Debates of June 3rd, 2016

Question No. 114

[Cathy McLeod]

With regard to indigenous women who reside on-reserve: (a) what analysis has the government completed into pay equity on-reserve; and (b) what are the details of any reports that have been completed, broken down by date?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, and its special operating agency, Indian Oil and Gas Canada, are concerned, the response is as follows.

Regarding part (a), Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada has not conducted specific analysis on pay equity. There are, however, a number of reports that provide a portrait of socio-economic conditions of Indigenous women, including education, labour force and income outcomes.

In response to part (b), the completed reports are “The Aboriginal Economic Progress Report”, 2015, http://www.naedb-cndea.com/reports/NAEDB-progress-report-june-2015.pdf;

“Aboriginal Income Disparity in Canada”, 2013, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1378411773537/1378411859280;

“Aboriginal Women in Canada: A Statistical Profile from the 2006 Census”, 2012, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1331664678840/1331838092221; and

“Aboriginal Women in the Canadian Economy--The Links Between Education, Employment and Income”, 2012, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1331046626766/1331046698685.

Question No. 116

[Cathy McLeod]

With regard to the government’s commitment to implement each one of the 94 recommendations prepared by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: (a) which stakeholders does the government plan to meet with to discuss implementing the Calls to Action; (b) on which dates does the government plan to meet these stakeholders, broken down by stakeholder; (c) what travel costs will the government be covering, broken down by stakeholder; (d) what per diem costs will the government be covering, broken down by stakeholder; and (e) what accommodation costs will the government be covering, broken down by stakeholder?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, and its special operating agency, Indian Oil and Gas Canada, are concerned, the response is as follows.

On December 15, 2015 the Prime Minister accepted the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and announced that the government will work with leaders of first nations, the Métis nation, Inuit, provinces and territories, parties to the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement, and other key partners, to design a national engagement strategy for developing and implementing a national reconciliation framework, informed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action.

The 94 calls to action are directed to a wide range of institutions, including the Government of Canada, provincial and territorial governments, churches, corporations, and schools. The federal government is currently putting the appropriate mechanisms in place to coordinate engagement strategies and ensure that reconciliation efforts advance.

The federal government intends to hold pre-discussions with key partners on the design of a comprehensive engagement strategy for a national reconciliation framework over the coming months. This approach will allow for multiple discussions, including engagement on the calls to action, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other priorities.

Reconciliation can, and must, be part of the day-to-day operations of the government. Many meetings and discussions naturally include reconciliation and these discussions will inform the government’s ongoing consultation on implementing the calls to action.

Some calls to action are already being implemented with the government’s commitment to a national inquiry on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls as well as budget 2016’s historic investments in indigenous people.

Canadians will be kept apprised of our progress on this commitment, including any related costs.

Question No. 117

[Cathy McLeod]

With regard to the decision by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs to stop all discretionary compliance measures related to the First Nations Financial Transparency Act: (a) did the Minister undertake consultations prior to reaching this decision; (b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, (i) which stakeholder groups were consulted, (ii) which individuals from these groups participated, (iii) where did the consultations occur; (c) did the Minister receive any unsolicited views from stakeholder groups, and if so, from which stakeholders; and (d) has the Minister received communications from individual Canadians related to this decision?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, and its special operating agency, Indian Oil and Gas Canada, are concerned, the response is as follows.

Regarding part (a) of the question, the minister has, as a matter of course, met and heard from numerous individuals and groups; however, there have been no formal consultations with respect to discretionary compliance measures available under the act.

Part (b) of the question is not applicable.

In response to part (c), the minister has received unsolicited views or been made aware of views of stakeholder groups, first nations representative organizations, and individual first nation governments, through press releases, and results of informal meetings or discussions. The minister has also been informed by the results of stay applications that were actioned by select first nations, and upheld by the courts, with respect to court action taken by the Government of Canada.

Regarding part (d), the minister has received a number of letters, emails, and telephone communications from individual Canadians related to this decision.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 107 to 109, 112, and 115 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 107

