Arif Virani

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, June 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government is very much looking forward to hosting the first three amigos summit on Canadian territory in some time, an event that was cancelled by the previous government when relationships were so frayed that a meeting was not possible.

However, at that meeting, we are looking forward to meeting our campaign commitment, which is to lift the Mexican visa. We are undertaking the reviews necessary to ensure this is done appropriately.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, June 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for her comments. There have been significant success stories in terms of some of the resettlement efforts, albeit that there are some continuing challenges that we are seeking to meet. For example, at the time my hon. colleague asked her question, approximately 90% of Syrian newcomers had been permanently housed. That figure is now at 99% and it is 100% in the city from which my friend hails and the constituents she represents.

However, in terms of addressing the income support, it is a very important issue that deals with challenging housing markets, such as in Toronto and Vancouver, and trying to see how much money is left over for addressing basic needs apart from housing.

I wish to inform the House that the minister has recently increased the maximum level of support from $25,000 to $50,000 per resettled refugee family. That is an increase for all government-assisted refugee families, not only Syrian families, if a family composition and circumstances warrant it. Therefore, there is an effort being made to ensure that income support will continue to align with social assistance rates, so that the amount allocated per individual will not change.

These are positive developments in terms of trying to address what is a dynamic process in terms of resettlement efforts, and trying to calibrate the funding necessary to ensure the success of this effort. Will it continue? I am confident that it will, but with the help of the opposition.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, June 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the member for Vancouver East, for her work on this issue, for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents, and for her advocacy in terms of immigration policy; specifically, making Canada a more welcoming and better place for resettlement of refugees, not just the Syrian refugees.

In terms of responding directly to some of the comments the member opposite has raised, such as the issue about wait times, about getting money delivered to individuals who are here, I cannot provide her details on specific cases. However, what I can endeavour to do is work with her going forward to find out about average wait times, in terms of delivering those much-needed income supports. The income supports are very critical, and any delays in receiving those income supports do not serve the individuals, they do not serve the government's policies and programs, and they do not serve in terms of propagating or perpetuating Canadian values.

She raised the case of an individual who appeared before the committee. I would raise a few points in response to my friend's comments.

There is, obviously, a difference between the policies that were enacted by this government versus the ones of the previous government. The individual in question arrived here during the time the previous government was in power. Obviously, it had different policies, policies that we do not believe in and have not chosen to replicate.

Yes, travel was not covered at the time the previous government was in power. Also, clothing was not provided at ports of entry, such as the Pearson airport or the airport in Montreal. Those are changes, and they are good changes.

There is a reference, my friend acknowledged, to looking at some of the policies going forward. Are we keen on revisiting the travel loan program, potentially ways to make it more fair and more equitable? Absolutely we are. What we are looking at are things such as waiving the interest requirements, loan forgiveness, or loan renegotiation.

This issue about differentiating between refugees from different parts of the world is a difficult subject. I am always candid with the opposition critic, and I will be candid here. Difficult decisions are being made by government, in terms of immigration policy and in terms of many policies, but the decision was informed by the single fact the Syrian crisis is the single largest humanitarian crisis on the planet right now. We have heard this before but it bears repeating. It has resulted in the largest number of displaced people, both internally and externally, in the world, and those levels have not been seen since World War II. That is specifically why we made a decision about this refugee population.

Can more be done? Absolutely, more can be done.

Are we willing to entertain some of the issues being raised by the member for Vancouver East? Of course, we are. We are an open and consultative government.

However, we also know and are buoyed by the fact that the steps we are taking are being recognized not just here in this country, but also around the world.

Yes, there have been challenges, and we have acknowledged those changes. However, there have also been significant success stories, not only in terms of the settlement of Syrian refugees in this country but also in terms of the overall targets of 44,000 individuals coming in on humanitarian grounds just this year. That has been recognized by the UNHCR. It has been recognized by people in communities throughout this country, including in my own community, where we get school kids writing welcome cards for refugees and asking us to deliver them within our communities.

Do we feel strongly that we are on the right path to sorting out Canada's commitment on the refugee file? Absolutely, we are confident about it.

Can we use the opposition's help in perfecting this process? Absolutely, and I encourage that support going forward and I encourage that co-operation going forward.

[Citizenship Act, June 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments, his advocacy in the chamber, for the frequency of his speaking engagements, and for his work on the Parliamentary Friends of Tibet.

I raise two points in respect to what he spoke about. The first is on the European limitations. He identified at the outset of his remarks, concepts in Europe versus concepts in Canada. I agree with that, and that is the first part of my question. The genius of the Canadian model is that not only do we accept people into our country, but we put them on a path to permanence. That is something we should be exporting to various countries in Europe as they struggle with things such as a migrant crisis.

