Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 30th, 2014

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Seligman brought up the contrast, the difference, between a judicial review and appeal before the court, and talked about the limits that a judicial review has compared to an appeal before the court. Considering that this bill does deal with a very fundamental status, namely Canadian citizenship, isn't that enough to say that this bill should not rely so much on judicial review, and that Canadians should have access to the full power of an appeal before the court when their citizenship is being questioned?

[Robin Seligman]

Yes, clearly. Again I tried to set out what a judicial review is and again it's permission to appeal, and it goes through the Federal Court. They have very limited jurisdiction. It's an administrative review. They're looking for errors of law. Was the proper procedure followed? They're not looking at the substance of the decision unless it's absolutely perverse and doesn't make sense.

Other than that, it's extremely hard to get judicial review. Again, it's not an in-person hearing, you don't introduce humanitarian factors or new evidence. Under this legislation, if you were convicted, you are done, with no right of review. You can't add all the circumstances of your case, so judicial review would be totally inappropriate under these circumstances. There would have to be a full and fair hearing as Mr. Kurland and the bar have mentioned. And again, I can reiterate, a parking ticket has more rights than Bill C-24. You get your day in court. I've provided you with the materials.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

My question is perhaps for Ms. Jackman.

The intent to reside requirement could create two classes of citizens: one class of citizens who are natives and can leave the country freely, and another class who are naturalized and whose citizenship perhaps could be revoked after it's awarded, because the evaluation of the intent to reside could be re-evaluated.

On Monday, Minister Alexander seemed to suggest that this was all blown out of proportion and that this requirement wouldn't result in any revocations because it doesn't apply after one becomes a citizen. But I think, from what I just said, that this intent could be questioned after citizenship was awarded. The officials from the ministry seemed to disagree with the minister later in the meeting on Monday.

I'm wondering about this. Could this intent to reside requirement really be only a symbolic measure and not put a new Canadian's citizenship at risk?

[Barbara Jackman]

It puts their citizenship at risk. The thing that I think you have to understand when officials come before you and say they don't intend for it to be applied in that way is that they have no control over what people do in the future. If the legislation permits it, it can happen, and in fact it does. We've received so many promises from officials in the past that legislation wouldn't be interpreted or applied in a certain manner, and then it was.

Take the membership clause, for example. It is so broad that it covers women who raised their children to help their husbands who were members of Parliament, and those members of Parliament were considered to be too close to a terrorist organization. I mean, you shouldn't cover the wives, but they do now. That's how broad it is. They promised that it wouldn't be like that, but it is now, so you can't bind anybody by that.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay.

I have a very different question. The Globe and Mail recently raised something that I think is a pretty serious concern. There have been several occasions where the United Kingdom has had citizens stripped of their citizenship, and subsequently they were killed in U.S. drone strikes. Officials have admitted that they were perhaps using the same intelligence, the same information and data. What concerns do any of the witnesses have about the mixing of intelligence for military use and use in citizenship decisions?

[Barbara Jackman]

I think to be fair to the British system, the minister there can take citizenship away in the absence of a conviction, so they are acting on intelligence. As I understand our legislation, it will be taken away if there is a conviction, although they could still be acting on intelligence.

But it's a real concern that they are sharing intelligence if they're sharing it in a way that allows the Americans to think that if we've taken citizenship away, just like with the United Kingdom, they can then turn their drones on people. That is what has happened.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have less than 30 seconds.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I understand that there are certain organized armed groups that one can be connected with. You don't require a conviction, right? So there's data there on citizens in operations—

[Barbara Jackman]

You're right: engaging in armed conflict against.... You're right. It doesn't necessarily require a conviction, so it can be as broad as the British one. That's a real worry, because it has happened that a number of people have died.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Daniel.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here.

As you know, the minister was here in the last session on Monday. The minister was quite clear to not take the revocation decision lightly. He would take into consideration other factors and evidence. I also note that criminals are the only ones being revoked of citizenship; it is not every citizen whose citizenship is being revoked. Criminals are obviously not welcome in this country, particularly those who commit acts of terror or treason against this country. Please also note that some 86% of the cases for revocation are residency fraud. It's not the terrorism or any of those sorts of things.

On Monday, Minister Alexander discussed with us what he was hearing from stakeholders, local constituents, and Canadian citizens across Canada. He explained that they like the residency requirements because it strengthens the value of Canadian citizenship. He also said that Canadians appreciated that those who committed acts of terror or treason against this country would have their citizenship revoked on the grounds that they are dual citizens.

Can you tell me what you've been hearing about this, Mr. Kurland?

