Ali Ehsassi

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of listening to the debate on this issue this morning. I have to say that if there is anyone who should rectify the record, it is my good friend across the aisle.

There is no doubt that there is an international consensus on this issue. There is no doubt that our allies to the south have signed on to this treaty. This treaty represents international consensus on a very significant issue. However, my friends opposite are choosing to mislead Canadians and use this issue for short-term fundraising objectives. That, I submit, is absolutely the wrong way to approach this very significant issue.

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we live in a world where global actors seek global solutions for global crises and where the international community and international law play an indispensable role in creating a safer, more secure, and more stable international order. It is in that spirit that I rise today to discuss Bill C-47, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code.

The implementation of the obligations contained in the bill before us today represents a firm Liberal campaign commitment and is of great concern to a great many Canadians. Bill C-47 marks a common sense and long-overdue commitment on the part of the Canadian government to fully accede to the Arms Trade Treaty and strengthen Canada's arms export regime.

Our accession, in other words, would, first, create a legal obligation for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to consider certain assessment criteria before issuing an export permit or a brokering permit; second, define brokering activities and establish a framework to control brokering that takes place in Canada or is undertaken by Canadians outside Canada; third, set May 31 as the date by which the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Trade must table in both Houses of Parliament a report of the operations under the EIPA and a report on military exports in the preceding year; fourth, increase the maximum fine for a summary conviction offence from $25,000 to $250,000 in order to support enhancement and encourage compliance; fifth, replace the requirement that only countries with which Canada has an intergovernmental arrangement may be added to the automatic firearms country control list with a new requirement that a country may be added to the AFCCL on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs after consultation with the Minister of National Defence; and sixth, add a new purpose for which an article may be added to an export control list: to facilitate the collection of information on goods that have been, are, or are likely to be subject to trade investigations.

The need for a strengthened international arms regime is abundantly clear. Most estimates suggest that there are over 875 million small and light arms in circulation worldwide. This number is roughly equal to the number of cars or tablets on the planet. To appreciate the magnitude of this figure of 875 million, let us consider that this number is twice the number of people who lived under the British Empire in its heyday. To look at it differently, this number represents 252,306 guns for every Tim Hortons in Canada. In the absence of common sense regimes and international co-operation to prevent the spread and proliferation of small and light arms, this number represents an astounding threat to global stability. Armed violence kills approximately 508,000 people every year on a global scale. It is important to emphasize that most of these people are not living in conflict zones.

The Arms Trade Treaty ensures that countries effectively regulate the international trade of arms so that they are not used to support terrorism, international organized crime, gender-based violence, human rights abuses, or violations of international humanitarian law. Several measures within the ATT help address these pressing concerns. Perhaps most significantly, article 6 prohibits states from authorizing the transfer of arms if they possess knowledge that the arms would be used “...in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes....”

In addition, article 7 requires states to examine whether their arms exports regimes “would contribute to or undermine peace and security”.

Quite simply, our government believes that regulating the international arms trade is essential for the protection of people and human rights. It is precisely the type of issue on which Canada was once regarded as a global leader. It is on these types of issues that our government once again seeks to return Canada to a principled and forceful foreign policy based on respect for human rights and international law.

Let us remember that formal negotiation of the ATT began in 2006, arising from a growing concern within the international community regarding the proliferation of small and light arms across the globe. The growing security threat posed by these weapons and the lack of international co-operation on this issue were of grave concern. Unfortunately, as this process unfolded, Canada largely remained on the sidelines. As of this spring, 91 states had both signed and ratified the treaty. It is important to highlight that Canada remains the only NATO ally and G7 nation that has not signed or ratified the Arms Trade Treaty.

The bill before us today will rectify this. Bill C-47 would bring Canada into full compliance with the ATT and set global standards into Canadian law.

Acceding to the treaty is not just about Canada's arms trade regime; it is also about Canada setting a principled standard and embracing the need for coordinated global action.

The regulations before us were developed in a transparent, deliberate, and comprehensive fashion. More importantly, our government is matching words with actions. Budget 2017 allocated $13 million over five years to allow Canada to implement the Arms Trade Treaty and to further strengthen Canada's export control regime. Moreover, we are also contributing $1 million to the UN Trust Facility Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation to ensure that we assist other countries in acceding to this treaty.

We are doing this because our government understands that as global security threats become increasingly diverse, dispersed, interconnected, and interdependent, Canada cannot afford to sit idle or to go it alone. We should never neglect our international responsibilities for reasons of domestic pandering or narrow-minded ideology. Canada has a moral obligation to accede to the ATT, and I am proud that our government has taken these concrete steps.

