Debates of March 9th, 2016

Citizenship Act

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, the critic for finance. He has a history, having been here when Bill C-24 was tabled, and has gone through the debate. I appreciate the concern around discretionary powers given to the minister.

Bill C-6 does not actually address that. It still allows for the minister to have the discretionary power to revoke a citizenship. What I hope the government will do and would urge it to do is to, in fact, go back to the way the system was and put the authority to revoke citizenship before an independent body through the Federal Court system and for a Federal Court judge to make that decision.

That is the best way to do it, openly, with accountability, and to ensure politics stays out of somebody's citizenship.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for supporting the intent of Bill C-6.

I am sure the member will agree that the immigration file is one of the top files that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is handling. The former government brought in a regressive policy for 10 years and the minister tried to correct that in the first 30 sitting days of this House.

Is she satisfied that the minister is doing great work and is heading in the right direction?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that during the campaign the Prime Minister made a commitment to the Chinese community, particularly through the Chinese media, that if the Liberals formed government he would repeal Bill C-24 in its entirety. If we use that as a barometer to what is happening right now with Bill C-6, it actually falls short.

That being said, I do support the measures brought forward under Bill C-6 for the most part. There are areas I have identified where it needs further action and I hope I can count on the member's support in that regard.

I know the member made a comment in the media regarding the citizenship language issue, particularly the proficiency, or the level of the language. I hope I can count on his support to get his government and his minister to move in the right direction to reduce the proficiency level and to recognize the contributions of immigrants in that regard.

I hope I can also count on the member's support on the financial barriers and reducing the citizenship application fees.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my friend from Surrey—Newton.

It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the government's plan to repeal the unfair provisions found under the Citizenship Act that were passed in the previous Parliament under Bill C-24, which allowed for the revocation of Canadian citizenship of dual or multiple nationals on the grounds of national interest.

Once again, our government is delivering on the commitments we promised Canadians during last year's federal election. From my perspective, Bill C-24 is not only a bill that personally affects the lives of many of my constituents but it also affects many Canadians across this country.

I note that in the speech by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, he articulated two broad principles that governed the intent behind Bill C-6.

First and foremost, he enunciated the concept of a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, which was something that we had heard throughout the campaign, and that we found the notion of two different types of classes of Canadian citizens to be offensive.

The second concept that was articulated by the minister was with respect to peeling back the changes found in Bill C-24 that imposed new barriers on welcoming immigrants to this country and becoming Canadian citizens.

There are a series of four provisions within Bill C-6 that attempt to bring back a much more welcoming atmosphere to becoming a Canadian citizen. Those are very important principles. However, I want to focus on two different principles.

I first want to note that I appreciated the speech made by my friend from the New Democratic Party, the member for Vancouver East, who I thought articulated in very clear terms the reasons why her party would be supporting the provisions of Bill C-6. She also put forth some legitimate criticisms that she found, namely, that we did not necessarily go far enough in Bill C-6.

I take the point the minister raised that this government remains open to making reasonable changes, which is a reflection of this particular government. For example, this government would definitely entertain some of the issues the member articulated.

I want to get to those two broad principles that I would like to articulate in the short time I have to talk to Bill C-6 that I feel were particularly offensive under Bill C-24.

The first concept I want to advance, which was a central theme that had been articulated by the previous government and in particular by the former minister of citizenship and immigration, Chris Alexander, is the concept that citizenship is a privilege as opposed to a right. I strongly disagree with the former minister's position on this substantive fate.

The whole concept of strengthening the Canadian Citizenship Act, as minister Alexander had framed it, was that citizenship was somehow a privilege. From my perspective, once it is conferred, it attaches rights. There are obligations and responsibilities that come with citizenship, but it confers rights that are protected specifically under the charter, as my friend from Vancouver East had noted. Therefore, once it is legitimately acquired, the concept of citizenship should not be taken away capriciously.

That brings me to the second concept. My friends in the New Democratic Party touched upon this particular theme both in the comments made by my friend from Vancouver East and in the question from the finance critic for the NDP, which is the concept of the encroachment of executive power and the lack of procedural due process that was found under Bill C-24. Again, I deeply oppose this concept.

I take the comments that my friend from Vancouver East noted seriously. She remains concerned that there needs to be procedural due process whenever citizenship is stripped away. This government would be amendable to those kinds of amendments to the legislation.

I found particularly odious the previous government's perspective to grant the minister the arbitrary right to decide which individuals would get to keep their citizenship and which ones would not. It was particularly odious because it could be done capriciously and without any sort of procedural due process. There would be no capacity to appeal. There would be no capacity to bring new facts to the table.

