Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 30th, 2014

[Barbara Jackman]

If that student either emigrates to the United States, which means they get the physicist and we don't, or they don't go and do the studies....

I don't know why they're doing this. We're in a world that is smaller and smaller, and they're making it more and more rigid. There is no flexibility in it—none.

[Robin Seligman]

They're providing the residence requirement of four out of six, and that's a decision. Isn't that enough—four out of six, 183 days per year in four years, and tax returns? I don't think you need to look at the intent.

What if the person applies for citizenship and they get accepted into a Ph.D. program around the same time? Does that mean that when they swear their application they're lying if they say that they intend to reside in Canada because they might want to, in the future, go and pursue that education?

It just seems very inappropriate in this global economy. Why would we want to limit someone to not doing that?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

The only problem is that the minister, the one who is getting all those extra discretionary powers with this, when he was here said that no one would lose their citizenship because they left the country after having been granted their citizenship.

I don't know who to believe. Do I believe the minister who is pushing this law through, or do I believe legal experts who are saying that they would—

[Barbara Jackman]

You can believe this minister. He might not do it, but the next minister will, and if not that minister, the minister after him. For every single promise that I've ever seen, in the 30 years practising, where they said that they would not apply it in a certain way, they've turned around and done it.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Right, and it's our job to make sure we are looking at the long run.

[Barbara Jackman]

You're looking at the long run in terms of what it says in the law and not what the minister says.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

In the actual law.

[Barbara Jackman]

A good case to remember is the motor vehicle reference case. Barry Strayer was involved in determining principles of fundamental justice. He told everyone that it was just due process. The Supreme Court of Canada said, sorry, you're wrong; this is what it says, and we don't agree with you.

It's up to what the courts and the other officials do in terms of reading the legislation, and not this particular person.

[Kerri Froc]

Just to pick up on the issue of constitutionality, section 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of national or ethnic origin. The intent to reside applies only to naturalized Canadians and not to Canadians who receive their citizenship because they were born here.

It's difficult to see how that distinction would survive a section 15 challenge.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Leung.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the witnesses.

Actually, I do not quite share that the courts in the future will interpret it differently because all you have to do is look at the Supreme Court's decision on our constitutionality on changing the Senate. They went back to its original intent of seven provinces and 50% of the population.

So I think if the people who are charged with interpreting our laws are consistent, I think these substitutions will not happen. I appreciate what Mr. Veeman said. What happens if you have a permanent resident who came here to study and then goes to the United States or goes to Oxford to study?

As long as he intends to come back to Canada to be a Canadian citizen, which in my case I did.... I went to the United States for my graduate studies and I came back and it was not an issue, but then that was under a different immigration law prior to 1976.

My question, actually, I'll speak about a corollary to this. You know, in the current bill, as with the previous one on Bill C-31, what we did was we started to regulate immigration consultants and we started to make sure that immigrants in Canada receive sound and proper advice. Now we're proposing a similar request in the Citizenship Act to also regulate citizenship consultants.

I was previously in the public accounting area and I said great, the more legislation that the government comes down with, the more there is for us to work on and to be interpreted. It becomes sort of like a work creation for us.

When I listened to Richard I asked how regulating both the immigration consultant and the citizenship consultant would benefit Canadians overall. How does this benefit the industry overall or are we just creating another avenue of business for all these consultants? Perhaps you can share your thoughts on this and how you would strengthen our immigration and citizenship acts.

[Richard Kurland]

Well, having an authorized third party intervene creates added value operationally to the citizenship determination process. So on the one hand the federal government has created a professional organization that is subject to regulatory oversight. That's a good thing.

And on the other hand it has created in effect a privatized vouch-for system paid by the user. So, procedurally, I see advantages to having authorized third parties. You were mentioning immigration consultants. This would include members of the bar and Quebec notaries as part of the package.

In connection with the overall, what we have perhaps omitted in our discussion in the last hour is what's not in this proposed legislation. What we do not see here is the issue of revocation of citizenship by birth. In other words, there's no attack on “visa babies” and “anchor babies”.