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

With regard to the exchange of information between Canada and the United States (US) under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA): (a) how many individuals were reported, in total and broken down by (i) Canadian citizens, (ii) permanent residents of Canada, (iii) temporary residents of Canada; (b) how many individuals were reported, broken down by (i) individuals with Canadian addresses, (ii) individuals with US addresses, (iii) individuals with addresses in other countries; (c) how many accounts were reported, in total and broken down by (i) bank accounts, (ii) credit union accounts, (iii) investment accounts, (iv) insurance accounts, (v) other types of accounts; (d) with respect to (c)(iii), what types of insurance accounts were reported; (e) with respect to (c)(v), what other types of accounts were reported; (f) of the accounts reported, how many were (i) under $50,000 US, (ii) between $50,000 and $1,000,000 US, (iii) over $1,000,000 US; (g) of the accounts reported, how many were (i) Registered Retirement Savings Account accounts, (ii) Registered Education Savings Account accounts, (iii) Registered Disability Savings Account accounts, (iv) Tax Free Savings Account accounts; (h) of the accounts reported, how many were held jointly with one or more non US persons, broken down by type of account and indicating the type of relationship between the joint account holder and the US person, if it is known; (i) how many accounts of organizations were reported to the IRS because a US person had signing authority, interest in, or other connection to the organization; (j) of the accounts that were reported, how many were (i) business accounts, (ii) professional accounts, (iii) charitable or non-profit organization accounts, (iv) connected to other organizations, broken down by type of organization; (k) what agency, organization, and individuals was the information provided to; (l) what measures were taken to ensure this information will not be provided to any other agency, organization, and individuals; (m) what measures were taken to ensure that information transmitted will not be subject to identity theft, fraud, other criminal activities, or breach of privacy; (n) how many records did Canada receive from the US, in total and broken down by (i) individuals who live in Canada, (ii) individuals who live in the US, (iii) individuals who live in other countries, broken down by country; (o) how many accounts did Canada receive information about; (p) what type of information was in the records Canada received; (q) did Canada receive information regarding (i) income from the accounts, (ii) total assets in accounts, (iii) account balances, (iv) transactions, deposits and withdrawals, (v) account numbers, (vi) names of account holders, (vii) Social Insurance Numbers, (viii) other related information; (r) what type of information did Canada receive that was not provided by the US prior to the FATCA Intergovernmental Agreement; and (s) when did Canada receive the information?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 108

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

With regard to the upcoming Aerospace Trade Mission to Kyiv, Ukraine, May 22-25, 2016, organized by the Canada Eurasia Russia Business Association, in collaboration with Export Québec, and Global Affairs Canada: (a) which individuals and organizations are listed as participants for this trade mission; (b) how much funding will be provided by Global Affairs Canada in support of this trade mission; (c) how much direct and indirect funding will be provided by the Canadian Embassy to Ukraine in support of this trade mission; (d) with regard to (b) and (c), how will these funds be allocated; and (e) were the Embassy of Ukraine to Canada and representatives from the Ukrainian-Canadian community consulted during the planning stages of this trade mission?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 109

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

With regard to the Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Component, National and Regional Projects, of the New Building Canada Fund, for the amounts budgeted for projects of interest: (a) what amounts were allocated to each province and territory; (b) what is the expected number of projects in each province and territory; (c) what amount was set aside for each project listed in (b); (d) what data was used to determine which projects would be selected; and (e) when will these projects be announced?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 112

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

With respect to railways running through Canada’s national parks: (a) how many train derailments have occurred in, and within 5 km of, Canada’s national parks over the last 15 years, broken down by year; (b) of the derailments in (a), how many have been investigated by the Transportation Safety Board, broken down by year; (c) how were each of the train derailments in (a) classified by the Transportation Safety Board; (d) in how many of these derailments in (a) was grain or another substance spilled, and what were these other substances, broken down by derailment; (e) in each derailment in (a) what action was taken by the government in relation to the spilled substances, broken down by derailment; (f) what policies does the government have in place regarding substances spilled by trains running through Canada’s national parks; (g) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential risks to wildlife related to rail transportation through national parks, and what were the results of this analysis; (h) what policies does the government have in place to mitigate threats to species-at-risk and endangered species posed by rail transportation through and near national parks; and (i) how often does the government review its policies and procedures regarding railways running through Canada’s national parks?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 115

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

With regard to the hiring of the current Chief of Staff to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food: (a) what are the details of any information which has been created or exchanged between the Department and the Minister’s office detailing the interim process designed to avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest; (b) since its implementation, has the interim process prevented a real or perceived conflict of interest, and if so, in what particular cases; and (c) what action has the Department or Minister’s office taken in response to instructions from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, if there has in fact been a determination?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Madam Speaker, finally I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Citizenship Act

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

moved that Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

I would like to begin with a list.

This list includes Afghanistan, Argentina, China, Germany, Grenada, Haiti, India, Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Somalia, South Africa, Switzerland, Tanzania, Trinidad, Uganda, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

What do these countries have in common? They are all nations from which members of the House hail. Forty-one members of the chamber, spanning four different parties, are citizens of Canada who were born outside of this country. I am one of that group of 41 members. I was born in Uganda and arrived here as a young refugee in 1972.

Bill C-6 says to me and 40 of my fellow MPs that our citizenship is no different than that of our Canadian-born colleagues. In fact, Bill C-6 says to millions of Canadians who naturalized here after arriving from overseas that their citizenship has the same value and is accorded the same respect as the citizenship of those born in this country. It tells them that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. Allow me to explain.