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, as the member is fully aware, given her passion for this issue, we have consistently conveyed to the Government of Myanmar that it needs to look at the root causes of communal violence in that country. In addition to that, as the number of refugees fleeing Myanmar increased over the course of the past several weeks, we immediately decided that it was high time to provide more assistance to humanitarian agencies and to Bangladesh, which is hosting a large number of the Rohingya. Lastly, we think it is not only Canada that should act. We are also trying to prevail on other members of the international community to ensure that they also do their part to make sure we are responsive to this crisis.

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will start by thanking my colleague for the incredible work he does on issues pertaining to human rights. I, for one, can say that I have learned much from my colleague, having spoken to him regarding numerous issues that have arisen over the course of the past several years.

As my friend knows full well, the situation in Myanmar is an incredibly complex one. For that reason, as is well understood by members of the House, we have continued to provide humanitarian assistance over the years. As everyone is well aware, since 2000, Canada has been one of the countries and member states of the United Nations that has been quite generous in ensuring that the Government of Myanmar is well aware that we would like to assist. We have also been in close contact with former secretary-general Kofi Annan to provide assistance to him and to prevail on other allies to make sure we all come together to ensure that there is effective action.

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am very grateful to join tonight's emergency debate on the Rohingya.

There can be no uncertainty that ethnic cleansing is being perpetrated against the Rohingya peoples in Myanmar. Over the last weeks, the world has witnessed horrifying images of Rohingya villages on fire, children who have lost their parents, and desperate refugees fleeing that country. This crisis has certainly reached a critical level of urgency.

Earlier this week, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees called the Myanmar crisis “the most urgent refugee emergency in the world”. Even more startling were the remarks by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on September 11, in which he warned member states that the widespread and systematic attacks against the Rohingya possibly amount to crimes against humanity, or that “The situation seems a textbook example of ethnic cleansing”. Such assessments behoove every member of the international community to act.

While Myanmar has been marked by significant inter-communal violence since 2012, the escalating cycle of violence in recent weeks should cause great alarm. Since August 25, more than 400,000 Rohingya have been forced to flee after facing mass arson and looting by Myanmar security forces. As they flee such atrocities, anti-personnel land mines are being placed in their path, women are being raped, and children are being killed by soldiers.

Along with a number of my Liberal colleagues, I had the great honour last week to meet several members of the Rohingya community residing in Canada. They spoke with great eloquence about the of their relatives, friends, and loved ones in Myanmar. We will not ignore their heartfelt concerns.

Myanmar faces complex and serious challenges. Myanmar is a young democracy and is still very fragile. It only recently emerged onto the world stage after many decades of isolation. Although rich in natural resources, those riches have certainly not been equally distributed in that country. While many parts of Myanmar had been experiencing relatively rapid economic growth, the Rakhine area, populated by the Rohingya, has fallen further behind. While Rakhine is fertile, the state's poverty rate is 78%, almost double the rate of 37.5% for the entire country. Perhaps even more significant, identity and ethnicity remain sensitive issues in Myanmar as the state's refusal to extend citizenship to all its residents poses a major impediment to peace and prosperity in that country. Members of the House should realize that Myanmar harbours the largest community of stateless people in the world, with the Rohingya representing a very high proportion of them.

No crisis as serious as this has easy answers, but our government must take immediate action. Just today, I met with a member of a Canadian-based NGO called the Sentinel Project for Genocide Prevention. He echoed what we have heard from other knowledgeable sources, that we need to embark on a program of targeted economic sanctions against the most egregious human rights abuse perpetrators in Myanmar, while also providing humanitarian assistance to the neighbouring countries receiving thousands of refugees. The government is serious about dealing with this crisis and we must engage all of Myanmar's neighbouring countries to craft a durable and regional solution.

I am proud that Canada is already taking action. Since 2000, Canada has provided over $180 million. In 2017 alone, Canada has directed $9.18 million in assistance to humanitarian partners in Myanmar and Bangladesh to help the most vulnerable, in particular women and children.

It is not enough, however, to solely provide short-term solutions. Our government has joined others to address the root causes of conflict in Myanmar, including visiting the issue of citizenship rights, socio-economic development, health, education, inter-communal dialogue, and the engagement of civil society.

Our government has a record we can rightly be proud of. Our current government acted decisively with respect to the Syrian crisis, welcoming refugees and providing them with support to restart their lives. When Daesh committed atrocities against the Yazidis, we welcomed more than a thousand survivors, including vulnerable Yazidi women and children.

The government also created a famine relief fund to respond to the food crises in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen. In response to the political violence in Burundi, Canada recently provided more than $2 million in emergency humanitarian assistance to support neighbouring countries. Just in the last month Canada tabled a draft resolution at the UN Human Rights Council to establish an international commission of inquiry to ensure that the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Yemen are held accountable. Of course, just last week, our Prime Minister and our foreign minister raised the issue of the Rohingya with many of their counterparts at the United Nations.

We now need more concrete steps. Canada cannot do it alone, but we can take a meaningful stand and do our part while we work with our allies and international bodies.