And kudos to the parliamentary system for not including that aspect in this law. That, I suspect, was the missing piece of the puzzle connected to the intent to reside provisions. Gladly, happily, the citizenship by birth issue is not before us today and I will maintain the fight against such an introduction now, as I have in the past, as I will in the future.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

On that same issue, Mr. Kurland, the birth on soil, the intent say a hundred years ago was that it was very difficult to arrive in North America. So, therefore, once you made that arduous journey to be here, then your citizenship was sort of a natural grant, a grant of right.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You've got 30 seconds left.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

In current society, I mean the current world, transportation is instantaneous. You can fly 15 hours from Asia to here and then you can give birth and go back. But I also share with you that this isn't an issue.

In conclusion, is it your thought that the third-party vouching by a citizenship consultant, by an immigration consultant, is a good feature for this act?

[Richard Kurland]

Yes, it is a good feature. Many professionals choose between two paths, one being that their client has the right to a process, and the other involving standing and examining the contents of the client's application.

But, yes, indeed, sir, I see no harm here, only benefits to Canada, the applicant and, of course, the business case for the consultant.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kurland.

Our time has expired. I'd like to thank the representatives of the Canadian Bar Association and Ms. Seligman.

Mr. Kurland, don't ever change.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much. You've all been very helpful, and we appreciate your comments.

We will suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right. We have Mr. Matas here from B'nai Brith Canada. I guess he's a lawyer too. We have Debbie Douglas, who is with the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. Finally, by teleconference from British Columbia, we have Mr. Martin Collacott, who is with the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform.

All three of you have been here before, and I welcome you on behalf of the committee. You each have up to eight minutes to make a presentation.

We'll start with you, Ms. Douglas.

[Debbie Douglas, Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)]

Thank you very much. It's good to be back to speak with you about Bill C-24. As you know, the bill was introduced on February 26, 2014, and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at the time said that the bill is meant to reduce citizenship fraud, increase efficiency of the system, and reduce backlogs.

At OCASI we believe that the bill is likely to exclude more people from citizenship by making the process more difficult. We are especially concerned that the bill diminishes the value of Canadian citizenship by treating differently those who have dual citizenship and those who don't between Canadian-born citizens and naturalized citizens, and between immigrants who do not work in the Canadian armed forces and those who do.

The bill gives more power to the minister to revoke citizenship and reduces judicial oversight.

We are particularly concerned about the impact on racialized immigrants and refugees and on immigrant and refugee women and children.

I wanted to remind us that this year marks the 100th anniversary of the Komagata Maru and the 75th anniversary of the SS St Louis, reminders of Canada's history of shamefully racist immigration policies.

Changes to the Citizenship Act must work to undo the racist policies of the past by welcoming newcomers, bearing in mind that the majority of new immigrants and refugees today are people who 75 or 100 years ago would have been deliberately excluded from Canada.

We believe that, in discussing this bill and moving forward with our discussions, there are certain principles we must pay attention to. The act lays out citizenship rules and thus defines who is Canadian and who we are as a country. This important legislation must therefore incorporate the following principles:

a) Respect for the principle that all citizens are equal.

b) Respect for the principle that citizenship is a status from which rights derive, and is thus similar to our status as human beings. It is not something that can be lost through bad behaviour.

c) We must ensure that the legislation is consistent with the best interests of the child.

d) And we must recognize that some permanent residents face systemic barriers to full participation, including refugees who have suffered persecution and long years of deprivation.

I am going to touch on a number of clauses in the bill that we wanted to respond to.

The first involves longer periods of residence in Canada before applying. Bill C-24 would require applicants for citizenship to have lived four out of the last six years in Canada, compared to three out of the last four under the current law. It will no longer allow applicants to count time in Canada before becoming a permanent resident. The change will result in making people wait longer before they can qualify to apply for becoming a citizen, undermining Canada's stated commitment to integrate newcomers.

Becoming a citizen is particularly important for refugees who have no other country they can turn to. Until they are citizens, they have a sense of insecurity and face practical problems, such as difficulty travelling without a passport.

Certain permanent residents will be disproportionately affected, such as refugees and live-in caregivers. Racialized women are over-represented among live-in caregivers, and many typically endure years of exploitative working conditions. Not being allowed to count time spent working in Canada to qualify for permanent resident status will further disadvantage these individuals. Other permanent residents such as those who qualify for the Canadian experience class, including international students graduating from Canadian universities, will also be disproportionately impacted by this change.

And in Ontario, over and over I've been hearing from international students that part of the drawing card to come to Canada for school is because there is a pathway to permanent residency and then to citizenship.

