Last Updated on January 24, 2019

The following is a partial/selected dialogue which took place during Canada’s House of Commons Question Period on Bill C-24 – Canada’s New Citizenship Bill:

Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, now yesterday as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration took evasive action after being asked about the constitutionality of his immigration bill. While he refused to answer the question, but he did manage to make an unrelated reference to the “disgraced ideological former lawyer of the Khadr family”.
So, can the minister tell us how his latest smear job is even remotely relevant to the constitutionality of Bill C-24?

Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that we were given a strong mandate as a government to reinforce the value of Canadian citizenship, and that citizenship is based on allegiance.
The Liberals had 13 years to try and sort these issues with backlogs. New Democrats have not had the chance, and if all goes well, they will never have it, but Canadians think it is absolutely legitimate for dual nationals who have committed acts of treason, of terrorism, of espionage to forfeit their Canadian citizenship.
That is a violation of—

Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that this bill proposes new powers to deport a Canadian-born citizen to a country to which they have no connection to. This is nonsensical, and it is most likely unconstitutional.
The hon. member knows there is a public outcry and he knows people are asking to compromise, yet he stubbornly steams ahead, ignoring all criticism.
So why did the government turn down every single suggestion put forward to try to fix this bill?

Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the member opposite is lost in the thicket of his own ideology. There is absolutely no new provision in this bill to deport or to strip the citizenship of Canadian citizens who have only one nationality.
It is offensive for the members opposite to be drawing some false distinction between who are naturalized Canadians and those who are Canadian born. The law applies to them equally, and we will continue to take our advice from lawyers who know the difference between a removal and a revocation, which the lawyer that he mentioned clearly does not.

Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the minister does not even know what to say to salvage his credibility.
A number of experts, including the Canadian Bar Association, believe that the citizenship bill is unconstitutional. Yesterday, in a CBC interview, the minister dismissed the criticism, saying that Bill C-24 is similar to what is being done in other NATO countries, but what does NATO have to do with a debate on access to Canadian citizenship? It is completely ridiculous.
Will our fundamental rights in Canada now depend on the mood of our NATO allies?

Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, what does NATO have to do with this debate? Our allies and partners think it is important to show allegiance to their system of law and their country.
Canadians also think that is important. That is why we have a citizenship bill that will strengthen the value of citizenship and protect us from terrorists and spies.
It is high time that the NDP realized that these people exist, that they pose a threat and that we have to take action to counter those threats.

Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the minister had to apologize to an immigration consultant whose name he unfairly dragged through the mud. The minister also attacked the Canadian Bar Association for its position on Bill C-24, and yesterday, he went after Toronto constitutional expert Rocco Galati, who was another victim of the minister’s moods.
Why is the minister ignoring or attacking everyone who does not agree with him? Does he not realize that this attitude, which is typical of the Conservatives, is completely ridiculous and inappropriate?

Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the real question is how the NDP can justify defending terrorism and spying as a cornerstone of our citizenship. How can the NDP say that these people should keep their citizenship, even if they are dual citizens? We will not accept that.
Canadians have been clear in this regard, and we do not think that the few lawyers who expressed an opinion on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association speak for the lawyers of this country. Most Canadians agree that we must protect the value of Canadian citizenship and allegiance to the Crown and this country.
———————————————————————–
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul’s, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are appalled to learn that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is threatening to unilaterally strip Canadian citizenship from people born here in Canada.
Criminals in Canada are punished according to our law. This arbitrary change to dual citizenship cuts to the absolute core of what it means to be Canadian. How can the minister justify this abuse of power that tramples on the rights of Canadians, even those born here in Canada?

Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, this bill cuts to the absolute heart of the shortcomings of the 1977 Citizenship Act, brought in by Prime Minister Trudeau, which actually cheapened Canadian citizenship, opened it to abuse, and put to one side the whole question of allegiance and loyalty to this country.
The Liberals had 13 years to clean up this mess. They did nothing to stop citizenship of convenience. They did nothing to protect us from traitors.