I know what members of the Conservative Party are ultimately going to say. They are going to say we would only be stripping citizenship from convicted terrorists. All we heard in the debate in the House from the previous minister and from my friends in the opposition is that at the end of the day once individuals are convicted of a particular crime, they should serve their time, and that is the ultimate sanction. Stripping citizenship from certain classes of individuals is not fundamentally appropriate. More important, it would undermine the whole concept of the fundamental principle of rule of law, where all citizens are treated equally. I note that concept was very well articulated earlier, and I want to reinforce that principle in my comments today.

These are really the fundamental issues of why I will be supporting Bill C-6 in addition to the principles that were enunciated by the minister.

My sense is that this is about what it means to be Canadian, what it ultimately means to create conditions where we are a welcoming society, as noted in the opening comments of the minister, a society that values people who come from around the world. My friend from Calgary Nose Hill articulated the same principles.

I do not agree with my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan that somehow this is about an elevation of values. This is very much a values debate, but the value we are attaching is to the protection of fundamental principles, principles that are found in the charter, the principle of rule of law, the principle of equality. That is why we are here in this place. If we cannot protect those fundamental principles for the people we find most offensive in our society, then why are we here? That for me is the core of the debate and why Bill C-6 must be supported.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Scarborough—Agincourt always speaks eloquently, even when I do not agree with him. He is so good at making bad ideas sound good.

When it comes to this idea of fundamental principles, he gets at something important. When people choose to reject all the things that characterize Canadian values, when they do not buy in by trying to use the good name of Canadian citizenship to engage in violent terrorism against Canadians, against innocent people, against our values, is there not some point at which people can effectively take themselves out of that citizenship by their own convictions and actions against Canada, against Canadian values, against innocent people?

Let us make this concrete. What would happen when individuals who have the benefit of a Canadian passport travel around the world, use the access a Canadian passport gives them, undertake violence against civilians, plan terrorist activities, continue to use the good name of Canada, and have to be bailed out by us in certain situations? Is there not some point where individuals by their own actions take themselves out of the Canadian family by choosing to be involved in this kind of violence?

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we agree that people we find offensive in our society, whether that be terrorists, murders, or whatever, need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. We support that on the government side. The question is whether we create an additional penalty for certain classes of individuals. In this case, we are only talking about people who have a dual citizenship or the potential of a dual citizenship. Therefore, it can only be applied to certain people. From my perspective, that ultimately devalues the whole notion of equality of citizenship, which is much more fundamental.

There are many other mechanisms that my friend has articulated in his question that I think allows us to deal with it, whether that be confiscation of passports or travel restrictions. There are other mechanisms that we can impose on these types of individuals, but again, it gets down to fundamental values. The concept of equality is paramount.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for highlighting the questions I asked my other colleague from British Columbia. However, I would like a more specific answer.

At the time, we opposed, as did the Liberal opposition, granting such discretionary powers to ministers on such fundamental issues. That was the case for the public safety file and several bills dealing with finances.

In this case, we are dealing with immigration. Granting discretionary power to a person and their entourage by circumventing the process is fundamentally contrary to the rule of law. I would like to ask my colleague who touched on that issue for his comments.

What do he and his colleagues think of these powers that his party, during the election campaign, promised to eliminate, but that still remain in the hands of the minister and his entourage?

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, even the minister has acknowledged that no bill is ultimately perfect. That is why this government has adopted a process of strengthening committees and giving opportunities for members to exercise the democratic function in which they were elected.

I agree fully with the principle that executive power, particularly in a Westminster-style model, needs to be checked, and we are doing our best to do that. If there is a particular flaw in the bill, this side of the House will remain open to those effective changes.

All things ultimately require balance. At the end of the day, there is also a function of protecting Canadians and security. However, that should never be done in such a way that it is capricious, or without the application of the rule of law, or the principles of both procedural and substantive due process.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, as an immigrant to this country, I fondly remember the day, July 17, 1987, when I became a Canadian citizen. It was one of the proudest days of my life and something I had dreamed about ever since I moved to Canada in January of 1984.

This is my frame of reference in speaking in support of Bill C-6. I always understood Canada to be a country that welcomed refugees and immigrants and inspired them to strive to become Canadian citizens, to take that step toward full membership and permanent belonging in Canadian society. This is why Conservative Bill C-24, introduced in 2014 by the previous government, is so concerning to Canadians across Canada.