We have two recommendations here: keep the period of residence to three out of the last four years and keep the rule allowing applicants to count at least one year in Canada before becoming permanent residents.

The intention to reside in Canada. I know the last panel spent some time on this, the fact that applicants for citizenship have to swear an intention to reside. The provision will apply only to naturalized citizens, thus creating a different and less inclusive category. Their mobility rights will be in jeopardy for fear that their citizenship might be revoked for misrepresentation or fraud, while those born in Canada will have the ability to travel freely and pursue education or work opportunities overseas.

OCASI has heard that a growing number of immigrants return to their country of origin or travel to another country for employment because systemic barriers in the Canadian labour market have made it difficult to find suitable employment here at times.

Many others have returned for a period of time to meet other obligations such as looking after aging parents, a practice that will likely increase as it becomes increasingly difficult to reunite with parents and grandparents in Canada.

There is a serious risk that these Canadians would be seen as engaging in misrepresentation simply because they have to go elsewhere to make a living or to fulfill family obligations. We have one clear recommendation here: delete this new provision.

Regarding language acknowledgement, the bill greatly expands the group of individuals who must meet language and knowledge requirements in order to become citizens of Canada. Under the current law, individuals between the ages of 18 and 54 are required to meet these requirements in order to become Canadian citizens. Bill C-24 will require applicants between the ages of 14 and 64 to pass the citizenship test.

There are a number of other issues. Older refugees may be able to learn enough English or French to function but may nonetheless have difficulty passing the legislated language test.

Older permanent residents must be encouraged and supported when learning one of the official languages and acquiring knowledge about Canada. However, given the greater difficulties in learning a new language at an older age and in passing tests, expanding the requirements to include those up to age 64 will result in excluding a significant number of individuals from citizenship. Older people are generally recognized as vulnerable members of our society. Creating more barriers to citizenship will make them more vulnerable.

The rationale for extending the test requirements to applicants aged 14 to 18 is not clear. Youth at this age will be in high school and must have been in Canadian schools for the past several years. If they do not speak French or English or know about Canada, the fault surely lies with our schools. Furthermore, with respect to language testing, it is not known what proof of language ability will be accepted. The proofs currently accepted will not work for youth—completion of high school or government-funded language classes—and there is no standardized documentation across school boards throughout Canada. The fear is that adolescents will face significant administrative hurdles to prove their language ability or face the cost of an approved language test, which can run up to $200, a cost that is often beyond the capacity of families. By adding new requirements for youth aged 14 to 18, we risk producing a new category of youth who have spent most of their formative years in Canada but are denied citizenship and thus the possibility of participating fully in society.

Our recommendation: keep language and knowledge test requirements to the existing age group of those who are 18 to 54 years of age. I want to add here that we've been successful in having Citizenship and Immigration Canada also recognize that passing a speaking and listening test does not work for deaf and hard-of-hearing immigrants, and so we were able to have an exception made under which an audiology report will be accepted as an exception. We want to applaud that move, but we also want to see this done.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Douglas. We have to move on. I'm sorry.

Mr. Matas.

[David Matas, Senior Honorary Counsel, B'nai Brith Canada]

Thank you for asking me to be here today on behalf of B'nai Brith Canada.

I'm going to talk only about the revocation provisions in the bill because B'nai Brith Canada has a lot of experience with them.

The proposed changes to the Citizenship Act in this area are a mix of good and bad news. The good news is that the government proposes to remove the defects that had hampered the effort to use revocation as a remedy for international criminal fugitives in Canada. The proposed law is better than the present law because it removes the cabinet from the process, it allows for an appeal, and consolidates revocation and removal proceedings.

The old law required cabinet approval. That meant that the government's legal arm could win in court, and then the political arm, cabinet, could reverse the result. This is what happened in the cases of Wasyl Odynsky and Vladimir Katriuk, who the courts said both entered Canada by hiding their Nazi past.

The cabinet, nonetheless, without reason said they could stay. The League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada, which I represented, went to court to argue that cabinet could not do that, that cabinet had to revoke citizenship.

However, the court said cabinet could do that, could let those who the court found had lied about their Nazi past on entry remain in Canada. It's a relief to see the proposed law takes away from cabinet this power, which has been so badly used.

The absence of an appeal meant the courts could reach inconsistent decisions on the interpretation of the law, and nothing could be done about it. There was no way of straightening these inconsistencies out. The proposed law, by allowing for an appeal, means the courts can speak with one voice instead of several.