[Richard Kurland]

For the discussion to be forward-looking and not backward-looking via the rear-view-mirror, I need to underscore the practical importance of the Canadian income tax return when it hits residency fraud. People will be Al-Caponed instead of processed within an intent to commit fraud case. The reality is that given that it's going to take six years for eligibility, and given how highly motivated and well-resourced the Canada Revenue Agency enforcement staff are, if there is a residency fraud issue, on receipt of the application, the next send button pushed will be over at CRA. That will take care of the large volumes of residency fraud cases, I anticipate. For residency fraud in the past that was an issue. Don't forget we've upgraded the technology. There's now a matrix of information-sharing agreements between departments, agencies, and governments foreign and domestic, so now we have the tools to lay this issue to rest.

I do have concerns when it comes to intent. It's expensive, case-specific adjudication that's time-consuming and burdensome to the taxpayer. The same result can be achieved with a letter from the CRA and postage.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Indeed. So do you agree that the value of Canadian citizenship will be strengthened through this important legislation?

[Richard Kurland]

Yes, exactly, and that's why we need to strengthen the importance of Canadian citizenship when it comes to the process of detaching a person from Canadian citizenship. If it's hard to get, it should be hard to take away.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Okay, thank you.

The minister also explained on Monday that by adding these provisions of revocation to the Citizenship Act, it will better align with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the IRPA. Someone convicted of a crime or someone who committed an act that would have been a crime in Canada is inadmissible to Canada as a visitor. What's being said? Why should these criminals be allowed to become Canadian citizens?

[Richard Kurland]

Well, we have a criminal justice system to provide case-specific adjudications and to determine whether a criminal sanction should be imposed. What does that have to do with immigration and citizenship, unless you move the clock back several hundred years and tinker with the banishment process? Punishment, incarceration, and criminality concern offences separate and far away from citizenship and immigration.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Okay, thank you.

Increased processing times over the years are clearly because of some of the decisions made by other governments left in the CIC portfolio, and that's for some 13 years. Not only has this Conservative government introduced numerous measures to strengthen the integrity of the immigration system and protect Canadians but now we're doing the same through the citizenship bill. On Monday, Robert Orr from Citizenship and Immigration Canada explained that processing times went up because of the increased levels of immigration over certain periods. How important is it that this bill get passed quickly with the support of all members of the House to ensure that processing times are decreased while the number of new Canadians increase? For anybody else?

[Robin Seligman]

I'm happy to make a quick comment.

I've seen that the massive increase in processing started in the last couple of years, and that's because the government is so focused on dealing with fraud, which is their prerogative, but it's caused delays in all applications. Applications, a few years ago before they started investigating all the cases, used to take about a year. Now what's happened is that they've now sent out residents questionnaires to everybody who's applying, even if they're short a day or two. The previous process was that they'd allow 30 days a year for holiday, and you never got into these issues. So I'd say, contrary to the information that you're talking about, it appears that the delays started in the past few years just because of the focusing on catching the residency fraud, not the other fraud.

With respect to your other comments that most of the cases have been residency fraud, it doesn't mean.... Clause 10 under this legislation is very broad, dealing with any types of convictions without any types of appeals, so what has happened in the past will not be what happens in the future.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Daniel.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses today. A lot of issues have been highlighted by you folks, so thank you.

I want to start with the intent to reside. It's my understanding that this new/old requirement about the intent to reside was actually in our legislation in the pre-1977 era, was gotten rid of, and is now being brought back.

First of all, maybe one of you might know why we got rid of it. As well, what would be a sound reason to bring it back, if there is one? You did speak to the fact that it creates two tiers of Canadian citizenship. I believe that's unfair, and I don't know if it passes the charter or constitutionality test.

Perhaps you could touch on those briefly before we move on to other topics.

[Barbara Jackman]

You know, I don't know why it was taken out, but it probably had to do with the fact that we live in a global community. We have Canadians all over the world doing important work, engaged in important study. There are things that you can't study in Canada. If you want to be the best nuclear physicist or you want to be the best surgeon, it may be that you have to go to the United States to do that study. This legislation prevents you from doing that. Frankly, it does. What's the point in time that you're able to leave and say, “Oh, I didn't have the intention”?

I'll tell you what they're doing with permanent residence, which they changed in terms of people going back to their home countries. They're taking away permanent residence from people who have lived in the country for 15 years because they've returned to their home countries.

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

Could we do a case study here? I am a naturalized Canadian citizen. I wasn't born in this country. For example, in a few years, if I decide to go to live in the U.S. for five years to do my Ph.D., does that mean that I technically could have my citizenship revoked?

[Barbara Jackman]

No. They're caught between a rock and a hard place, because you're that permanent resident, you want to do the five-year residency in the U.S. to give you some skill that you're going to bring back to Canada, and you can't do it when you're permanent resident because you'll lose your residence. You have to live in Canada for two out of five years.

Now you can't even do it after you've become a citizen. If you become a citizen and then you go do it, you'll lose your citizenship because you've gone outside of the country.

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

So it's because I said I had an intent to reside but I didn't.