People should seriously start a petition to do away with the Senate. What a waste of tax payer's money
Bill C-6: Senate stage
- Thread starter marcher
- Start date
senator Frum is actually on the committee to study this bill. she could actually express her opinions at the committee instead of delaying the second reading. very despicable!marcher said:
Senator Frum is 100% against C-6. The attitude Conservative Senators are having is quite reasonable, they want to maintain C-24 so they are reluctant to support or put any effort into C-6. On the other hand, Liberals are supposed to be pushing the Bill through into discussions and forcing Conservatives to discuss it, and eventually make a decision. However, it is very clear at this stage not a single Liberal Senator is actively supporting the bill, the only Senator that did put in more effort than anyone else is Senator Omidvar, an independent. She is not a member of the standing committee, so her options are limited, and she won't be able to do more than she has already done. This bill is a good example for everyone to see Liberals at their true colour, and keep this in mind when they are voting one day.hangincanada said:
that bill is meant to die ..what a waste
Writing to those senators is pointless to me ...they never answer or they try to de escalate the situation
reaching out to the press is more viable than writing to those people
Anyway it's not like we are surprised it's been like that since June ..
Writing to those senators is pointless to me ...they never answer or they try to de escalate the situation
reaching out to the press is more viable than writing to those people
Anyway it's not like we are surprised it's been like that since June ..
mohd000
Hero Member
- May 21, 2013
- 6
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- cpp ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 5242
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 20-06-2013
- Doc's Request.
- 29-11-2013 RCMP;3-03-2014 MARRIAGE QUESTIONARE
- AOR Received.
- 15-08-2013
- File Transfer...
- 15-08-2013
- Med's Request
- 22-05-2014
- Med's Done....
- 28-05-2014
- Interview........
- exempted
- Passport Req..
- 20-06-2014
- VISA ISSUED...
- request to change vo for spouse
- LANDED..........
- 11-08-2014
Citizenship Act
Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné, for the second reading of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.
Hon. Thanh Hai Ngo: Honourable senators, I am pleased to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.
This government bill has been making a lot of waves, and I wish to add my own thoughts on this legislation at second reading before we refer it to committee.
Bill C-6 proposes major changes to how immigrants become Canadian citizens by, first, removing the grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security; second, removing the requirement that an applicant intend to continue to reside in Canada if granted citizenship; third, reducing the number of days during which a person must have been physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship and providing credit for time spent in Canada as a permanent resident; fourth, reducing the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of Canada and of one official language to applicants between the ages of 18 and 54; and, finally, by authorizing the minister to seize any document on the grounds that it was fraudulently or improperly obtained or used.
During the debate, we've commonly agreed that equality among citizens is an absolute foundation in Canada and that immigrants are an integral part of Canadian society and play an essential role in building our great country. These proud words can never be repeated too often in the halls of this honourable chamber.
However, I would like to add my voice in opposition against two provisions of Bill C-6 that I believe are fixated within a dubious perspective against Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.
That bill amends the Citizenship Act to bring change to our immigration regime. It has reinforced the value of citizenship by strengthening the requirement for it. It deters citizenship of convenience, improves the tools we have to maintain program integrity and combat fraud and increases efficiencies to help qualified applicants acquire citizenship faster.
Like many of my colleagues, I also have reservations about Bill C-6. I think we all agree that the citizenship process is a facilitator of integration, but we have different views about how we should enhance our immigration program with integrity in order to ensure that the house stays strong, as Senator Omidvar so eloquently put it. But, as I mentioned, I have serious concerns with some of the major amendments contained in Bill C-6. My appreciation of Bill C-6 is informed by my own experience as an immigrant when I first arrived in Canada and as a refugee in the aftermath of the fall of Saigon and also as a former citizenship judge.
Ultimately, my thoughts are shaped by the firm belief that citizenship is a privilege, not a right, as this government considers it. Canadian citizenship, as a privilege, must be earned and, once earned, comes with great responsibility.
In the interests of time and to avoid repetition, I will mainly address two of the provisions of the bill that I have fundamental issues with, namely repealing the authority to revoke citizenship for dual citizens convicted of crimes such as treason, terrorism, and espionage and reinstating previous age requirements to meet language and knowledge criteria to obtain citizenship.
