Bill C-24 (Historical)

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things, update eligibility requirements for Canadian citizenship, strengthen security and fraud provisions and amend provisions governing the processing of applications and the review of decisions.
Amendments to the eligibility requirements include
(a) clarifying the meaning of being resident in Canada;
(b) modifying the period during which a permanent resident must reside in Canada before they may apply for citizenship;
(c) expediting access to citizenship for persons who are serving in, or have served in, the Canadian Armed Forces;
(d) requiring that an applicant for citizenship demonstrate, in one of Canada’s official languages, knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship;
(e) specifying the age as of which an applicant for citizenship must demonstrate the knowledge referred to in paragraph (d) and must demonstrate an adequate knowledge of one of Canada’s official languages;
(f) requiring that an applicant meet any applicable requirement under the Income Tax Act to file a return of income;
(g) conferring citizenship on certain individuals and their descendants who may not have acquired citizenship under prior legislation;
(h) extending an exception to the first-generation limit to citizenship by descent to children born to or adopted abroad by parents who were themselves born to or adopted abroad by Crown servants; and
(i) requiring, for a grant of citizenship for an adopted person, that the adoption not have circumvented international adoption law.
Amendments to the security and fraud provisions include
(a) expanding the prohibition against granting citizenship to include persons who are charged outside Canada for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament or who are serving a sentence outside Canada for such an offence;
(b) expanding the prohibition against granting citizenship to include persons who, while they were permanent residents, engaged in certain actions contrary to the national interest of Canada, and permanently barring those persons from acquiring citizenship;
(c) aligning the grounds related to security and organized criminality on which a person may be denied citizenship with those grounds in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and extending the period during which a person is barred from acquiring citizenship on that basis;
(d) expanding the prohibition against granting citizenship to include persons who, in the course of their application, misrepresent material facts and prohibiting new applications by those persons for a specified period;
(e) increasing the period during which a person is barred from applying for citizenship after having been convicted of certain offences;
(f) increasing the maximum penalties for offences related to citizenship, including fraud and trafficking in documents of citizenship;
(g) providing for the regulation of citizenship consultants;
(h) establishing a hybrid model for revoking a person’s citizenship in which the Minister will decide the majority of cases and the Federal Court will decide the cases related to inadmissibility based on security grounds, on grounds of violating human or international rights or on grounds of organized criminality;
(i) increasing the period during which a person is barred from applying for citizenship after their citizenship has been revoked;
(j) providing for the revocation of citizenship of dual citizens who, while they were Canadian citizens, engaged in certain actions contrary to the national interest of Canada, and permanently barring these individuals from reacquiring citizenship; and
(k) authorizing regulations to be made respecting the disclosure of information.
Amendments to the provisions governing the processing of applications and the review of decisions include
(a) requiring that an application must be complete to be accepted for processing;
(b) expanding the grounds and period for the suspension of applications and providing for the circumstances in which applications may be treated as abandoned;
(c) limiting the role of citizenship judges in the decision-making process, subject to the Minister periodically exercising his or her power to continue the period of application of that limitation;
(d) giving the Minister the power to make regulations concerning the making and processing of applications;
(e) providing for the judicial review of any matter under the Act and permitting, in certain circumstances, further appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal; and
(f) transferring to the Minister the discretionary power to grant citizenship in special cases.
Finally, the enactment makes consequential amendments to the Federal Courts Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

In the same vein, might this argument not also apply to those with a criminal record abroad? As it stands right now Bill C-6 did not make any changes relative to Bill C-24 in that if you have a criminal record abroad for an indictable offence, you are automatically exempt from consideration. You will not become a citizen here in Canada.

We have seen situations like Mr. Fahmy's, whereas in other jurisdictions the judicial system might be different. There might be other factors that should be considered. I wonder what your thoughts are on that issue, and whether or not there should also be a proper process to deal with that as opposed to an automatic decision.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

You have supported the revocation provisions of Bill C-24. How can you justify supporting a provision that seems to target particular minority groups and has been shown to generate suspicion and mistrust of many minority groups by the broader population?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Winter.