Bill C-6 would reverse the divisive legacy of legislation enacted by the previous government. Under what was then Bill C-24, the previous government enacted legislation that allowed persons born abroad to be stripped of their citizenship on the basis of acts against the national interest—treason, spying, terrorism—but this applied only to those born abroad. Therefore, if someone was born in Canada and committed the exact same criminal act against the national interest, their citizenship could not be stripped. Canadian-born individuals would be dealt with by the criminal justice system alone, whereas foreign-born Canadians were subject to a double penalty: punishment under the criminal justice system, together with revocation of their citizenship under the Citizenship Act.

The old legislation, enacted by the previous government, was wrong for two reasons. The first is that it was unfair and unequal. We heard about the unfairness of the old Conservative legislation from strong immigration advocates, such as Legal Aid Ontario's refugee law office and Romero House in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. The inequality of the old legislation was laid bare by the litigation it caused. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers brought a charter challenge to Bill C-24 contending it created two tiers of citizenship.

The second and more important reason is that the old Bill C-24 was flawed because it sent the wrong message to newcomers. People like me, who fled their homelands to make a fresh start in Canada, are thankful for the opportunity to be here, but ultimately, we all seek the same thing: full and final integration. The previous government's Bill C-24 failed such Canadians, precisely because it rendered them more vulnerable. It told them that they are citizens, but citizens with an asterisk. By retracting the odious legislation the previous government passed, I and millions of Canadians who came here from other countries are being told that the politics of division are over and that they do, indeed, belong.

That is enough talk about the old legislation. I now want to talk about the merits of Bill C-6.

Bill C-6 meets what we like to call the triple-E test. It is evidence-based, it makes economic sense, and the bill is ethically sound. Allow me to address each of these points in turn.

The first point is that Bill C-6 is evidence-based. Our government campaigned on a commitment to return to evidence-based policy, and that is precisely what Bill C-6 represents. Studies demonstrate that facilitating a path to not only obtaining but maintaining citizenship promotes a better integration of newcomers and their sense of belonging. This point has been reinforced to me time and time again by settlement and community groups doing important work in Parkdale—High Park, such as Ukrainian Canadian Social Services, the Four Villages Community Health Centre, the Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society, and the Canadian Polish Congress.

The second point is that Bill C-6 is good economics. These very same studies show that the bill would have clear economic benefits for Canada. Immigrants who are given a path to permanence through citizenship have higher educational and economic outcomes. This point has also been communicated to me in my riding by terrific organizations on the front lines of settling newcomers in Toronto, like the Parkdale Intercultural Association, the Parkdale Community Recreation Centre, CultureLink, the Parkdale Community Health Centre, and Polycultural Immigrant and Community Services.

Bill C-6 is also ethically sound. Until the previous government's decision to enact the old Bill C-24, we never had two tiers of citizenship in this country. It is not morally justifiable to divide citizens among those fortunate enough to be born here versus those who naturalize after arriving from overseas.

Our new bill does a lot more than just eliminate the two classes of citizenship created by the Conservatives. As I said, Bill C-6 also makes it easier to obtain citizenship in several important ways, which I will now address.

The barriers to citizenship that would be removed by this bill are many. I propose to address four.

The first relates to the length of time required to qualify for citizenship. Our legislation will require an applicant to be present in Canada for three years over a five-year time span, rather than the current four-year requirement over a six-year time span. Therefore, the bill would expand the pool of potential citizens and allow them to apply earlier.

More specifically, Bill C-6 is more flexible. It does not require a person to be in Canada for at least 183 days per year over each eligible year. Instead, one needs simply to be here for 1,095 days over a five-year period. What does that mean? It means flexibility. If one's job takes one overseas for an extended period, this would not make one automatically ineligible for citizenship.

Second, Bill C-6 would restore the knowledge and language testing requirement to the previous age range. The previous government passed legislation indicating that testing would be required for any applicant aged 14 to 64. We are restoring that age range back to the previous norm, which is age 18 to 54. This change would improve access to citizenship for the very young and for those 55 and over, thereby helping to speed up their formal integration.

Third, the intent to reside provision is being removed. Bill C-6 would no longer make it a requirement to declare one's intent to reside in Canada before becoming a citizen. That requirement was unmerited. All Canadians have mobility rights. More importantly, the old requirement created a great deal of confusion. Over 200 applications were returned to individuals who failed to complete the intent to reside portion of the application, because they did not understand it. They feared their citizenship could be revoked if they moved abroad. It cannot.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, Bill C-6 would allow time spent in Canada prior to becoming a permanent resident to count towards one's three-year requirement to become a citizen. This provision allows for a 50% credit for time spent in Canada prior to becoming a permanent resident, up to a maximum credit of one year.