I will start by addressing the first provision of the bill that repeals citizenship for dual citizens convicted of crimes such as treason, terrorism and espionage. I find this amendment an aberration of what Canadian citizenship stands for. I echo the sentiment of my colleagues that such clear and violent disaffection for one's adopted country shows a total disregard for the privilege of Canadian citizenship. This bill establishes a dichotomy for Canadians. Our Prime Minister says that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, and the opposition says that a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Ngo: But these labels and slogans are often misleading and confusing. Simply put, an individual committed to harming others at any cost, based on a hatred of Canada and the values it stands for, must face the full force of the law. All Canadians who commit such crimes should expect the same. This bill needs to consider that a dual citizen who commits a terrorist act after becoming a Canadian was pretending to be someone else when they submitted their citizenship application. They are treating their Canadian citizenship as a convenient advantage to commit a treasonous and awful act. Ultimately, they went unfaithfully through the process by basing the application for citizenship on false representation and fraud.
(1910)
This is why we revoke citizenship from dual citizens who commit such crimes.
Canadians understand that in cases involving dual citizenship, this injustice is more than sufficient ground for revocation of citizenship because they lied and took advantage of their citizenship to manipulate us, to change our behaviour by creating fear and uncertainty and division in our society.
Convicted terrorists who become citizens do so with dishonourable ulterior motives and lie on their applications. Worst of all, they lie when they take the citizenship oath. At the citizenship ceremony, new Canadians take the Oath of Citizenship and receive the certificate of becoming members of the Canadian family. I remind you that the oath is the final step at the end of the long journey to becoming a Canadian citizen. By taking the citizenship oath, new Canadians accept the rights and responsibilities that come with Canadian citizens.
As a former citizenship judge, I had the honour of presiding over numerous ceremonies and leading many new Canadians in swearing the Oath of Citizenship. Any new Canadian can swear the oath with the holy book of their choice, but they must absolutely swear this oath in order to become a citizen. It is a sacred step that I had the privilege of leading for new Canadians, and I think this is a good time to remind all of us, everyone here, of its powerful words:
I . . . swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.
If you commit a terrorist act, you break this sacred oath and fail to respect the law and fulfill your duty as a citizen. You fail to uphold our constitutional values of democracy, peace, respect for human rights and belonging which you swore to uphold. In that respect, Canadian citizenship cannot be treated as merely a certificate or just a passport. If so, then it is a citizenship of convenience.
Canadian citizenship means much more than that. It is an imperative responsibility to respect and protect the many rights and freedoms we enjoy in Canada, the right to live free from discrimination and persecution, the right to vote and hold office, the right to work and live in any province or territory, the freedom to practice our religion but not impose, and the right to express ourselves.
Applying for Canadian citizenship is in essence a choice for immigrants or even for refugees. An immigrant has the choice to come to Canada or another country.
I came to Canada out of free choice. I accepted my duty as a new Canadian to respect the law and to uphold my new country's constitutional values. In fact, I could not have been prouder to do so.
Canadian citizenship is a privilege, an honour bestowed upon those who swear to abide by and protect our founding values. It holds great value and joy and great reputation across the world and has been bestowed as a symbolic honour on foreigners of exceptional merit such as the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Karim Aga Khan IV and Malala Yousafzai. Imagine what our citizenship would say about those great humanitarians and honoured Canadians if we allowed terrorists to remain citizens and after they clearly treated us as a convenient instrument of terror.
Honourable senators, terrorism has no nationality or religion. So if one chooses to come to Canada and take the citizenship oath to become Canadian, then they should accept the responsibility and duties as well as the consequences that come with breaking the oath.
My other serious concern with Bill C-6, is in regard to reinstating the previous age requirements to meet the language and knowledge criteria in order to obtain citizenship. Under the guise of reasonable and practical change, this provision would only require new Canadians between 18 and 55 to meet linguistic requirements and take courses.
With this change, two groups will be exempt from taking these tests or benefiting from language training, youth between the ages of 14 and 18 and seniors over 55. Unfortunately, the government sees language training for this group as a roadblock, a barrier on the path to citizenship.
Youths between 14 and 18 years of age would now be expected to naturally learn English or French and learn about Canada in the schools they attend during the years of their residency.