Even the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn, a former parliamentary secretary and the longest continuously serving Conservative MP in the House, has publicly said that he has always opposed the bill.

The member has been quoted as stating that he was “taken to task” by members of his own party for being one of the few MPs on that side of the House to vote against Bill C-24.

Bill C-24 was an attempt by the Conservative Party to fundamentally change what it meant to be a Canadian as part of political branding exercise. The act created two classes of Canadians: those that only had Canadian citizenship and those who were at risk by having dual citizenship. Using their typical rhetoric of being tough on terrorism as justification, the Conservatives completely devalued what it meant to hold a Canadian passport.

One of the most troubling aspects of the act is the way that Canadian citizenship could be so easily revoked. For example, convictions abroad that convinced a government official that an individual was a national security threat may prompt a process where Canadian citizenship could be stripped away.

By no means does our government support citizens involved in terrorist offences, or espionage, or treason inside or outside of Canada's borders. However, this ability to remove citizenship from dual citizens is a problem.

First, a Canadian citizen without dual citizenship from another country could never have their passport revoked for the same crimes committed abroad.

Second, it makes Canadian citizenship a tool for the criminal justice system. Punishment for crimes should be decided in courts of law, either in Canada or outside of Canada, but the possibility of losing one's Canadian passport as a form of punishment is completely inappropriate.

Last, for the minister to have such wide discretionary powers in the review and revocation process is a complete breach of due process and fairness.

There are also aspects of the Conservative's Bill C-24 that only serve to discourage immigrants from wanting to become Canadian citizens. Immigrants want to apply for Canadian citizenship are automatically treated with distrust. The act measures their loyalty and attachment to Canada by the days they were physically present in the country. As a result, thousands of immigrant applicants are forced to sacrifice academic and employment opportunities or family obligations abroad just so they do not put their citizenship application process in jeopardy.

Bill C-6 will correct and repeal many of the wrongs contained in Bill C-24. Allow me to outline some of the significant changes being proposed by sharing stories I have heard over the past few months in my riding of Surrey—Newton.

To the young man I met in November who was scared about travelling to the country of his dad's birth for fear of being targeted and arrested by a repressive government regime, I say that Bill C-6 will remove the grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security.

To the immigrant mother of two young children who came to my constituency office worried about what might happen to her application if she temporarily returned to her homeland to care for her sick mother, I say that Bill C-6 will reduce the number of days that someone will have to be physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship, and that they will receive credit for the time they have spent in Canada before becoming a permanent resident.

There was also a man who was very nervous about applying for citizenship for his quite elderly, sick mother, who struggled with English.

When the Minister of Immigration was giving his speech, I got a call from one of my constituents, Dawinder Mann. He came to this country many years ago as a refugee. His mother, sister, and all his brothers and children are settled here, but unfortunately his wife was not able to apply for Canadian citizenship. She is in a position where her country of origin will not issue her a passport. Now she is not able to pass the English requirement. She is 54. Therefore, she would not be able to get a passport either from Canada or her country of origin. Now her husband is very happy that his wife, Harjinder Mann, under the new legislation, in a year's time will be able to apply proudly for Canadian citizenship and be able to carry a Canadian passport.

These are the types of stories that encourage me to support the Minister of Immigration, the work he is doing, and the bill he has brought forward.

I believe passionately in the power of Canadian citizenship. I believe that the Government of Canada should do everything in its power to encourage newcomers to become Canadian citizens. The Canadian passport is sacred and highly sought after across the globe.

This is why using Canadian citizenship to fearmonger or as a means of control or simply as a political prop is so very wrong. As our Prime Minister has said, and I say again, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, and our Minister of Immigration has also said that. This is why he brought Bill C-6 forward, so that every Canadian can feel that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

I encourage all members to support Bill C-6 so that what it means to be a Canadian can once again to be used to unite rather than divide us.

I am thankful for this opportunity to share my thoughts with my fellow members.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment, as I congratulate the member for Surrey—Newton on his recent election back to this place.

The member repeatedly troped that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, which, of course, is true, just as it is true that a traitor who hates Canada is a traitor who hates Canada.

The member opposite can look up on YouTube a video of a Canadian citizen who went abroad to the join the genocidal terrorist organization Daesh, ISIL, in Syria. He hates Canada violently, so much so that he videotaped himself soaking his Canadian passport in gasoline, setting it on fire, and then for greater certainty, shooting it with his Kalashnikov, all the while belonging to an organization that has declared war on Canada and which seeks to kill Canadians “wherever they can be found”, according to that organization's leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi.