On August 24, 2017, the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, chaired by former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, released its final report. Canada strongly supports the recommendations and continues to urge Myanmar to implement all the recommendations.

To find lasting and durable peace, Myanmar must commit to the protection of the human rights of all its people, no matter where they live or what religion they choose to practise.

It is not just Myanmar that needs to act. Far too often the international community has forgotten the lessons of history. In Rwanda, the international community refused to act promptly, and a million people died. In Syria, most of the international community turned away, and atrocities continue to this day.

Let us take action now to ensure that Myanmar does not represent another failure of the international system or another tragedy in history. Canada must step up and do what is just and what is right. Among others, we should lead the way to ensure that member states of the United Nations focus on this crisis. Other actions should be to compel the Myanmar government to grant unfettered access for the provision of humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable. In addition, we must implement targeted economic sanctions against individual members of the Myanmar government responsible for perpetrating the most egregious human rights violations. Finally, we need to deploy a special Canadian envoy to conduct diplomatic engagement with all the parties in Myanmar. Of course, it goes without saying that we should continue to provide humanitarian assistance to all agencies on the ground in the region.

[Social Development, September 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, developing Canada's early learning and child care system is one of the most crucial investments a government can make. I am pleased that shortly before the House rose in June, our government announced a historic framework agreement with the provinces and territories on early learning and child care. The agreement builds on investments announced previously in budgets 2016 and 2017 that support and create more child care spots across the country. Could the government advise the House on the progress in implementing the framework with the provinces and territories to improve the lives of Canadian children?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, June 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the standing committee that assisted in drafting Bill C-6, I am honoured to rise today to celebrate the recent changes to our immigration system. The passage of this important legislation represents not only the realization of another pivotal Liberal campaign promise, but also reaffirms the highest ideals of Canadian identity and inclusive citizenship.

As the member of Parliament for one of Canada's most multicultural ridings, I am proud to represent a government that fully appreciates that our diversity is a source of great pride. Furthermore, as an immigrant to this country myself, I found the previous government's unjust, two-tiered citizenship model to be disgraceful and abhorrent.

By contrast, Bill C-6 repudiates the previous government's cynical politics of division and once again upholds our noble calling that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, irrespective of where one is born.

[Citizenship Act, June 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated previously, under both ministers of this government, we have seen energetic leadership. It would be fair to say that on a monthly basis we see concerted efforts to improve our immigration system.

As Bill C-6 was being contemplated, I recall that the question of revocation of citizenship did arise. On numerous occasions, the then minister of immigration stated that he was open to considering procedural safeguards that could be brought in to strengthen the integrity of our immigration system.

This is a government that recognizes full well the merits of immigration and how it enriches our country. Going forward, I have no doubt there will be more changes to come.

[Citizenship Act, June 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as the member is well aware, after the House adopted Bill C-6, it went to the Senate. Numerous people had an opportunity to speak to the senators who were examining the bill. As we are all well aware, they put a lot of hard work into this. The various revisions and amendments they made are reflected in the bill as it has come back to us.

Obviously we have a government that is very much concerned with ensuring our immigration system is accessible and it is not arbitrary like the previous bill brought to the House several years ago by the Conservatives. I am certain, with the energetic leadership of our minister, we would consider bringing more changes in the future.

[Citizenship Act, June 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the House that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.

It brings me great joy to rise again before the House to discuss Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. Bill C-6 represents not only the realization of a fundamental Liberal campaign promise and a signature achievement of our government, but also serves as a powerful articulation of Canadian identity and a reaffirmation of the various benefits of diversity.

Before I continue, I would be remiss if I did not thank both the former minister of immigration, refugees, and citizenship, the Hon. and, I might add, tireless John McCallum, for his hard work on this file, as well as the steady leadership of his successor as minister, my hon. friend and colleague from York South—Weston.

I would also like to commence by thanking my former colleagues on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for their work on the legislation, as well as the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for providing sober second thought to the bill. Having had the honour of being involved in the committee study of the bill as it was originally conceived in the House before it was sent to the Senate in June last year, I am deeply aware of how important the bill is to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

In fact, since being elected in October of 2015, few, if any, issues have resonated with my constituents in Willowdale as powerfully as the need to modernize our immigration system and to repeal and repudiate the most odious changes to our immigration system brought in by the previous government. Whether knocking on doors or in ongoing conversations with constituents, my staff and I have consistently heard the same refrain. Bill C-6 represents a welcome change in policy and tone for Canadians and their families. If any concerns have been expressed, it is the delay that people have experienced in seeing the enactment of Bill C-6.

As an immigrant to this country, I am profoundly sympathetic to this inclination. I understand what Canadian citizenship means, both here and abroad, to generations of families who have come to this great country seeking a better future. As someone who had the great privilege to arrive in this country in my teens, I certainly fully appreciate and would never take for granted the significance of immigration as a lifeline to our future well-being and prosperity.