Who will this help? It would help temporary foreign workers, international students, and protected persons by speeding all of these groups on their path towards citizenship. This makes sense. These people have already spent time here. They have already worked and studied here. They have already built an attachment to Canada.

I turn now to one of the criticisms we have heard about the bill, which is safety.

Allow me to be crystal clear. Bill C-6 would not imperil the safety of Canadians. Our government's commitment to safety is unwavering. We have a place for terrorists and it is called “jail”. We have a place to prosecute terrorists and that is called the “criminal justice system”. When one commits a crime in Canada, one is prosecuted by the criminal justice system. We do not need a Citizenship Act tool to address a Criminal Code problem.

However, there is also a broader more philosophical underpinning to Bill C-6. When we boost integration and put in place mechanisms for success, we strengthen ties and loyalty to this country. This does not threaten our safety. It is part of a host of initiatives, such as our response to the Syrian refugee crisis, which demonstrates Canada's openness, our inclusivity, and our compassion. These efforts counter radicalization and reduce threats to our safety. In fact, I would say we do this better than any country in the world, and I am proud to be part of a government that is restoring this reputation both here and abroad.

It is also important to understand that Bill C-6 is not an outright rejection of all aspects of its predecessor, Bill C-24, passed by the previous government.

What, from Bill C-24, have we decided to keep? There are provisions we have kept, but there are also provisions we have actually improved.

For instance, we have kept the physical presence requirement rather than the term “residence” because physical presence is easier to verify.

Revoking citizenship based on fraud and misrepresentation has existed since 1947, and this power remains in Bill C-6. Bill C-24, passed by the previous government, facilitated fraud detection, which is very important, and we have kept provisions that make this possible, as well as provisions that permit government to strip people of citizenship quickly when they have committed fraud. More importantly, we have also enhanced some of these provisions. For example, we have added a section that allows us to seize documents used in the commission of fraud. Finally, we have also committed to implementing all of the Auditor General's recommendations regarding preventing citizenship fraud.

Another improvement relates to conditional sentence orders. If convicted, time served in the community on a conditional sentence order can no longer count toward the three-year residence requirement and if one is on a conditional sentence order, one cannot take the oath of citizenship. Again, these are improvements on the predecessor legislation.

Let us talk about the committee. The bill has just returned from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We are also a government that believes in working across the aisle. At committee when amendments were proposed that made sense, that conformed with the policy direction we are pursuing with this legislation, that improved the bill, we did not hesitate to accept those amendments. Those amendments help us create a more diverse and inclusive Canada.

One of the amendments by the NDP added the term “statelessness” as a ground on which citizenship may be granted at the discretion of the minister. Another NDP amendment requires the minister to consider reasonable measures to accommodate the needs of citizenship applicants with disabilities. Those are amendments proposed by the opposition that we accepted on their merit and we welcome them as part of this new bill.

In conclusion, I want to return in my remarks to where I began.

When I provided a list of the 22 different nations that make up the homelands of members of the House, it was simply to provide a snapshot of the diversity of this chamber. This chamber serves as a proxy for this country, a country that is made up of literally millions of individuals whose provenance extends to every corner of the globe. To that diverse group, Bill C-6 says, “Your citizenship is no less valuable, no less respected, than that of a citizen born in this country”.

I believe one of the lasting attributes of the bill is one that has been rarely discussed. In facilitating pathways to citizenship, Bill C-6 also facilitates pathways to participation. Only citizens can cast votes in this country. Only citizens can stand for election to this chamber. By breaking down barriers to citizenship and putting in their place opportunities to obtain and retain citizenship, Bill C-6 promotes the highest level of engagement possible, engagement in our democratic process.

The ultimate job of any government, regardless of its political stripe, is to promote an engaged citizenry. That is precisely what Bill C-6 would do. I am proud to endorse the bill as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, congratulations to the member opposite. I am glad he mentioned that he is among the 41 members of Parliament who are immigrants and I am one of them too. One thing I like to highlight is that we succeed in this place and in Canada and are able to come to the Canadian Parliament and become parliamentarians because we consider Canada our home. Just because of that we have succeeded.

Someone who is considering Canada a target of terrorism does not deserve Canadian citizenship, does not deserve to be Canadian. Our Canadian citizenship has the highest value of integrity and of honour. If someone wants to use it to go across the world to have access to all the other places in the world just because he is a Canadian citizen, he does not deserve to be a Canadian citizen. If someone does not want to commit to live in Canada, he does not deserve to be a Canadian.

I would like to remind the hon. member of the 1947 immigration act, which at that time was presented, implemented, and adopted by a Liberal government. Bill C-24 is a similar act to the 1947 act that was introduced.

Whether it is three to five years, or four to six years, members opposite agree that Canadian citizenship deserves to be worthwhile for those who decide to take it or not.