Second, the concept of citizenship informed a lot of his comments about different ideological perspectives, different historical perspectives, and different citations that he was mentioning. Citizenship does have value. We on this side agree with the member opposite on that notion. The exact value that is being attached seems to be somewhat different. His conception seemed to be that allowing a convicted terrorist to keep his citizenship is somehow anathema to this concept of citizenship and anathema to the concept of the Canadian tradition. I would ask him, as the second part of my question, that if there is some uniformity of the conception he is articulating, then why did the Conservative governments of Diefenbaker, Clark, and Mulroney cease to touch this provision in the Citizenship Act when they were in the office? It clearly is not in conformity with the conception that he is articulating.

[Citizenship Act, June 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the list of countries that I outlined at the outset was provided to me by the Library of Parliament. I do apologize if there is a member born in Malta in the chamber, perhaps even the member himself. I have been to Malta. It is a lovely place. There are a lot more churches than there are days of the year. It is very sunny and warm. I will acknowledge and add that to the list of now 23 countries.

In terms of the intent to reside provision, the problem with the previous legislation is that it changed the application form, which people needed to fill out prior to taking the oath of citizenship. Are mobility rights respected in the charter? Of course they are. I am a constitutional litigator. I appreciate that. However, the intent to reside provision sowed confusion in terms of the requirement of the date of taking the oath but also going forward whether people were allowed to actually move and leave our country. They are indeed allowed to move. Mobility rights are protected. What we are doing is clarifying that provision that caused a problem and a barrier rather than a facilitation of citizenship.

[Citizenship Act, June 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member who has come from United Kingdom, specifically from Scotland, represents a diverse riding, equally as diverse as Parkdale—High Park in Toronto.

The provisions that are in place that have not gotten enough attention are ones that facilitate to pathways to citizenship. When we talked about language testing and knowledge testing, we heard an uproar about the previous legislation and about how it created, again, barriers to accessing citizenship.

Our position is that people do not need to have a language test applicable to people aged 14 to 17, because they are getting that kind of language training in the school system already. We also heard a great deal from people aged 55 and older who said that language testing can be a significant barrier for people who are otherwise well integrated, well ensconced, and very learned about what takes place in Canada, and very knowledgeable about our culture and our political institutions.

Those people are served by immigration settlement agencies. We also understand that there is no reason for us to put a barrier in place to their citizenship, because when we look at the studies, we realize that citizenship helps people feel a sense of permanence and helps achieve better overall integration.

[Citizenship Act, June 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for all of his advocacy on behalf of the diverse constituents in his riding.

The reaction in my riding is very similar to reactions we have heard from ridings around the country, be they urban or rural. The reaction was simply that people who were not born here, who naturalized here or were on the path to naturalization, felt disserved and underserved by the previous legislation. They felt stigmatized. They felt vulnerable. They felt they were being valued less.

That is a very strong statement, but that is a statement I heard again and again on the campaign trail, and I heard it in my capacity as a human rights lawyer prior to becoming an elected representative in this House.

That is what we are trying to cure by enacting legislation of this type. It is not about pithy phrases. It is not about clichés on the campaign trail. What it is about is giving people a sense of value that they can vote, sit in this House, and participate in the electoral process. They can feel that their citizenship, regardless of where they were born, is valued the same as anyone else who has been here for multiple generations. That is what we are trying to do with this bill.

[Citizenship Act, June 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I applaud the diversity of this chamber that is represented by all parties in this House. It is a testament to the kind of electoral system and the kind of Parliament we have created here.

In response to some of the comments raised by the hon. member, I would reiterate a couple of things because sometimes the nuance gets lost in the discussion. If one is applying for citizenship and commits a Criminal Code offence, including a terrorist offence, one is prevented from accessing citizenship in this country.

That is the law in Canada. That has always been the law in Canada. The Liberals believe in that law. The Conservatives believe in that law.

The difference is that once one has already obtained citizenship, what was added by the Conservative government, which we fundamentally and ideologically disagree with, is that once one is here and is a citizen here, if one had naturalized, one was given an extra penalty after the commission of crimes against the national interest.

We believe that the Criminal Code and the criminal justice system can address terrorism and crimes against the national interest, and that is the vehicle for addressing those crimes. That is a fundamental difference which we do not agree on, and that is what this bill represents.

Also, importantly, there is a very fundamental distinction between the 1947 Citizenship Act and what was enacted under Bill C-24 by the Conservatives. That difference is that until Bill C-24, there was only one means of revoking citizenship, and that was based on fraud. Sometimes the fraud was less dramatic, and sometimes it included people who pretended they were not war criminals in World War II. We believe that is the only basis for revoking citizenship, and that is what this bill restores.

[Citizenship Act, June 3rd, 2016]

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.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, May 11th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, our government is very committed to addressing this issue. We are looking at that as part of an overall assessment of the immigration and refugee system in terms of amendments that need to be made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, speeding up processing time, producing more fairness within the system itself.

Cessation is a problem. Bill C-31 is a problem. I look forward to continuing this discussion with the member for Vancouver East. I look forward to seeing the content of her private member's bill.