According to Statistics Canada data on the number of applications between 2015-16, this would exclude 6.8 per cent of potential new Canadians between the ages of 14 and 18. This places a heavy burden on schools that are not always equipped to teach English or French to new Canadians, who, in turn, often need additional attention to improve their language proficiency.
I have grave concern about the upper end of the age bracket. There is no rationale for eliminating the requirement for language and knowledge tests for those aged 55 to 64. Do you know what kind of message this sends to potential new Canadians who are eager to work and contribute to your country? At age 55 you are still part of the workforce and in the prime of your life with many years in front of you.
Older citizens are committed to this country and want to belong and share the benefit of their Canadian citizenship and not be left behind because they may not speak English or French as well as their children. It is our duty to ensure that they meet the requirements.
Senator Omidvar said when immigrants integrate, they prosper. When immigrants prosper, Canada prospers. But with this new measure, we are excluding new Canadians from helping Canada prosper solely on the assumption that they only represent a small number of applicants who do not wish to face the daunting task of facing a new language.
According to Statistics Canada figures from last year, applications received from potential new Canadians in the age of this category represented a total of 8 per cent. Altogether, this new policy would exclude a total of 14.8 per cent of applicants from benefiting from learning one of our official languages.
The Hon. the Speaker: Excuse me, Senator Ngo, your time has expired. Are you asking for five more minutes?
Senator Ngo: Five more minutes.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Ngo: Honourable senators, 14.8 percent is not a small number of citizen applicants —
[Translation]
If we expect to accept more immigrants and new citizens, we must ensure that these Canadians are suitably integrated into the fabric of society and that they participate in our economy.
Successful integration requires that they learn one of the official languages. After working with various cultural communities, I can say that older immigrants adapt very well to professional and language requirements.
Learning the language is an important aspect that facilitates the integration process and helps citizens overcome the challenges to establishing their identity. I certainly remember having to learn and unlearn many things upon my arrival in Canada.
Honourable senators, Bill C-6 does not paint a fair picture of the real value of Canadian citizenship.
I have presented my point of view on citizenship, for I am inclined to take a position against two of the main provisions in Bill C-6. Ultimately, I think anyone who commits an act of treason or terrorism does not have roots here. They do not share, nor do they deserve to share, the feeling of being Canadian. They do not respect our country's democratic principles and consequently violate the oath they swore and are no longer worthy of the privilege of Canadian citizenship.
(1920)
After all, citizenship is a pledge of mutual responsibility and a shared commitment to values rooted in our history. Bill C-6 should foster the integration of newcomers into the fabric of Canadian society by requiring them to learn one of our official languages, regardless of their age. Otherwise, we would be ignoring young people and excluding seniors, even though they are proud and want to make their mark as new Canadians.
Canada is a nation that values diversity, a nation where newcomers are invited to share their traditions, celebrate their culture and cherish the values they hold dear. Certainly, every newcomer who sets foot on Canadian soil has a unique history, and everyone who becomes a Canadian accepts a certain responsibility.
Honourable senators, this kind of debate makes the Senate stronger. We have an opportunity to preserve the integrity of Canadian citizenship and improve how newcomers to Canada are treated. Thank you.
[English]
Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Would Senator Ngo kindly answer a question?
Senator Ngo: If we have time.
The Hon. the Speaker: You have two minutes.
Senator Jaffer: Senator, you made a speech that every Canadian would be very proud of, so thank you for that.
I have so many questions, but everyone in this room will understand the one question I will ask.
At the age of 54, isn't it very difficult to learn a second language? If somebody cannot speak our language, should we be denying them the opportunity to become fully fledged citizens and participate in and integrate into our country?
Senator Ngo: Thank you for your question.
As I have said, the age of 54 is the prime time of your life. You come to Canada and you try to contribute. You try to integrate into Canadian society. If you don't know the language, how do you integrate? How do you mix with Canadian people if you cannot speak the language? It's very hard.
Indirectly, you try to isolate yourself from the Canadian community, and that's why I have to say you have to learn one of the official languages, English or French, in order to integrate into Canadian society.
Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Will the senator take another question?
The Hon. the Speaker: In order to take another question, Senator Ngo will have to ask for more time, as his time has expired again.
Are you asking for more time, Senator Ngo?
Senator Ngo: Yes.
The Hon. the Speaker: Three minutes?
Senator Ngo: Okay.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, senator, for your remarks on Bill C-6.