Is it the position of the member opposite that the Government of Canada should reissue this gentleman a new passport pursuant to the adoption of the bill before us?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, over many years I have had the opportunity to have discussions with the former minister of Citizenship and Immigration. He knows very well that every person in the House is strongly loyal to Canada. I am certain this is just one example that the member has given to us in the House, and I personally do not support those who are not loyal to our country.

However, there are ways to deal with that situation, such as what the member for Vancouver East clearly said, that there are codes and the rule of the law that will deal with it. People should be punished under the law if they commit a crime.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to raise two hypothetical situations for the hon. member for Surrey—Newton.

I want to say on the record how pleased I am that the new government is bringing in Bill C-6. I wish that the Liberals would repeal Bill C-24 in its entirety.

I will give another example to the member for Calgary Midnapore, who paints the worst case. I will take that worst case and ask how does it benefit world peace and security to take someone who is dangerous and put them back in their country of origin? Would that government feel well with them? Are they barred from ever coming back to Canada?

Let me take another example. The reckless Bill C-51 passed by the previous government included offences of so-called terrorism. Part 3 of Bill C-51, which I call the “thought chill section”, deals with things placed on websites that might encourage “terrorism in general”. It could include a Che Guevara poster the way it is worded. Therefore, a person who is innocent, but might have dual citizenship, could be found guilty of a terrorism-related offence for something as innocuous as an image on a website. It is anti-democratic and wrong, and thank God the current government is bringing it down.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for the work she has done for Canadians, particularly on the environment file, as well as for her input in supporting what we are bringing forward on this side.

As I said earlier about the regressive immigration policies in the Citizenship Act of the previous government, the current minister, in the first 30 days of sitting, has made a lot of progress, which I personally commend. I am sure that every person who is concerned about our Canadian values will commend the minister that we now have.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to again thank my constituents for the honour of serving them in the House for the seventh time.

I am here to speak to Bill C-6. Unfortunately, one of the government's priorities is to restore the Canadian citizenship of terrorists who are filled with hatred towards Canada. They hate our country and they hate being Canadians.

Like the vast majority of Canadians, I believe that citizenship is essential to the Canadian identity, especially since the passage of the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1947, which set out three requirements for citizenship applicants.

First, applicants must live in Canada for a certain period of time, so they can become familiar with their obligations, our customs, our laws, and our Canadian values.

Second, for over six decades, the Canadian Citizenship Act has required applicants to be able to communicate in one of Canada's two official languages. There is a reason why citizenship is an essential sign of our community and national identity. To be a full member of a community, a person must at least have the ability to communicate with other members of that community. It is no coincidence that “communicate” and “community” come from the same root word.

In a country as diverse as ours, it is essential that we have certain commonalities in order to be unified in our diversity. One of these essential commonalities is the ability to communicate in one of the two official languages. Obviously, there are a number of proud Canadians who do not currently speak one of the two official languages. However, since the Canadian Citizenship Act was passed in 1947, we have been encouraging them to work toward successfully meeting that goal and thus becoming full members of our community.

Third, the 1947 act requires a basic knowledge of Canada, our laws, customs, values, democratic institutions, and history because this great democracy did not happen by chance. Canada is far more than just a reflection of the world.

I recall the Prime Minister saying in an interview recently that Canada is “the first postnational state” and that it has “no core identity. I, and I believe the vast majority of Canadians, flatly reject that fatuous notion. Canada is a proud nation with a particular history rooted in—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are ambitious for new Canadians, for all Canadians, to know what our identity is and how, through the struggle of generations, through the organic development of these remarkable parliamentary institutions, through the core values of our society, such as the rule of law, the equality of opportunity, and equality before the law, we managed to develop this country that is something of a model for the world. It did not happen by accident, and this country is far more than just some kind of a post-modern reflection of the world. It comes from a particular set of institutions and values that are incarnated in our laws, and we are ambitious for new Canadians to know that history.

Canada is maintaining the highest sustained levels of immigration in its history. In the past decade, Canada welcomed over 2.6 million new permanent residents and swore in over 1.6 million new Canadian citizens. That was during the prime ministership of the now member for Calgary Heritage.

We are maintaining the highest per capita levels of immigration in the developed world. Some countries have aberrant years when they are a little higher, but on a sustained basis, what we are doing with respect to immigration in this country is unprecedented in our history and, indeed, in the modern history of the developed world.