I can also confidently say that the love of country one has for a place where we were not born but which has nonetheless given us all the opportunities in the world is very different than the affinity one feels for the nation of one's birth. Naturalization occupies a cherished place in one's heart that is neither blinded by history nor blood, but instead by one of deep gratitude. I have both admired Canada from afar and also lived to enjoy its greatest blessings: its educational system, its esteemed place in the world, its deep respect for all persons, its quiet dignity, and of course our spirited people. I recognize the noble value in Canadian citizenship and I am proud of our government's assiduous efforts to restore and reaffirm the bedrock values upon which Canadian citizenship is based.

In its original form, Bill C-6 aimed to accomplish four key objectives: first, to remove the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security; second, to remove the requirement that an applicant intend, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada; third, to reduce the number of days during which a person must be physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship; and fourth, to return the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of Canada and of one of its official languages to applicants between the ages of 18 and 54.

In doing so, Bill C-6 repeals or amends the most misguided elements of the Conservative Party's Bill C-24 and establishes a more effective, robust, modern, and just pathway to citizenship. This is not, in other words, a radical departure from established laws and customs, but rather a return to sensible policies following the excesses of Bill C-24.

I would like to briefly examine these four key objectives before examining the amendments before us. First is that it removes the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security.

The most crucial element of Bill C-6, I believe, is that it revokes the unprecedented ability, granted through Bill C-24, of the Canadian government to strip its own citizens of fundamental rights, namely the rights to inalienable citizenship and equal protection under the law.

In rejecting a two-tiered approach to Canadian citizenship, Bill C-6 would bring government policy in line with the recommendations of a litany of stakeholders who condemned the arbitrary, unconstitutional, and undue nature of Bill C-24. This includes the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Layers, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International, and many leading academics, journalists, and civic leaders.

The second question relates to removing the requirement that an applicant intend, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada.

Further among its many ill-conceived statutes, Bill C-24 also stated that adult applicants had to declare on their citizenship applications that they intended to continue to reside in Canada if granted citizenship. The provisions created concern among new Canadians, who feared their citizenship could be revoked in the future if they moved outside of Canada.

By way of example, Canadians whose work required them to live abroad for extended periods felt that their declaration of an intent to reside could negatively affect their international mobility and, by extension, their ability to work abroad.

Within the current context of our open and global economy, this would place Canada at a serious competitive disadvantage. Rather than disincentivizing engaged global citizens from seeking Canadian citizenship, Bill C-6 instead supports the government's goal of making it easier for immigrants to build successful lives within Canada, reunite with their families, and contribute to the economic success and well-being of our country.

I will now move to the various amendments that were suggested. The legislation before us today has, of course, been further modified by several amendments put forth at the Senate committee stage. I would like to use my remaining time to briefly address these amendments.

There are three proposed amendments before us today. One is an amendment to change the citizenship revocation model. The second is an amendment allowing minors to obtain citizenship without a Canadian parent. The third would change the upper age for citizenship language and knowledge requirements to 59 years.

After careful assessment and consideration, our government agrees with two of the three amendments adopted in the Senate, as they support our commitment to remove unnecessary barriers to citizenship, make citizenship more accessible to the more vulnerable, and enhance procedural fairness in the citizenship revocation process.

With respect to the proposed model to have the Federal Court act as a decision-maker on most citizenship revocation cases in which citizenship was acquired fraudulently, allow me to reiterate that ever since the current decision-making model came into effect in 2015, the minister has been the decision-maker on most cases involving fraud and misrepresentation, while the Federal Court has been the decision-maker on more serious cases involving fraud related to security, human or international rights violations, and organized criminality.

Under the Senate's proposed model, all individuals facing revocation of citizenship would have the right to request that their case be referred to the Federal Court for a decision regarding revocation on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation.

In cases in which an individual refers their case to the court, the minister's role would be to bring an action in the court to seek a declaration that the person obtained citizenship by false representation, by fraud, or by knowingly concealing material circumstances. It would then be up to the court to make the final decision.

The government has considered this amendment carefully and is supporting this new decision-making model, but with some key changes. The government believes that the minister's authority should be limited to revocation cases that the individual does not wish to have referred to the Federal Court.

Our government also supports, with modifications, the Senate amendment allowing minors to apply for citizenship without a Canadian parent.

Our government must respectfully disagree with the proposed Senate amendment to change the upper limit for language and knowledge requirements.

As mentioned previously, the language and knowledge requirements brought about via Bill C-24 were seemingly imposed at random, and this side has yet to see a compelling argument for this amendment.

The government has considered these proposed amendments very seriously and has accepted some key proposals regarding a new decision-making process for the revocation of citizenship.