Honourable senators, today I am talking about the first two aspects of the bill, namely the removal of the national security grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship and the removal of the intent to reside provision whereby applicants must declare their intent to continue to reside in Canada if granted citizenship. I am focusing on these two aspects because their objective is laudable and deserves our support: ensuring the equality of all Canadians before the law, regardless of country of origin. I will also briefly share my thoughts on the third aspect of the bill, which deals with knowledge of the official languages.

I closely followed the debate on repealing the national security grounds for Canadian citizenship revocation. Bill C-6 does not eliminate the government's authority to revoke citizenship when it is obtained fraudulently or through false representations. Canadians affected by this bill are full-fledged Canadians. If they are convicted of heinous crimes, the fact remains that they are still Canadians. Some may even be radicalized in Canada, which makes the problem a Canadian problem. Revoking citizenship will do nothing to improve our security. On the contrary, several of our colleagues explained why it is more dangerous to send these criminals away than to keep them here.

What would we accomplish? Some say that we would be sending a message, but what message? That we have two classes of citizens? I find that response counterproductive. The message I would like us to promote is the message in the bill that every Canadian who legitimately obtains Canadian citizenship is a Canadian for better or for worse. Think about it. Who do we want to send this message to, to terrorists?

I'm not so sure that the prospect of losing one's citizenship might convince a radicalized person to refrain from committing a terrorist act. The message is going out to our fellow citizens, to immigrants who are being told that no matter what, their status as citizens will always be different.

Craig Forcese, a professor in the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa, had this to say at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on February 16:

For those people who work on counter-violent extremism, and I'm a student of these people who do research in these areas, they raise concerns that that sort of narrative, saying "You're not quite one of us," is exactly the sort of narrative that is deeply detrimental to the integration and counter-radicalization effort that should be front and centre in terms of our efforts to stave off radicalization to violence.

You can see both sides of the coin, but the one I'm most sympathetic to is the concern that by singling out this subset of the population for this special peril, we're playing into a propaganda discourse that is detrimental to our ultimate security objectives.

Colleagues, that discourse is what I'm most concerned about. During the debate on the amendment, I heard Senator Lang's question about Canadians who keep dual citizenship and retain the benefits. Why shouldn't they have to face the drawbacks too? On this matter, I agree with the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, Senator Omidvar, who explained that not all dual citizens are so by choice and that some countries, particularly ones not known for their stellar human rights records, have a "once a citizen, always a citizen" philosophy, no matter what the citizens themselves have to say about it.

Throughout this debate, I have been considering the bill from the perspective that any senator should adopt: Will this bill unduly restrict the rights of Canadians, including the right to equality? Lawmakers the world over have to grapple with the delicate balance between security and the rights and freedoms of the people. This is an issue we ourselves may have to contend with one of these days, and it will undoubtedly be hard work, but that is not the situation we are dealing with today. This aspect of the bill will improve security while reinforcing the equal status of all Canadians. It is not for the Senate to undermine that right to equality, and that is one of the reasons why I voted against Senator Lang's amendment.

The answer to the question is even more obvious for the second element of the bill, removing the requirement for an applicant to intend to reside in Canada if granted citizenship. I find it impossible to reconcile this residency requirement with section 6 of the Charter, which reads as follows:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

I can understand that some may disagree with the idea of reducing the number of days that someone must reside in Canada before applying for citizenship. I do not agree with them, but I can understand their reasoning. I just cannot understand how we can give out second-class citizenship to some Canadians, and tell them that in the case of their citizenship, unlike that of their neighbours, friends and colleagues, the government is not required to comply with section 6 of the Charter.

I understand our honourable colleague, Senator Ngo, when he says that he views citizenship as a privilege. It is true that many immigrants and refugees are going to feel privileged and fortunate on the day they obtain their citizenship. It is a privilege to become a full Canadian citizen with all the ensuing rights and responsibilities, without exception.

I want to remind you, dear colleagues, that we are not studying a bill that could potentially violate the constitutional rights of Canadians in the name of security. That is a challenge and a difficult balancing act faced by many legislators around the world, including recently in Canada, and it is a challenge that we may have to face again in the future, near or distant. Today, however, we are studying a government bill that strengthens these constitutional rights.

Two amendments that were passed by the Senate also take the bill in the same direction. The first by Senator McCoy improved due process. The second by Senator Oh, which I also supported, extends and improves citizenship rights to children. As senators, we have to include these considerations in our analysis.

Finally, I would like to share some thoughts about a third amendment, which was moved by Senator Griffin. Unfortunately, I was not present for the vote on this amendment, but I support its intent. As you know, with Bill C-6, the government wants the requirements of knowledge of one of the official languages and knowledge of Canada to apply only to applicants aged 18 to 54. The amendment moved by Senator Griffin and passed by this chamber increases the age of exemption to 60.

Allow me to explain why I support the new exemption threshold as it was passed. I understand the intent and spirit of the government's initiative. It does not want to deprive parents and grandparents who arrive in Canada and work hard to meet the needs of their family of the opportunity to be Canadians citizens like their children.

However, we must not lose sight of the fact that our country's linguistic duality is one of its key characteristics. Learning one of our two official languages is vital to integration, and there is some wisdom in the idea of offering citizenship as a reward for learning one of those languages.

At the age of 55, people are usually still in the workforce, and the knowledge of one or both of our official languages is a major asset. We must prevent people from thinking that it is not all that important to know at least one of our official languages. More importantly, we must — and I know what I am talking about here — prevent the government from deciding that it can decrease the resources it allocates to official languages training for newcomers because the legislation is now more lax. On the contrary, the government must increase its efforts to encourage people to learn our official languages so that potential citizens who have the ability to learn them are not deprived of the opportunity to do so. Will the government now tend to try to save money in this area? We need to monitor that very closely.

The message that I would like this amendment to send to the government is not that the Senate does not want to integrate new immigrants into the Canadian family, but rather that we do not want to see the government use this exemption as an excuse for making cuts to resources that help ensure the linguistic integration of newcomers into this country where we hope they will be living for the next 20, 30 or 40 years.

Once again, I understand the humanitarian reasons behind this initiative. I also understand that the House of Commons must vote on this amendment and that we must draw the appropriate conclusions from their vote when it happens. However, I want to reiterate that there are equally valid humanitarian reasons to invest in linguistic integration for all newcomers. The government needs to propose a meaningful plan in that regard.

Honourable senators, I support this bill as amended by the Senate. It exemplifies the principles of openness and inclusiveness that define our country. Thank you.