I maintain that we cannot take for granted the success of our model of unity and diversity, that we must be very deliberate, intentional, about ensuring that there is unity in our diversity, that we do not end up replicating the failed experiences of certain other western countries which are struggling with problems of social exclusion, ethnic enclaves, ghettoization, often which become the precedent factors for radicalization, extremism, social discord, and even violence.

We must not, through happy talk, pretend that there are no challenges to maintain social cohesion. This is not and should not be considered an exclusively conservative value or idea. It was, after all, the late Prime Minister Mackenzie King who adopted the Citizenship Act in 1947 with these clear obligations for new Canadian citizens. It was former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who, in 1997, spoke in the chamber about the need for civic literacy as one of the factors to bind us together. What did he mean by civic literacy? He meant a certain common vocabulary about who we are as a people, about our institutions, about from whence we came.

The citizenship program, the citizenship law, is designed, in principle, to help develop that sense of social cohesion, of common Canadian values. I reject categorically the notion of the Prime Minister that there is no such thing as a common Canadian value. There is. This country, this culture, rejects completely the attitude of certain cultures around the world which treat women as property rather than people, for example. That is why, as minister of citizenship and immigration, I was proud to work with new Canadian communities.

I was also proud to work with experts and departmental officials to renew the citizenship program by making legislative and administrative changes.

When I became the citizenship and immigration minister in 2008, I discovered that many new Canadian citizens could not speak even very basic French or English. They could not communicate with their fellow citizens. In a way, they were excluded from the Canadian community.

I discovered that even though they had received 100% on the exam to test their knowledge of Canada, some people knew very little about our country, because unscrupulous immigration consultants were selling the test answers to people who were applying for citizenship.

I also learned that there were networks that were helping people who did not live in Canada and had never lived in Canada to commit fraud.

They remained outside the country in tax havens but hired unscrupulous consultants to arrange for testing and fraudulent documentation for citizenship applications. That is appalling and unacceptable.

We are a generous and open country and we simply ask for those who seek to join the Canadian family that they respect our basic laws, customs, know something of our country, and ideally are able to communicate in one of our languages. That is why we needed to reform the program.

One of the ways in which we did so was a modest expansion of the residency requirement in Canada from three out of four years to four out of six years. That still gave people a great deal of flexibility, one-third of the time spent outside of the country to address the kind of exigencies mentioned by the previous speaker. However, I do not think four years is an unreasonable request for people to develop a durable, meaningful attachment to this country. Four years was still the lowest threshold for residency to obtain citizenship of any major democracy in the world.

Canadian citizenship should be the gold standard; it should not be the bargain basement of citizenship in the world. I do not think it is unreasonable to say 48 months is a period in which to develop a meaningful attachment to our country.

With respect to the provision on declaring the intention to reside in Canada, the regulations and the legislation were absolutely clear that people who became Canadian citizens, having signed that declaration, who had to leave for any reason, would not be penalized, and their citizenship would not be revoked. We simply wanted them to consciously declare that their citizenship was not just about obtaining a Canadian passport as a political insurance package.

Millions of Canadian citizens live abroad, including members of my family and most of our families. Most of them maintain a durable attachment to our country. However, regrettably many hundreds of thousands of them who the moment they obtained their Canadian passports left this country and have never come back. We can use politically correct happy talk to pretend this does not happen, but we all know that it does.

We all know cases where we have had to organize massive evacuations for tens of thousands of people who had not lived in our country for years, who had not paid taxes to it, who had not contributed to it, but who pulled out their Canadian passport as a document of political convenience. I believe that passport represents far more. It represents a loyalty of Canada to the citizen and a reciprocal loyalty of the citizen to our country. It is not a document of convenience. It should never be that.

That is why we simply said to these applicants to please express to us that it was actually their intention to reside in Canada, their new country. We welcome them.

I spoke as minister to citizenship judges who quite literally told me that they had seen people coming to take the oath at the ceremony with their bags packed. They were going directly from the ceremony to the airport to return to their countries of origin. That is not consistent with what we consider the sense of a durable connection to Canada. Therefore, I find it regrettable that the Liberals are eliminating this.

Perhaps what I find most regrettable in this is the perverse priority given by the government to the bill to restore citizenship to convicted terrorists. We have heard a lot of demagoguery from the government about the notion that the previous Bill C-24 in the last Parliament created some ostensible two-tier Canadian citizenship. What complete rubbish. Ever since the 1947 Citizenship Act was adopted by Parliament, there has been a power to revoke citizenship or to renounce it. When people say that citizenship is irrevocable, they simply do not know the law. It is revocable in this and every other country and always has been.