If I am to understand you correctly, you would treat citizens who are born and citizens who are naturalized differently. You are suggesting that different laws should apply to the same crime. Let's just assume for a minute we're talking about my neighbour Senator Mitchell and me. I think Senator Mitchell is a second- generation born Canadian, and I am clearly first-generation. He and I commit the same crime. I get deported. He gets to say. Is that what you're suggesting?
Senator Ngo: Thank you for your question.
The issue here is immigrants or refugees who come to Canada and become Canadian citizens. That's totally different. That's what we call it, because when you come into Canada as an immigrant or a refugee, you have your citizenship from your own country, of course. You come to Canada and you apply for Canadian citizenship. You have the choice to choose Canada or your own country. This is what we're talking about: the dual citizenship of immigrants and refugees who come to Canada. It's not that you're born here. That's the point I'm trying to make. I myself was a refugee first, an immigrant after and I became a Canadian citizen. I made the applications and swore the oath to uphold the law and everything.
Do I have the choice? Yes, I do. I have the choice to accept Canada as my own country.
The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?
(On motion of Senator Frum, debate adjourned.)
Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné, for the second reading of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.
Hon. Thanh Hai Ngo: Honourable senators, I am pleased to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.
This government bill has been making a lot of waves, and I wish to add my own thoughts on this legislation at second reading before we refer it to committee.
Bill C-6 proposes major changes to how immigrants become Canadian citizens by, first, removing the grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security; second, removing the requirement that an applicant intend to continue to reside in Canada if granted citizenship; third, reducing the number of days during which a person must have been physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship and providing credit for time spent in Canada as a permanent resident; fourth, reducing the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of Canada and of one official language to applicants between the ages of 18 and 54; and, finally, by authorizing the minister to seize any document on the grounds that it was fraudulently or improperly obtained or used.
During the debate, we've commonly agreed that equality among citizens is an absolute foundation in Canada and that immigrants are an integral part of Canadian society and play an essential role in building our great country. These proud words can never be repeated too often in the halls of this honourable chamber.
However, I would like to add my voice in opposition against two provisions of Bill C-6 that I believe are fixated within a dubious perspective against Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.
That bill amends the Citizenship Act to bring change to our immigration regime. It has reinforced the value of citizenship by strengthening the requirement for it. It deters citizenship of convenience, improves the tools we have to maintain program integrity and combat fraud and increases efficiencies to help qualified applicants acquire citizenship faster.
Like many of my colleagues, I also have reservations about Bill C-6. I think we all agree that the citizenship process is a facilitator of integration, but we have different views about how we should enhance our immigration program with integrity in order to ensure that the house stays strong, as Senator Omidvar so eloquently put it. But, as I mentioned, I have serious concerns with some of the major amendments contained in Bill C-6. My appreciation of Bill C-6 is informed by my own experience as an immigrant when I first arrived in Canada and as a refugee in the aftermath of the fall of Saigon and also as a former citizenship judge.
Ultimately, my thoughts are shaped by the firm belief that citizenship is a privilege, not a right, as this government considers it. Canadian citizenship, as a privilege, must be earned and, once earned, comes with great responsibility.
In the interests of time and to avoid repetition, I will mainly address two of the provisions of the bill that I have fundamental issues with, namely repealing the authority to revoke citizenship for dual citizens convicted of crimes such as treason, terrorism, and espionage and reinstating previous age requirements to meet language and knowledge criteria to obtain citizenship.
I will start by addressing the first provision of the bill that repeals citizenship for dual citizens convicted of crimes such as treason, terrorism and espionage. I find this amendment an aberration of what Canadian citizenship stands for. I echo the sentiment of my colleagues that such clear and violent disaffection for one's adopted country shows a total disregard for the privilege of Canadian citizenship. This bill establishes a dichotomy for Canadians. Our Prime Minister says that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, and the opposition says that a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Ngo: But these labels and slogans are often misleading and confusing. Simply put, an individual committed to harming others at any cost, based on a hatred of Canada and the values it stands for, must face the full force of the law. All Canadians who commit such crimes should expect the same. This bill needs to consider that a dual citizen who commits a terrorist act after becoming a Canadian was pretending to be someone else when they submitted their citizenship application. They are treating their Canadian citizenship as a convenient advantage to commit a treasonous and awful act. Ultimately, they went unfaithfully through the process by basing the application for citizenship on false representation and fraud.
