Final Speech: Bill C-6 – An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act

Honourable senators, I rise for what I hope and I’m sure for what you hope, too, is the last time I speak about Bill C-6. I thank Senator Harder for his motion, which I support. Perhaps like me, you have received emails and phone calls from citizens and those hoping to become citizens.

I have heard personally from students, mothers, grandmothers, businesspeople, live-in caregivers. No two stories are ever the same, but they are joined by a common thread, the desire to become a full participant in this country, the desire to become a Canadian.

I will limit my remarks to the contents of the message we’ve received. I believe it to be a landmark message. We sent three amendments over, and they have sent a message back approving two of three.

Let me briefly address each amendment moved respectably by Senators McCoy, Oh and Griffin.

I’ll begin with the amendment that I fought the hardest for, restoring due process for citizens facing revocation. When we set out to fix the legal gap that saw citizens lose their citizenship without any semblance of due process, the senators who worked with me on this — Senators McCoy, Pratte, et cetera — we had a few non-negotiable criteria: a full and fair hearing before an independent decision-maker, full disclosure of the facts of the case, consideration of humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and safeguards on the front end of the process so that when a person receives their revocation notice the process is laid out in plain language.

My colleagues and I chose the Federal Court as the preferred route for redress for various reasons, although we knew that this was not the only acceptable option.

I often said, using my famous — perhaps, overused — metaphor of a house that I don’t really care if it’s a blue house, a red house or a green house. I care that we have a house.

I think the government has given us a house and, in fact, it is a stronger house than what we proposed. That is my conclusion after consulting with Senate legal counsel, with outside lawyers and my good friends at the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

The Senate amendment, the McCoy amendment, restored the right to a hearing at the Federal Court for anyone facing revocation on grounds of fraud or false representation. In our model, individuals were required to exercise their right to go to court. In other words, they had to say to the minister, “I want to go to court,” and those who didn’t say that would have recourse to ministerial decision.

The government has flipped this model. Everyone gets to go to Federal Court. Individuals can opt out and have a ministerial decision instead. So someone may opt out of a Federal Court hearing, for example, if it’s a clear case of fraud, so why waste their time and money?

There is another important change in the government’s version before us. The Senate amendment would have removed double revocation so that you would not lose your citizenship and permanent residency in one fell swoop. The government puts that double revocation back in place. If your fraud reaches back to your permanent residence application, you lose both your citizenship and your permanent residence status, and become a foreign national.

This is acceptable in my opinion for one very important reason: Because we have a stronger front-end process where the majority of cases are decided in Federal Court, not by a minister or his or her delegate — a Federal Court, in particular, which will take humanitarian and compassionate grounds into consideration. It is on balance a strengthened model.

It won’t escape your notice that the Federal Court’s decision in the Hassouna case, which came down about three weeks ago, no doubt influenced the message that we have before us. In that decision, Madam Justice Jocelyn Gagné ruled the current revocation process to be fundamentally flawed and unfair. She found four areas of due process that were missing: an oral hearing, disclosure of the case against the individual, an independent decision maker and the opportunity for humanitarian and compassionate review. These ingredients sound familiar to me. I hope they sound familiar to you. All are found in the Senate amendment, and all are found in the government motion.

I want to give credit where credit is due. I credit Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen for his leadership and collaboration toward strengthening our proposal. It has been an honour to work with so many talented people on the passage of this proposed law. I’m still young in the Senate, if I can use that word to describe a senior citizen, but I believe I would remember — fingers crossed — the passage of this amendment as one of my proudest moments.

I want to now speak to the second amendment, Senator Oh’s amendment. I want to congratulate Senator Oh for introducing this amendment. The government has agreed that this important issue ought to be addressed by Bill C-6. It widens the circle of inclusion by enabling minors to independently apply for citizenship.

Under the current rules, minors who are without guardians or who have parents who are not citizens or who have parents who don’t want to be citizens are excluded from the citizenship process. As Senator Oh pointed out, the only exception is to request a waiver for a grant of citizenship on compassionate grounds from the minister, a highly discretionary and lengthy process.

I hope the government, and I hope Senator Oh, will see this change as the beginning of what I think is a larger examination that is required on the rights of children and youth across the immigration and citizenship portfolio.

Finally, the amendment to increase the age exemption for language and knowledge testing: I did not agree with the principle of this amendment, but I will not delve into the reasons for or against. We’ve already had a very constructive, substantive debate here in the chamber, and I thank my colleague Senator Griffin for leading that respectful debate. Instead, I will ask us to defer to the decision of the other place as a matter of process on this particular issue. Let us remind ourselves that the difference here is a five years — an age exemption of 55 years versus 60 years.

Colleagues, we have fulfilled our role and function as senators by examining this particular issue and by voting, on division, to advise the other place on an alternative. They said 55, we said 60 and they have said 55 again.

So what are we to do? What is the role of the appointed Senate when two houses are divided? When I’m in confusion and perplexed, I reach for wisdom from my books. I came across a quote in Shakespeare, from a very famous play you will all remember:

Two households, both alike in dignity,

This, of course, is from Romeo and Juliet. I will not pretend to having any Romeos or Juliets in mind, but I think of the word “dignity” — “Two households, both alike in dignity.”

In this circumstance, I believe the Senate can do three things, all with dignity. It can concur, it can insist on its amendment or it can make a new, somewhat in-between proposal. I do not pretend there’s just one answer for all contexts. It is more likely and more credible that we decide differently every time, depending on the issue.

On this particular issue, I believe the right decision is to concur and to defer to the will of the elected government. We are not dealing with a question of constitutionality; we are not dealing with a conflict of jurisdiction or authority; we are dealing with minority rights. However, both sides of the debate claim to uphold these minority rights.

Moreover, we have a very clear mandate from the elected Commons: The message comes back to us with the majority of votes, 214 to 92.

I will end on something even clearer: That 78 sitting days is far too long for a significant government bill to live in the Senate. I do not want it to reach 79 or 80 days. Timing matters.

I have heard two important words that uphold bicameralism: robust and functional. As an appointed and complementary body, we must be robust, but we must also be functional.

Once law, Bill C-6, as amended by both houses, will facilitate citizenship, and restore equality and citizenship. These are significant changes that are long overdue.

I urge you to think of what this bill means for Canadians and for Canadians-in-the-making, especially in this very special moment in our history, as we mark our one-hundred fiftieth birthday. I urge you to vote in favour of this motion.

Thank you very much.