other side as to why that is the case.

I think the effect is that it is still unclear as to how our citizenship is protected by law. For every other case of law-breaking in the country, we have to go through a proper judicial process protected by the charter. All Canadians feel confident in that. However, to me, this clouds the idea of what a citizen is and leaves a shadow of doubt as to whether citizenship is protected.

I have to say that I am glad that the new Liberal government has decided to allow graduate students here to speed up their application to become citizens. I know the U.S. is moving in that direction as well, and I am deeply worried that we will lose very talented students because we have restrictions on their becoming Canadian citizens.

This is something I am very proud to support and will be voting in support of the bill.

However, I am hoping that as we get to committee, we will try to clarify this whole issue of why the minister can revoke citizenship without judicial review.

I see that I am out of time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my thanks to my colleague for his well-received speech in this House.

I took some time to go through the Criminal Code of Canada, specifically section 83. It is a very lengthy part of the Criminal Code. For those who are not aware, that is the section that deals with terrorism. It defines every aspect of terrorism: participating in it, supporting it, and financing it. However, that is not the point I want to get to. The point is that terrorism is defined under the Criminal Code. It is a crime, and I want to instruct my Conservative friends in the House that it is a crime.

Now, if I, as a natural-born Canadian, or any of my natural-born Canadian friends, were to engage in terrorist activities, we would go to jail. I have heard suggestions in this House that the bill would somehow let terrorists off the hook. The punishment for terrorism is usually 25 years to life. It is not an easy sentence.

When we look at the bill, we have to remember that terrorism is a crime and should be treated as such. I would like my friend from Burnaby to extrapolate on that point and maybe give some instruction to our Conservative colleagues in this House.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree that in Canada we have a responsibility to deal with terrorism and not just export it to other places. The strictest punishments under the Criminal Code apply to terrorism, and I think that revoking citizenship, in a way, would not do as much as if we were to put people in jail for terrorism. We have ample controls to deal with that.

I welcome debate from both sides. I think it is always important to hear what the Liberals and Conservatives have to say, even though the NDP, of course, is always right.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in following the dialogue that has been going on about the fact that we have laws in Canada against terrorism, which obviously is a very good thing, that has been a large portion of the argument today. My question is around that.

There are 57-some other countries, I believe my colleague mentioned, which have concerns about terrorism. They remove citizenship with respect to that specifically. I wonder if any research has been done on why that would be the case, when I am fairly confident, even though I am not a lawyer, that they would have laws with respect to terrorism in their country as well.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, terrorists should go to jail. That is it.

We are a very well-resourced country. We have excellent public servants who look after our penal system. When somebody commits a terrorist act and through the courts they are found to be guilty, they should go to jail. That should be that.

In a way, I think that removing citizenship is a side debate. It is something to distract us. I think that catching terrorists, ensuring we have intelligence to do that, ensuring we have fair process, due process under law to put people in jail and keep them there, keeps them from doing harm to other countries. We have a global responsibility to do that in Canada.