(1910)
This is why we revoke citizenship from dual citizens who commit such crimes.
Canadians understand that in cases involving dual citizenship, this injustice is more than sufficient ground for revocation of citizenship because they lied and took advantage of their citizenship to manipulate us, to change our behaviour by creating fear and uncertainty and division in our society.
Convicted terrorists who become citizens do so with dishonourable ulterior motives and lie on their applications. Worst of all, they lie when they take the citizenship oath. At the citizenship ceremony, new Canadians take the Oath of Citizenship and receive the certificate of becoming members of the Canadian family. I remind you that the oath is the final step at the end of the long journey to becoming a Canadian citizen. By taking the citizenship oath, new Canadians accept the rights and responsibilities that come with Canadian citizens.
As a former citizenship judge, I had the honour of presiding over numerous ceremonies and leading many new Canadians in swearing the Oath of Citizenship. Any new Canadian can swear the oath with the holy book of their choice, but they must absolutely swear this oath in order to become a citizen. It is a sacred step that I had the privilege of leading for new Canadians, and I think this is a good time to remind all of us, everyone here, of its powerful words:
I . . . swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.
If you commit a terrorist act, you break this sacred oath and fail to respect the law and fulfill your duty as a citizen. You fail to uphold our constitutional values of democracy, peace, respect for human rights and belonging which you swore to uphold. In that respect, Canadian citizenship cannot be treated as merely a certificate or just a passport. If so, then it is a citizenship of convenience.
Canadian citizenship means much more than that. It is an imperative responsibility to respect and protect the many rights and freedoms we enjoy in Canada, the right to live free from discrimination and persecution, the right to vote and hold office, the right to work and live in any province or territory, the freedom to practice our religion but not impose, and the right to express ourselves.
Applying for Canadian citizenship is in essence a choice for immigrants or even for refugees. An immigrant has the choice to come to Canada or another country.
I came to Canada out of free choice. I accepted my duty as a new Canadian to respect the law and to uphold my new country's constitutional values. In fact, I could not have been prouder to do so.
Canadian citizenship is a privilege, an honour bestowed upon those who swear to abide by and protect our founding values. It holds great value and joy and great reputation across the world and has been bestowed as a symbolic honour on foreigners of exceptional merit such as the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Karim Aga Khan IV and Malala Yousafzai. Imagine what our citizenship would say about those great humanitarians and honoured Canadians if we allowed terrorists to remain citizens and after they clearly treated us as a convenient instrument of terror.
Honourable senators, terrorism has no nationality or religion. So if one chooses to come to Canada and take the citizenship oath to become Canadian, then they should accept the responsibility and duties as well as the consequences that come with breaking the oath.
My other serious concern with Bill C-6, is in regard to reinstating the previous age requirements to meet the language and knowledge criteria in order to obtain citizenship. Under the guise of reasonable and practical change, this provision would only require new Canadians between 18 and 55 to meet linguistic requirements and take courses.
With this change, two groups will be exempt from taking these tests or benefiting from language training, youth between the ages of 14 and 18 and seniors over 55. Unfortunately, the government sees language training for this group as a roadblock, a barrier on the path to citizenship.
Youths between 14 and 18 years of age would now be expected to naturally learn English or French and learn about Canada in the schools they attend during the years of their residency.
According to Statistics Canada data on the number of applications between 2015-16, this would exclude 6.8 per cent of potential new Canadians between the ages of 14 and 18. This places a heavy burden on schools that are not always equipped to teach English or French to new Canadians, who, in turn, often need additional attention to improve their language proficiency.
I have grave concern about the upper end of the age bracket. There is no rationale for eliminating the requirement for language and knowledge tests for those aged 55 to 64. Do you know what kind of message this sends to potential new Canadians who are eager to work and contribute to your country? At age 55 you are still part of the workforce and in the prime of your life with many years in front of you.
Older citizens are committed to this country and want to belong and share the benefit of their Canadian citizenship and not be left behind because they may not speak English or French as well as their children. It is our duty to ensure that they meet the requirements.
Senator Omidvar said when immigrants integrate, they prosper. When immigrants prosper, Canada prospers. But with this new measure, we are excluding new Canadians from helping Canada prosper solely on the assumption that they only represent a small number of applicants who do not wish to face the daunting task of facing a new language.