The Nazis in Canada who hid their past on entry were brought to court decades later when they were much older. Their strategy was litigation to death, which mostly worked. Even those who lost their cases in court at every stage had to go through so many steps that the process was never completed before they died natural deaths. The proposed law, by cutting down on fragmentation by providing for consolidation of two steps—revocation of citizenship and deportation—into one, combats this strategy of endless litigation. It is a welcome change.

So that's the good news, but there's bad as well. The bad news is it makes citizenship all too easy to lose in cases that have nothing to do with international crimes. Right now citizenship can be revoked on only one ground, false representation, or fraud, or knowingly concealing material circumstances. The bill proposes expanding the grounds for revocation.

One new ground for revocation is convictions for treason or terrorism offences. A second new ground is reasonable grounds to believe the person served as the member of an armed force of a country or an organized armed group, and that country or group was engaged in armed conflict with Canada.

For terrorism offences, convictions can be abroad as well as in Canada. Yet, terrorism is a charge that repressive regimes use against their opponents who resort to violence to attempt to dislodge them.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides in the preamble that “ ...it is essential if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that tyranny and oppression can lead to rebellion. When tyrants and oppressors convict their rebellious opponents of terrorism, and the opponents are Canadian citizens, Canada should not legally be able to revoke the citizenship of those citizens merely because the oppressors and tyrants label that rebellion terrorism.

There needs to be a caveat so not any foreign conviction for terrorism can lead to loss of Canadian citizenship. The foreign conviction, if it is imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, should not be recognized in Canada. This concept of taking into account accepted international standards for convictions is already employed elsewhere in the legislation, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Despite the possibility of revocation for commission of offences, the bill is under-inclusive. It has been an anomaly that you could lose citizenship for hiding on entry to Canada Nazi crimes against humanity, but not for actually having committed those crimes. Often lying on entry is easier to prove than the commission of crimes, but not always. Immigration records may have been lost, but the proof of the crimes themselves may be readily available. Revocation for commission of the major international offences found in the statute of the International Criminal Court—war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide—should be possible.

The crimes that allow for revocation, though, should be committed before the person becomes a citizen. Revocation for acts committed after a person is a citizen is problematic, even if one limits revocation to dual citizens, as the proposed law does.

A person can be a dual citizen from birth. A person can be a dual citizen without even knowing he or she is a dual citizen because he or she is unfamiliar with the citizenship laws of the other country.

We should not be revoking the citizenship of Canadians for crimes committed after the acquisition of citizenship, no matter what the crime. Once a person becomes a Canadian citizen and commits a crime, then he is our criminal. We should not pretend otherwise.

The bill also proposes a new procedure for revocation and then allocates the different grounds of revocation amongst the two procedures. I have a relatively lengthy section on this, which I'm going to skip over. The government has introduced a new procedure on grounds of simplification, amongst others. At least one point I would try to make is that it actually complicates matters quite considerably, which you'll see if you read through this material. It also runs the risk of the government losing cases against international criminals that it could otherwise win, simply by choosing the wrong procedure.

In conclusion, let me say that we commend the government for its consolidation of revocation and deportation, its introduction of an appeal, and its removal of cabinet from the process. We deplore the possibility of revocation for crimes committed after one is a citizen, the impossibility of revocation for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide, and the introduction of a less fair procedure for revocation in some cases.

The possibility of revocation of citizenship for crimes committed after one is a citizen should be dropped. The possibility of revocation of citizenship for commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, where the crimes were committed before the acquisition of citizenship, should be introduced. The possibility of revocation for a foreign conviction of terrorism committed before the acquisition of citizenship should be limited to convictions that conform to international standards. The less fair procedure of revocation through ministerial decision, subject to a judicial review in some cases, should be replaced by the more fair procedure of Federal Court decisions in all cases.

Those are my remarks. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Matas.

Mr. Collacott, it's your turn. Welcome again to the committee. You too have up to eight minutes.

[Martin Collacott, Spokesperson, Centre for Immigration Policy Reform]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to speak before you today. I'm pleased to be able to contribute my views on this comprehensive overhaul of Canadian citizenship legislation, which in my view is long overdue.