In the original 1947 act, adopted by a Liberal government, among the grounds for the revocation of citizenship was the conviction for treason or acts of war against Canada. That was a provision in our law under multiple Liberal governments from 1947 until amendments to the Citizenship Act in 1976 when that was repealed.

Essentially, what we did in 2014 in Bill C-24 was to re-establish the original Liberal law to say that if individuals violently hated our country we would take a conviction of their violent hatred as evidence of their voluntary, willful, and deliberate renunciation of the obligations implicit in their Canadian citizenship. That is what that provision, to be repealed in Bill C-6, permitted us to do, under judicial review and in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I mentioned a case that was immediately dismissed, because they do not want to address this issue. It was dismissed out of hand. However, I would invite any member and anyone viewing this to go on line and simply Google “Canadian burning passport in Syria”. They will get two or three images of Canadians who have travelled to join a group. It is not just some group of militants, but a genocidal terrorist organization that has declared hostility and war on Canada and inspired an attack on this very Parliament. It is crucifying children, beheading members of religious minorities, and raping girls as young as eight. They have gone to join that organization, whose membership is illegal in Canada. In more than one of those images we can see these “Canadians” burning and shooting their Canadian passports.

The position of the members opposite appears to be that, if those men who are clearly expressing their violent hatred for Canada were to download a form from CIC's website to renounce their citizenship, fill out the form, sign it, put it in an envelope, and send it to Ottawa, they could therefore renounce their citizenship. That is a terribly cramped and legalistic view of the facts and of citizenship.

I am sorry, but if individuals deliberately go and join an organization at war with Canada—parenthetically, committing genocide—destroy their Canadian passports as a clear indication of their renunciation of those passports and the citizenship they symbolize, we should have no compunction about saying we read their actions for what they are, they constitute renunciation, and we will renounce their citizenship if they are engaged in such acts of terrorism.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for whom I have great respect, raised a completely ridiculous, demagogic argument. This is not about having a sign of Che Guevara on a website requiring a conviction in a Canadian court of a terrorist offence or treason that would carry at least a two-year penal sentence. No one in the history of our legal system has faced a terrorist conviction of two years for expressing views. This is about violent terrorism.

What the government is telling us in the bill is that someone can take up arms against our country, so violently do they hate it, like that man in Toronto whose citizenship has been revoked. He was the ringleader of a plot that planned to kill thousands of his fellow citizens in an act of extreme political violence, to demonstrate his violent hatred for our country. In so doing, he renounced his citizenship. He did so through his volition.

The power of revocation simply reflects the volition of those who renounce it violently through such acts of treason or terrorism. The power of revocation does not apply to immigrants versus native-born citizens, as the demagogues in this debate have implied. The only reason it is limited to dual citizens in this application is our legal obligation under the international convention on the prevention of statelessness.

Therefore, I appeal to the members opposite and around this place to think seriously about the meaning of our citizenship and to oppose the provisions of the bill.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the essence of this bill was expressed in a prominent exchange between the former prime minister and the current Prime Minister in the Munk debates during the election campaign, which some see as a defining moment or turning point in the campaign, so the essence of the bill is not a surprise to the Canadian people, who voted for a Liberal government on October 19.

The hon. member was talking about Canadian values and accusing the Liberals of believing that there are no Canadian values, which I found to be a slightly outrageous statement. Liberals believe that one of the clearest expressions and codifications of Canadian values is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The United States does not allow for the revocation of citizenship as a result of a Supreme Court decision. Some European countries that were cited by the hon. member do allow for revocation, but their systems of law are not as similar to the U.S. system of judicial law as ours is.

I will quote Dale Gibson, a legal historian in Alberta, who, in comparing these laws in different countries, stated that “...surely the American legal system is considerably closer to ours than many of the European ones” that allow revocation of citizenship. The U.S., unlike Britain, has a constitutional bill of rights.

Therefore, I would like the member's comments on the fact that the United States, which has a very prominent war on terror, does not allow for the revocation of citizenship.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member on his re-election. He is always a very serious participant in the debates in this place.

First of all, it was the member's own Prime Minister who said that there is no such thing as a Canadian identity and that this is a post-national state. None other than the Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh, the former Liberal minister, upbraided him for that ridiculous assertion.

Second, the member is wrong in asserting that the United States does not have a power of revocation. There are limited grounds for revocation in the United States. They are not based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision but on a constitutional amendment that dealt with the granting of citizenship to slaves following the U.S. Civil War.