According to Statistics Canada figures from last year, applications received from potential new Canadians in the age of this category represented a total of 8 per cent. Altogether, this new policy would exclude a total of 14.8 per cent of applicants from benefiting from learning one of our official languages.
The Hon. the Speaker: Excuse me, Senator Ngo, your time has expired. Are you asking for five more minutes?
Senator Ngo: Five more minutes.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Ngo: Honourable senators, 14.8 percent is not a small number of citizen applicants —
[Translation]
If we expect to accept more immigrants and new citizens, we must ensure that these Canadians are suitably integrated into the fabric of society and that they participate in our economy.
Successful integration requires that they learn one of the official languages. After working with various cultural communities, I can say that older immigrants adapt very well to professional and language requirements.
Learning the language is an important aspect that facilitates the integration process and helps citizens overcome the challenges to establishing their identity. I certainly remember having to learn and unlearn many things upon my arrival in Canada.
Honourable senators, Bill C-6 does not paint a fair picture of the real value of Canadian citizenship.
I have presented my point of view on citizenship, for I am inclined to take a position against two of the main provisions in Bill C-6. Ultimately, I think anyone who commits an act of treason or terrorism does not have roots here. They do not share, nor do they deserve to share, the feeling of being Canadian. They do not respect our country's democratic principles and consequently violate the oath they swore and are no longer worthy of the privilege of Canadian citizenship.
(1920)
After all, citizenship is a pledge of mutual responsibility and a shared commitment to values rooted in our history. Bill C-6 should foster the integration of newcomers into the fabric of Canadian society by requiring them to learn one of our official languages, regardless of their age. Otherwise, we would be ignoring young people and excluding seniors, even though they are proud and want to make their mark as new Canadians.
Canada is a nation that values diversity, a nation where newcomers are invited to share their traditions, celebrate their culture and cherish the values they hold dear. Certainly, every newcomer who sets foot on Canadian soil has a unique history, and everyone who becomes a Canadian accepts a certain responsibility.
Honourable senators, this kind of debate makes the Senate stronger. We have an opportunity to preserve the integrity of Canadian citizenship and improve how newcomers to Canada are treated. Thank you.
[English]
Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Would Senator Ngo kindly answer a question?
Senator Ngo: If we have time.
The Hon. the Speaker: You have two minutes.
Senator Jaffer: Senator, you made a speech that every Canadian would be very proud of, so thank you for that.
I have so many questions, but everyone in this room will understand the one question I will ask.
At the age of 54, isn't it very difficult to learn a second language? If somebody cannot speak our language, should we be denying them the opportunity to become fully fledged citizens and participate in and integrate into our country?
Senator Ngo: Thank you for your question.
As I have said, the age of 54 is the prime time of your life. You come to Canada and you try to contribute. You try to integrate into Canadian society. If you don't know the language, how do you integrate? How do you mix with Canadian people if you cannot speak the language? It's very hard.
Indirectly, you try to isolate yourself from the Canadian community, and that's why I have to say you have to learn one of the official languages, English or French, in order to integrate into Canadian society.
Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Will the senator take another question?
The Hon. the Speaker: In order to take another question, Senator Ngo will have to ask for more time, as his time has expired again.
Are you asking for more time, Senator Ngo?
Senator Ngo: Yes.
The Hon. the Speaker: Three minutes?
Senator Ngo: Okay.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, senator, for your remarks on Bill C-6.
If I am to understand you correctly, you would treat citizens who are born and citizens who are naturalized differently. You are suggesting that different laws should apply to the same crime. Let's just assume for a minute we're talking about my neighbour Senator Mitchell and me. I think Senator Mitchell is a second- generation born Canadian, and I am clearly first-generation. He and I commit the same crime. I get deported. He gets to say. Is that what you're suggesting?
Senator Ngo: Thank you for your question.
The issue here is immigrants or refugees who come to Canada and become Canadian citizens. That's totally different. That's what we call it, because when you come into Canada as an immigrant or a refugee, you have your citizenship from your own country, of course. You come to Canada and you apply for Canadian citizenship. You have the choice to choose Canada or your own country. This is what we're talking about: the dual citizenship of immigrants and refugees who come to Canada. It's not that you're born here. That's the point I'm trying to make. I myself was a refugee first, an immigrant after and I became a Canadian citizen. I made the applications and swore the oath to uphold the law and everything.