My next question is for Mr. Fogel. I am confused by your support of the intent-to-reside provision of Bill C-24, which is being proposed to be repealed in Bill C-6.

I think we all dislike the concept of the so-called citizens of convenience. As you know, the Charter of Rights grants all Canadians mobility rights. That is part of the Charter of Rights. The intent-to-reside provision would seem to be unenforceable symbolism.

How do you reconcile it with the charter?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all our witnesses for providing their valuable input.

My first question is for you, Ms. Winter. In your testimony before this committee on Bill C-24, you referenced research you were conducting regarding the raising of suspicion against dual nationals and the detrimental impact legislation, such as Bill C-24 and others, has had on some communities, particularly Muslim and Arab Canadians. You mentioned numerous rants against Muslims in print media, online fora, and social media, with negative stereotypes being extended and amplified by Bill C-24.

As a Muslim Canadian, I have seen these stereotypes first-hand. Could you update us on this research and on any conclusions your team has reached?

[Peter Edelmann, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the members of the committee for inviting me to appear before you today.

I had the opportunity to have a discussion with your Senate colleagues about Bill C-24. At that time, I expressed serious reservations about the bill, which was subsequently passed by Parliament. So I am pleased to see that a lot of changes are proposed in the bill you are studying today.

I was born in Canada, but my parents were immigrants from Switzerland. I am eligible for Swiss citizenship, as are my two sons. Like many Canadians, we can claim another nationality. But under Bill C-24 and the legislation as it currently stands, we incur a risk that other Canadians do not, and that is not fair.

When I was before the Senate, Senator Eaton told me that all I had to do to keep my citizenship was to refrain from committing terrorism-related crimes. The issue is not whether or not I want to commit terrorism-related crimes. A person who commits a crime has only to give up his other citizenship in order to maintain the stability of his Canadian citizenship. That is not a solution.

So I am really happy that this legislative change is being dealt with today.

I'd like to speak to you in a bit more detail today with respect to some of the things I think would be helpful to see the bill go a little bit further either by going back to the system we had or by making some other changes that have been suggested by other witnesses before this committee. I'm going to focus my comments on revocation.

It's important to understand that in a world of nation-states, and as long as we live in a world of nation-states, citizenship is one of the most fundamental of statuses. It's the status upon which your ability to sit in this committee is predicated. It's the status upon which the ability to choose the people who sit around this table is predicated. It is the right to have rights. It's the right to have full rights as a participating member of Canadian society. It's a fundamental status and it's deeply important to the people who hold it. Many Canadians and many of your colleagues are naturalized citizens. For naturalized citizens to lose that status is one of the most fundamental losses they can have.

Under the current law, there is more procedural fairness built into our law around parking fines and traffic tickets than there is around loss of citizenship. The revocation of citizenship, under the current law, happens with a decision by a single officer. You get a letter in the mail that says, “Please tell us why we shouldn't take away your citizenship”. Then you send submissions to the officer, and the officer can decide whether or not they want to hold an interview. They may interview you or they may not. You may just get a letter in the mail saying that you're no longer a citizen. At that point, you are no longer a citizen. You can go to the Federal Court and you can ask the Federal Court to hear your case and to judicially review that decision from the officer, but you're doing that from the position of a non-citizen. At that point, you may well be in the removal stream. I'll talk about the situation of permanent residents at that point. That process is very fast and one with very few procedural safeguards and very little transparency.

Prior to Bill C-24, the process was very different. You would get the notice in the mail and you would have the opportunity to convince the minister why they should or should not seek the revocation of your citizenship. You could then ask to go to the Federal Court. Then the Federal Court would decide whether the misrepresentation or the fraud upon which you obtained your citizenship was in fact serious enough to warrant the loss of citizenship. Then the Governor in Council would ultimately decide whether to revoke the citizenship.

There are examples of cases that have taken a long time. In the Oberlander case or other cases, there are a number of reasons why there may have been some delays, but the process itself does not require those types of delays.