I might mention in this regard that, prior to my careers overseas with the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of Foreign Affairs, I served as citizenship adviser to the Ontario Ministry of Education, and therefore, I've had a long-term interest in matters related to this topic.

My comments on specific provisions of the proposed legislation are as follows:

I support the extension of the residency requirements for citizenship applications from three out of four years to four out of six years. I would have preferred that it be extended to the five-year residency requirement, which had been in effect prior to 1977, and which I had recommended in a paper published in 2008, but I understand that compromise may be required to get agreement on this.

It should be noted that no other immigrant-receiving country—at least none I’m aware of—has as short a residency requirement as Canada does at present. Australia has a four-year requirement, it's five years in the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Ireland. The last time I checked it was seven years in Norway and eight in Germany and Switzerland, so we will still have among the shortest residency period required.

The argument has been made that the sooner a newcomer can get their citizenship the more attached they will feel to Canada. While this may be true in some instances, one hears far more often of cases of those who are interested in acquiring citizenship as quickly as possible and wish to do so to move back overseas as fast as possible and regard their Canadian citizenship primarily as little more than an insurance policy.

If anything, I think newcomers will value their citizenship more if they know it is not something that can be acquired quickly or without meeting certain standards.

I strongly support the provisions of Bill C-24 aimed at ensuring that residency requirements are actually met, particularly in view of evidence that thousands of people have obtained their citizenship fraudulently by claiming they had spent time in Canada when they had not.

Bill C-24 includes greatly increased penalties for such fraud as well as requiring the filing of income tax returns in Canada and a commitment to living here. While these are all useful measures with regard to ensuring that residency requirements are met, I believe it is also important that Canada proceed as quickly as possible with plans to introduce comprehensive screening and recording of the entry and exit of all non-Canadians into or from our soil. In this way we'll have a much more accurate picture of whether residency requirements have been met.

By the same token, I am glad to see that the bill includes measures to speed up the processing of citizenship applications and to reduce the large backlog of applications that has developed. Once someone has met the residency and other requirements for acquisition of citizenship, it is important that they receive it without delay.

In other areas, I fully support those parts of the bill designed to enhance the value of citizenship, such as expanded language requirements. Ability to communicate with some fluency in English or in French, if you’re going to Quebec, is clearly one of the key factors in enabling a newcomer to become a contributing member of Canadian society and to feel at home here, as well as crucial to their employment opportunities in this country.

I am therefore very pleased to see that the provisions of Bill C-24 recognize the importance of having a basic command of one of Canada’s official languages as an essential skill for newcomers who are going to be able to contribute to Canadian society and the economy, as well as be able to realize their own dreams and aspirations as immigrants.

I would add, however, that the level required—Canadian language benchmark level 4—is still quite low, and that for immigrants hoping to find employment in many different professions and in managerial positions, significantly higher levels of competency are necessary.

I equally support those sections that provide for the revocation of citizenship for those who obtained or retained citizenship on the basis of providing false information in such areas as residence fraud, concealing criminal inadmissibility, or identity fraud, as well as those who commit acts of terrorism.

As I mentioned before this committee in April of last year, there is strong public support for tougher measures for revoking citizenship. A survey in 2012 found that 8 out of 10 people polled agreed that Canadians found guilty of treason or terrorism should lose their citizenship. A poll taken some years earlier by Ipsos Reid found that three out of four Canadians would support revoking the citizenship of people who had obtained it and went on to commit serious crime, and also found, interestingly, that 35% of respondents supported such measures, even in cases where the offenders were born in Canada. That's unlikely to happen, but that gives you an idea of public support.

I understand that birth certificate is not dealt with in the current bill and is a complicated issue that involves the provinces and territories, inasmuch as they're responsible for health care facilities and registration of births. Birth certificate, however, is an issue that should be dealt with with a minimum of delay. What it provides for now is that any infant born on Canadian soil can get Canadian citizenship. It is known to be widely abused by people who have no connection with this country, but arrange to give birth here so their children will be able to enjoy all the benefits of Canadian citizenship when they're older.

The concept of birth certificate, by the way, was developed in the United States after their civil war, in order to ensure that former slaves born in the U.S.A. would not be denied American citizenship. It's no longer needed for that purpose, however, and has been abolished by virtually every country in the world except Canada and the United States. Efforts have been under way for some time to eliminate it in the United States.

Chairman, this completes my opening comments, and I'll be glad to answer any questions.

Thank you.