Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to speak to Bill C-3. As is my habit, I will talk about what I like in the bill, and then I will talk about what I do not like in the bill.
Let us start with what I like. According to the first part of the bill, there would be a restoration of citizenship to people who lost it due to non-application. People born between February 15, 1977 and April 16, 1981, when they turned 28, were supposed to reapply for their citizenship. If they did not apply, they lost it. They do not think that is right.
Senator Yonah Martin brought Bill S-245 to address this specific issue. Unfortunately, it did not get through the House before another election was called, so I am glad to see that provision come back here. The people in question are in their golden years at this point. It is better late than never, but that is a part of the bill that I appreciate.
The second part of the bill that I appreciate is the provision for adopted children. Currently they have to go through a permanent residency process, which can take three years. Under the provision in Bill C-3, they would be treated as Canadian-born citizens for the purpose of passing on citizenship. I think that is a good thing for families. There is no reason, when children who are going to be part of our Canadian context are adopted, that they would not get their citizenship, so I think that is a good provision.
One of the things about the bill is that there would not be the connection test that the courts prescribed. I have heard the Liberals, through this debate, talk about how they have a deadline from the courts, so that they have to do something. They chose not to appeal the lower-court decision. Getting the legislation on time without the connection test that the court demanded would not fix it either.
I think it is important that people who get Canadian citizenship fall into categories; They are born here, or they are descendants of a Canadian citizen, or they are permanent residents who apply for and receive citizenship, or they are people who have a connection and go through the process. There should not be a two-tiered process; the rules to become a citizen should be the same.
If someone is going to be a Canadian citizen, I think it has to mean something. We think about the value of citizenship, and it is really about participating in our democracy, experiencing our wonderful country, helping build our communities, paying taxes and using our services so we understand what the state of our nation is. All these things are part of being a Canadian citizen and having that value.
I worry that if people are away from the country for a long period of time, they are going to lose that connectedness. If they have never lived here, they really do not have that connectedness at all. That is a concern to me, especially when we think about one of the unintended consequences of the bill. The bill would grant citizenship to people whose parents spent 1,095 days in Canada over, as it now stands, an unspecified amount of time. They may never have lived here.
Such people would be able to vote in our country. The way that voters are normally registered is that they have to have a Canadian address so we can figure out what riding they are in. That is how Elections Canada does it. We would now have 150,000 people who could choose where they want their vote to count. I really find that to be an undermining of our democracy in terms of an interference factor with which it would be possible to game the system, for example. That needs to be addressed, and it is not addressed in Bill C-3 at all.
Bill C-3 went to committee, where there were some thoughtful amendments that were brought into place, really, to align the citizenship process in Bill C-3 with what other people who are becoming Canadian citizens normally go through. The amendments would apply both to descendants and to people who come by adoption. They would need to be able to speak one of the official languages at least. That makes sense to me, especially if they are going to receive services here and interact with the government, which publishes its notifications in both official languages.
They would also have to have a security check, the same security check that others are supposed to go through. We can see that, in an increasingly violent world, it is more important than ever to make sure we are not allowing criminals and terrorists into the country. The only way to do that is to make sure there is a security check and it is thorough. Again, this makes sense.
There is a provision that was amended at committee to say it should not be just 1,095 days that parents lived here over any number of decades. It should be a concentrated period of time so they have a commitment to Canada. The suggestion was that it be five years. I think that is a reasonable limit. It reflects some of the previous legislation we have seen. To me, that is a good-sense amendment as well.
Then there is the citizenship test. This comes close to the connectedness the court was looking for. People who are coming here to be Canadian citizens would have to learn something about the history of Canada and the cultural norms in Canada, and take and pass a test. That is also a reasonable amendment.
After doing all this great work at committee, the NDP has now introduced amendments that would essentially reverse all that good work, and the Liberals are going to support them to basically wipe it out. For the last 10 years, I have heard the Liberals stand up and talk about how they value the work done at committee and respect the independence of the committee process, but here they are totally turning things around.
Let us keep in mind that 98% of the Canadian people did not elect the NDP to provide our rules and legislation. It got 2% representation, so it should not be able to overturn the rest of the House. First of all, that is not representative of what the Canadian people want, but also, the NDP is trying to take out all the amendments. We would have a two-tier system where some people coming here to get citizenship have many requirements, and others just automatically get it.
The other problematic thing for me is knowing that this could happen in perpetuity. If the children who get citizenship show up during their lifetime for 1,095 days, they can pass citizenship on to their children. We do not know how many people are involved in this or how much in resources it is going to take to do it. We already know that the immigration system is backed up, and it is taking three years or more to process people's applications. Putting an extra burden on the immigration department is not a good idea, and I really think it disrespects and undervalues Canadian citizenship.
The coalition we saw between the NDP and the Liberals to force their will on all Canadians in the last Parliament is popping up again, and they are going to team up together to put in a bad bill instead of doing the right thing and aligning the process to be fair to all.
Certainly, I love to see immigrants come to the country. They have helped build the country. The member who spoke before me talked about her heritage. My heritage is English, French, Irish and Scottish. I am a little tall, so there may be Viking in there somewhere. These different cultures have all come together, and we see more and more of that. This was always about the multiculturalism of Canada. The freedom we had here and the way everybody could get along is what made Canada great. A two-tiered system would undercut that and divide us, which is what the Liberals have been doing for the last 10 years.
With that, I will just summarize and say that there are some good elements in the bill, but I recommend the government send it back to committee, or keep the amendments the committee passed if it really respects the work of committees.