We have procedural safeguards for the loss of permanent residence that are much more rigorous. In the vast majority of cases, a permanent resident who's going to lose their status will get a notice and an opportunity to make submissions. They then get a hearing before the immigration appeal division, where they not only can present an argument as to why they shouldn't lose their status, but also get an opportunity to present humanitarian and compassionate or compelling reasons for why, despite the misrepresentation, they shouldn't lose their status.

Not all misrepresentations are equal. Some are very serious. Others are relatively trivial. The question is whether a single officer should be making a decision as fundamental as the one we're talking about.

In the law as it currently stands, there is a particular problem with respect to persons who are found to have misrepresented when they got their permanent residence.

Before you get your citizenship, if you are found to have misrepresented when you got your permanent residence, you get access to the immigration appeal division. You get an opportunity to present humanitarian and compassionate factors and to say that despite the fact you misrepresented 20 years ago, you now have children and a family here. Under the law as it currently stands, once you become a citizen, you go straight back to being a foreign national if you are found to have misrepresented when you got your permanent residence. You don't go back to being a permanent resident; you go straight back to being a foreign national. Therefore, your status is more precarious once you become a citizen than it was when you were still a permanent resident.

I would urge this committee to make some amendments with respect to those two aspects.

I thank you for your time.

[Shimon Fogel, Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs]

Thank you. I am grateful to be here representing the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the advocacy agent of the Jewish Federations of Canada, to discuss Bill C-6.

As I noted in my testimony before this committee regarding Bill C-24, Canadian citizenship is one of the most valuable and highly respected commodities in the world, but it is far from being just a prestigious status one acquires. Citizenship in this country is an unparalleled package of balanced rights and responsibilities based on a set of core values designed to ensure dignity, freedom, and equality for all. I am certain that everyone around this table agrees that immigrants are among the proudest patriots and shapers of this country, a source of cultural vitality and economic strength.

Despite the dark era of Canada's “none is too many” immigration and refugee policy for Jews, we have come here from all corners of the globe for more than 200 years. Our community has made a positive contribution to the Canadian story, like so many others whom we join in appreciating the extraordinary opportunity and privilege of being Canadian.

We are glad that Bill C-6 will once again allow time spent in Canada as a temporary resident to count towards the residency requirement for citizenship. This will be particularly beneficial with regard to retaining talented international students who come to this country to advance their education and skills while simultaneously integrating with Canadian peers. They would seem to be ideal candidates for citizenship, and there should be no unnecessary obstacles in their path.

As this committee considers the merits of repealing many of Bill C-24's other provisions, I would like to highlight some elements that Bill C-6 quite correctly will leave in place, the importance of which cannot be overstated.

Retaining a physical presence standard in determining residency requirements for citizenship is an important principle that can enhance integration and decrease marginalization of new immigrants and, as Minister McCallum has mentioned, can also help counteract the problem of citizens of convenience. Bill C-6 will also maintain basic language and knowledge testing requirements for citizenship applications. Coupled with physical presence, this can make a significant contribution towards counteracting the importation of anti-Semitic and other extremist views, which, though marginalized here in Canada, are unfortunately still prevalent in many parts of the world.

We are very pleased that Bill C-6 does not seek to repeal Bill C-24's streamlined provisions for revoking citizenship from those who obtained it through fraud or misrepresentation. These provisions consolidated a process that has been routinely abused by those who hid their Nazi past when coming to Canada. The ongoing case of Helmut Oberlander is a timely example. Oberlander was a decorated member of the savage Nazi mobile killing unit responsible for the murder of more than 90,000 Jewish men, women, and children. When he applied for entry into Canada in 1954, he misrepresented his wartime past and fraudulently obtained Canadian citizenship. Oberlander has avoided the final revocation of his citizenship and removal from Canada by exploiting a flawed system for more than 20 years.

This ongoing experience demonstrates the need for Bill C-24's revocation provisions to be retained, and the government's commitment in this regard should be universally supported.