Do I have the choice? Yes, I do. I have the choice to accept Canada as my own country.
The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?
(On motion of Senator Frum, debate adjourned.)
Interesting discussion. I was thinking why don't they just include a caveat on the citizenship application (probably it already exists) that states that the applicant promises to never be involved with terrorism or treason or any such act against Canada after becoming a Canadian citizen. So technically if they do commit it later, then they will lose their citizenship (in addition to their jail punishment) because they provided false information/promise in the application. This would make it an easier process without having to involve Courts at the level it would be now since the clause is a separate law. Instead, it would be treated like any other false information provided at application stage; which automatically revokes the citizenship. I am sure there might be more complicated legal implications, but I thought I'd share this suggestion.mohd000 said:
On the other hand, for those of us who are solely concerned about the 3/5 rule; it seems not a single Senator objects to that rule, one wonders why Harper introduced the 4/6 Rule in first place. I understand the language requirements reasons, I understand the intent to reside reasons, but why add an extra year for residency requirements?
spiritsoul
Hero Member
- Jan 9, 2013
- 35
- Category........
- FSW
- Visa Office......
- London
- NOC Code......
- 2511
- App. Filed.......
- 28-03-2011
- AOR Received.
- 02-05-2011
- File Transfer...
- 02-05-2011
- Med's Request
- 25-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 17-01-2013
- Interview........
- Nil
- Passport Req..
- 18-02-2013
- VISA ISSUED...
- 11-03-2013
- LANDED..........
- 16-06-2013
The same concern here!!!marcher said:
The problem is: when they approve the 3/5 and goes in effect, we (those who where affected) will be approaching the 4/6 and will be affected by the backlog.
spiritsoul
Hero Member
- Jan 9, 2013
- 35
- Category........
- FSW
- Visa Office......
- London
- NOC Code......
- 2511
- App. Filed.......
- 28-03-2011
- AOR Received.
- 02-05-2011
- File Transfer...
- 02-05-2011
- Med's Request
- 25-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 17-01-2013
- Interview........
- Nil
- Passport Req..
- 18-02-2013
- VISA ISSUED...
- 11-03-2013
- LANDED..........
- 16-06-2013
Interesting blog although seems with minimal voice impact:
http://ccrweb.ca/en/bill-c-6-citizenship-concerns
http://ccrweb.ca/en/bill-c-6-citizenship-concerns
to be honest with you , there's like 99% of chances that this won't happen.. it'll take time even if ever it gets royal ascent anytime soon ( early 2017) for that rule to kick in .. all the people eligible in 2017 will just apply under c24 and won't benefit at all from c6. Imagine , it took the conservative government (which pushed c24 through a a concrete wall in 3 days) a year to implement the new rule . And plus , from where c6 stands right now , being fully approved and law before 2017 is more like a fairy tale . So for 2017 applicants , i wouldn't be caring about that.spiritsoul said:
And again and again and again, you are treating Naturalized Citizens differently from Natural Born Citizens. Which is against the Charter. You can't subject citizenship to good behavior. Once a Canadian, you will always stay Canadian unless you make an application by yourself to renounce it (and please don't serve me that nonsense speech of 'when-you-commit-terrorism-you-factually-renounce-your-citizenship').marcher said:
I understand you suggestion but it's not fair. Today it can be for terrorism, tomorrow it's gonna be for traffic fines.
screech339
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2013
- 552
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Vegreville
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 14-08-2012
- AOR Received.
- 20-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 18-07-2012
- Interview........
- 17-06-2013
- LANDED..........
- 17-06-2013
You do realize that there are canadian born that have dual citizenship. So if they commit terrorism, they should lose their Canadian citizenship.admontreal said:
And please knock if off with the "if it terrorism today, traffic fine tomorrow" BS. That is pure rhetorical nonsense. If you want to live in your paranoid life, that's your business. But don't try to enforce your nonsense opinion as fact.
You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your fact.
But then again we have Trudeau who admired China dictatorship and viewed Castro as a "remarkable leader". Maybe you are right to be concerned. Perhaps Trudeau will add "traffic fines" to the list to follow China / Cuba regime examples. All the more reason to turf Trudeau and the Liberals.