Here is the thing. Our Prime Minister is meeting with President Obama tonight. President Obama and the American administration have a rather less delicate way of dealing with American terrorists abroad. It is true that they do not go through the hassle of the paperwork and judicial applications to revoke their citizenships; rather, they send missiles, launched by drones, and eliminate them. I think the kinetic elimination of U.S. citizens who have committed terrorist offences rather makes the point.

As well, virtually every one of our peer liberal democracies has provisions analogous to those in Bill C-24 for the revocation of citizenship from traitors or terrorists.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my friend from Calgary Midnapore. He brings intelligence to his arguments, even when I disagree with him, but his most recent comment was somewhat disturbing. It almost seemed a longing to bring in what the U.S. does with citizens who are committing acts abroad. I do not know if the evocation of the idea of killing Canadians with drones was really what he was reaching for or suggesting in the Canadian context.

My question is twofold. One part is a question about the values in the Citizenship Act of 1947 and the idea that those values are somehow in a fixed and permanent state. We did not allow first nations people to vote in elections in 1947, so Canadian values can evolve and progress over time, and clearly do.

The question I have for him is on a somewhat salient point, and I am sure he has an answer to it.

In the instance of Canadian citizens committing one of these acts, particularly here in Canada, is it not better to arrest them, as the law in Canada provides for, rather than to revoke their citizenship and send them into a conflict zone, which is likely where they would be going, and thus allow them to further perpetrate those very heinous acts that we all deplore? Is there not an argument to be made at times that if someone is a dual citizen and has committed an act either abroad or here in Canada, the arresting of that person and the containing of that hatred would be a more beneficial circumstance than simply sending the problem overseas for someone else to deal with?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member on his re-election and note that he is always an extraordinarily thoughtful participant in debates in the chamber.

I was not suggesting that Canada replicate the American policy of Democratic President Barack Obama to assassinate American terrorists abroad. I was simply raising the point to put in perspective how very modest our approach is compared to that of our closest ally, whose president is feting our Prime Minister in the White House tonight.

The member raised an important question that reflects a misunderstanding about the process. It is quite possible that a Canadian citizen would be convicted of serious terrorist offences abroad. Following what is called an “equivalency assessment” by the Department of Justice, if that offence is determined to be an offence in a legitimate court system with adequate evidence and would constitute a serious offence here, citizenship could be revoked without that person ever coming back to Canada. Take for example the fellows who were over there and burned their passports. That would be the kind of example I am citing.

Moreover, if the person is in Canada, the revocation of that individual's citizenship would in no way obviate their arrest and prosecution and conviction and incarceration under Canadian law.

Here I would mention the Toronto 16 ringleader, who is about to get out on parole. I would rather have him under the watch of another country's security system than potentially posing a risk to us here in Canada.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-24 provided for the revocation of citizenship for both native born Canadians and immigrants. To be clear, the bill in front of the House would restore a two-tier citizenship, because it would provide for revocation of citizenship only for immigrants. It would return us to the system that we used to have in place. Revocation would not be allowed for people who were born here but only for immigrants to this country who have become naturalized and hold a second citizenship.

Liberal members of Parliament need to be clear on this. We would be going to a two-tier citizenship with the bill in front of the House. Native-born Canadians would never have their citizenship revoked. Only the citizenship of immigrants to this country who are naturalized and hold a second citizenship would be revoked.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. Bill C-6 leaves untouched the 1976 revocation provisions for those naturalized citizens who obtained their Canadian citizenship through misrepresentation. This would include, for example, the Nazi war criminals who did not disclose their participation in crimes against humanity in applying for and obtaining their Canadian citizenship.

However, I who was born in this country could never have my citizenship revoked under the provisions of the bill, but an immigrant could. The member is absolutely right: if we want to play the game about two-tier citizenship, it applies far more clearly to Bill C-6 than it did to Bill C-24.

My father was a fourth generation Canadian who had an Irish passport. He had dual citizenship. If he had joined the IRA, heaven forbid, and been convicted of that, with a penal sentence of two years, even though he was a native-born Canadian, he could have had his citizenship revoked. However, immigrants to Canada from India or China, for example, who automatically lose the citizenship of their country of origin in being naturalized to Canada could never have their citizenship revoked under the provisions of Bill C-24, because it excluded its application to people who did not have dual nationality pursuant to our obligations under the international Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Obviously there are a lot of people who want to participate in this debate, so I would ask that the questions and answers be as short as possible so that everyone can have a say.