In this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the government for seeking leave to appeal the latest Federal Court of Appeal's decision regarding the revocation of Oberlander's citizenship to the Supreme Court.

There are other components that Bill C-6 seeks to repeal that we believe merit further consideration. We supported the introduction of measures to ensure that those who apply for Canadian citizenship actually intend to maintain a meaningful connection to Canada. The intent-to-reside provisions that Bill C-6 will repeal are an important element in this regard and could continue to have an impact on reducing the problem of citizens of convenience.

That said, the current articulation of this provision does indeed create a potential for abuse. Safeguards are needed to preclude a minister from commencing a revocation proceeding for someone who declared intent to reside but then went abroad to study, work, or tend to an ill relative. People should not fear being penalized for such eminently reasonable actions, even if the chances of a minister actually doing this are remote.

In reference to this provision, Minister McCallum when he was a member of this committee in the previous Parliament noted, with regard to:

...the question of citizens of convenience. We want measures in place to deter that. I sympathize with that goal, in principle. We want measures in place to deter that. I sympathize with that goal in principle.

Instead of repealing “intent to reside”, the existing law could be amended to more closely align this provision's substance with its principle. This could be achieved with a check on ministerial discretion, a requirement for the minister to seek a court declaration in cases of misrepresentation of intent to reside, similar to the requirement included for other cases of fraud.

When I last appeared before this committee to testify regarding Bill C-24, I articulated a position in support of the revocation of citizenship from dual national Canadians who commit certain offences, including terrorism offences. This position was a reflection of our belief that in the case of certain particularly heinous political crimes, the perpetrator is actually guilty of two distinct offences. First, they're guilty of the particular crime they have committed; but second, they're guilty of a fundamental betrayal of the core values on which Canadian citizenship is based.

Our support for this provision reflects the desire to address not just the crime but also the grievous insult to Canada and Canadian identity that has taken place. This is why we advocated for the revocation provisions to be expanded to include those convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

My question is for you, Mr. Pagtakhan.

When you last appeared before the committee on Bill C-24, you were generally in support of that bill. However, you disagreed with the failure to allow certain parts of that time outside of Canada to count as time inside Canada for the purpose of residency calculation. You said you believed that time spent outside of Canada by a permanent resident employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business should be counted as time in Canada.

I know that you're an immigration lawyer, and some of your experience is with issues you've had with business individuals who came as a permanent resident and established themselves here. Their families might have received citizenship, but due to their working overseas, they're unable to then obtain citizenship.

Could you share some of your experiences and maybe give us some examples, and can you share with us some of your suggestions on how to deal with that issue?

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Tabbara.

Mr. Collacott, you have tremendous experience in the field of education, from your work at the Ontario Ministry of Education, to your work in setting up ESL programs and teacher training. You might know that all across Canada we teach school-aged children that to complete a basic science or research project, you set a hypothesis, conduct a study, gather evidence, and then come to a conclusion.

To follow up on my colleague's question, what evidence do you have to support your very public claim that the proposed changes to Bill C-24 are for the purpose of securing Liberal votes?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On the issue around criminality, Bill C-24 brought in a change whereby if you have committed a crime abroad, an indictable offence abroad, you would not be able to access citizenship here in Canada.

Mr. Pagtakhan, you actually touched on that a little bit in your presentation.

I'm curious to know whether or not you agree, Ms. Dench and Ms. Stone, with the notion that those with the offence charge abroad should be excluded from access to citizenship, or should it be assessed on a case-by-case basis, given, for example, the situation that we have learned about from Mr. Fahmy's situation?

[Jennifer Stone]

Yes. My understanding as well is that Bill C-24 brought in the requirement that the citizenship exam be passed in English or French without the availability of an interpreter.

The CCR's experience from its 180 member organizations across the country is really informed by those experiences on the ground. One of those organizations is the one that I'm a part of. It's the Inter Clinic Immigration Working Group. We are the immigration practitioners at legal aid clinics across Ontario.