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to split my time with the hon. member for Fredericton, and to be here to speak in favour of Bill C-6.

I would like to acknowledge our presence on this traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples. Indeed, had it not been for all the ways that settlers like me and the hon. member's father and great-grandfather were welcomed onto this land, we would not have succeeded individually or collectively.

The Government of Canada is committed to a Canada that is both diverse and inclusive. Canadians know that our government recognizes that we are strong because of our diversity and not in spite of it. Indeed, no one in the House would argue that efficient immigration is one of the key pillars to our success, economically, socially, culturally, and environmentally, as a nation that is aging.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship have been clear from the outset. Inclusion and diversity are crucial to our future as a country and also to the role we play on the international stage. We need to encourage that diversity and take steps to ensure the path to citizenship is not only a flexible and fair one, but also one that encourages all Canadians to take pride in the immense privilege it is to be a Canadian.

Speaking to an audience at the Canadian High Commission in London shortly after taking office, the Prime Minister eloquently said:

Compassion, acceptance, and trust; diversity and inclusion—these are the things that have made Canada strong and free. Not just in principle, but in practice. Those of us who benefit from the many blessings of Canada’s diversity need to be strong and confident custodians of its character.

I can speak to that personally. It is a great privilege and honour to call myself a Canadian. It is a strong attachment to Canada and those values of inclusion, compassion, acceptance, and trust that we hold dear that are at the core of what it means to be a Canadian. It is this deep attachment that motivates settlers like me to serve our communities and to give back wholeheartedly.

The proposed measures in Bill C-6 will increase and foster a greater attachment to Canada, and also ensure the integrity of our immigration programs and combat fraud. All Canadians need to be treated equally, regardless of whether they were born in Canada, naturalized, or hold citizenship in another country. As the Prime Minister famously said, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”.

I am pleased to support this bill for a number of reasons.

I think of my riding in Peterborough—Kawartha. This small rural riding that has welcomed over 100 Syrian refugees has allowed a new beginning and a new life for our new Syrian neighbours, but in that process we have come together. We are building networks, programs and relationships that allow us to tackle the more complex challenges of our time, like truth and reconciliation.

I also think about Trent University and Fleming College, two post-secondary institutions that are critical to the vitality of my riding in Peterborough—Kawartha, and the international students who proudly attend and take part in the academic and the co-curricular activities offered on these two campuses. Indeed, these international students bring an energy and a great deal of talent to our community and our economy, and this bill would recognize all that they contribute. We will work toward allowing them to stay to build their lives and start their families in our community.

I also think of businesses like General Electric. General Electric has been critical to the establishment of Trent University. It benefits immensely from the internationally trained professionals who come to our community, filling its labour gaps and contributing to our economy and through philanthropic activities.

Whether an international student, or someone who works at GE, or a new Syrian to our community, we should acknowledge, encourage, and reward the choice that individuals make to come to Canada and to call this place home. They are experiencing Canada, especially before citizenship matters. Their choice to be here matters.

This bill is essentially about Canadian identity. Canadians are proud of our country and our values. We welcome immigrants. We help them settle, integrate, and succeed. This is our history, our present, and our future.

We encourage all immigrants to take the path to full membership in Canadian society. One of the strongest pillars for successful integration into Canadian life is achieving citizenship.

I will take this moment to thank my mother, the women who took the citizenship test on behalf of myself and my sisters so that in the midst of being a teenager, new to a community, to a country, being homesick, experiencing culture shock, wanting to go back home, and missing those we left behind, my sisters and I would not have the added anxiety of preparing for a test. We benefited from the great equalizer, and that is the Canadian school system, and worked on our language and cultural understanding. It was my mother who stayed up night after night to ensure that she aced that test, and that she did.

I encourage all my hon. colleagues to join with me and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship in supporting Bill C-6.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke very eloquently and passionately, but I did not hear much discussion of the substantive content of the bill.

The effects of the bill, as we know and as we have heard in the House, is that if a person with a Canadian passport travels to another country and is involved in genocide or is involved in terrorism, things that are clearly at odds with our values, we do not have a way of revoking that citizenship. We do not have a way of telling people that we do not have to rescue them anymore if they get into trouble, that they have severed that bond with Canadians.

It is all well and good to say that people like that should be in prison, but if they are in a different country and the only option we have is revoking their citizenship, surely at some point they have severed that connection.

In her response would the member address this and perhaps other substantive components of the bill? We agree that we live in a great country and all that, but what is in the bill that is actually worth supporting? That is what we need to hear.