Since 2012 when those upfront language proficiency proofs had to be submitted with the citizenship application or the application was returned, and since the citizenship knowledge exam was redrafted to make it considerably harder and we saw a 30% jump in fail rates, it's a real area of growth practice for legal aid clinics. Now it seems to be more the norm that you need to hire a lawyer to access citizenship. It's a real access to justice issue.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On that basis, would you say that we should do away with the upfront requirement to prove language proficiency? Then, on the question around knowledge, Canadian knowledge, in order to pass that test, would you support the approach prior to Bill C-24 where interpreters were made available for people to prove knowledge, and not so much on the question around language?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Okay.

With regard to changes to language and knowledge testing in Bill C-6, you were quoted in the Vancouver Sun on February 10 as saying that this change was designed to increase the pool of Liberal voters, adding, “They’re more concerned with getting votes and not so concerned that they (new Canadians) will integrate socially and economically”.

Can you share with this committee what if any evidence and research you have to support this theory? It seems unlikely, given that Bill C-6 returns to the previous system under which the previous government won a majority government.

Also, is there any evidence you can cite to support the idea that fourteen-year-olds have integrated more successfully into Canadian society since Bill C-24 came into force?

[Jennifer Stone, Secretary, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to make submissions to you.

To continue on equal access to citizenship, I wish to bring your attention to three additional recommendations from the CCR.

First, no one should be excluded from democratic civic participation—i.e., citizenship—because of an inability to pay. The increased citizenship fee, up from $200 a few years ago to $630 presently, and the 2012 upfront “proof of language proficiency” represent a disproportionate burden for refugees and others who are overrepresented among the working poor and those in chronic low-income circumstances.

The CCR proposes that these burdens could be alleviated first by introducing a process such as exists in the U.S. whereby recipients of social assistance can request a waiver from the citizenship fee; and second by reintroducing oral language testing for those who are otherwise unable to provide documentary proof of language proficiency.

Second, provide better accommodation for applicants with disabilities by right. People with disabilities, including cognitive or learning disabilities, can presently only ask for a waiver from the language or knowledge eligibility criteria on compassionate grounds. This is a backwards framework that is at odds with well-established human rights principles. The CCR recommends that Bill C-6 introduce language confirming the need for accommodation for people with disabilities who, but for the disability, would meet the eligibility criteria.

Third, the CCR supports reverting to the pre-Bill C-24 ability for applicants to challenge a citizenship refusal directly to the Federal Court without having to hire a lawyer effectively to request leave.

Further, the CCR supports the equality and equally fair treatment of all citizens. As such, we are glad to see in Bill C-6 that people cannot lose their citizenship in cases of criminal offences such as treason or terrorism and that applicants for citizenship do not need to show an intent to reside in Canada.

We believe that Bill C-6 could go further to ensure equality of all citizens in Canada, and as such we have two further recommendations.

You heard from several witnesses last week how troubling the current citizenship revocation process for fraud or misrepresentation is from a procedural fairness point of view. We appreciate that Minister McCallum has indicated he is open to amendments on this point. The CCR recommends that full appeal rights be introduced for citizens facing loss of status.

Despite the welcome measures introduced earlier to address the so-called “lost Canadians” cases, the CCR proposes restoring the right to citizenship for second-generations born abroad, reverting back to the pre-2009 rules. In the alternative, the government should at least provide the right of citizenship for those who would otherwise be stateless.

Finally, we commend the government for making this a priority piece of legislation so early in its mandate.

Thank you. We look forward to your questions.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It made a change with respect to the age. That's one aspect of it, but there remain outstanding concerns. For example, others have presented in the other committee meetings on the issue around offering proof of your language capacity. You have to have certification to prove that you have level 4 language capacity. That didn't exist prior to Bill C-24, and Bill C-6 does not address that. That's one example.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On the question around statelessness, there are individuals here in Canada who are stateless. Bill C-6 does not address this issue. Those were provisions that were brought forward by Bill C-24 as well.

I wonder whether you have any comments with respect to the issue of statelessness and if there should be remedies put in place to address this.

Ms. Lenard.