Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 12th, 2014

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

Yes, please.

[Avvy Yao-Yao Go]

The current system actually does not count all of the time; there's a one year cap. It's not like we're allowing people before they become a permanent resident to live 10 years, for example, and then automatically become a citizen. We have a very reasonable system right now. I find it contradictory to say that we want to strengthen the residency requirement. As Mr. Attia said, you will want people to prove they have ties to Canada, but at the same time we are denying the right of people who have ties to Canada to count those times that they have already established in their residency. Many of them, such as people who are in the Canadian experience class, we lure to Canada based on the hope that they will one day become citizens and that we are recognizing the time before they become permanent residents. But now we're taking that away. So I think that will also potentially have an impact on who is going to come and apply to be an international student or a Canadian experience class immigrant. All of those will be affected as well.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Attia, do you think the pre-PR time should count toward their citizenship, and that these people have value?

[Paul Attia]

Thank you for the question.

I think that a portion of it, in principle...and the comments of my friends here today are quite appropriate.

You're out of time, so I'll be very quick.

It needs a bit of review. I don't know the right answer, but either a portion of it that's capped, or just a portion of it, whether it be one out of every three days, or something to that effect.

But, again, and I agree with the comments of Mr. Goldberg, once you've obtained a certain status.... Yes, you can commit to this country without being a citizen, without being a permanent resident, but I do think it should be capped at a certain point, and that takes into account the balance that's trying to be struck.

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

So basically that's our current system.

[Paul Attia]

To be quite honest—

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

Or at least look at it.

[Paul Attia]

Yes. I think it needs a little revisiting, if only to account for some people who are here with the best of intentions, working or studying, but the entire time shouldn't be.... You shouldn't be able to skip the entire residency requirement, as I think Ms. Go is saying.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you.

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to all the witnesses. Thank you very much for your testimony.

I agreed with a good chunk of what Mr. Attia said, and 100% of what the others said. I would say Ms. Go provided a very good summary of why the Liberals are voting no, even in second reading, meaning we don't even agree in principle. In our view, Canada should welcome more citizens. We should have fewer barriers. We should welcome new citizens with a smile. This system does precisely the opposite, erecting more and more barriers and applying scowls rather than smiles to the newcomers. In a nutshell, that's our view.

Having listened to the minister, of all the things we don't like about it, I think the one on which he is most likely to back down, if on anything, is this business of partial credit for students and family, caregivers, etc. I do commend the NDP for taking a poll of our previous panel, which was very diverse, and of this one, which is reasonably diverse, and getting, I believe, unanimity in both cases. I did a similar poll on the issue of language tests applied to spouses coming in, which I thought was Orwellian, and he backed down on that, so maybe there's hope.

If it's okay, I would like to focus my question on Mr. Attia, because the other three of you will just be saying the same thing.

Mr. Attia, the government says that the onus of proof is on the person who has to prove that he or she is a dual national or else will have citizenship revoked. It seems to me that is wrong. The onus of proof should be on the government, which has the resources. The individual may have a very difficult time proving that, if he or she has to deal with some huge bureaucracy overseas.

Let's be silent on whether revocation is right or wrong. We may disagree on that. But forgetting that, in terms of process, would it not be better if the onus of proof were on the government and not on the other person?

[Paul Attia]

Thank you for the question.

To be quite frank, with respect to that particular issue, I'm not able to provide any comment, only because, as I indicated at the outset, the comments today, on behalf of Immigrants for Canada, are limited to the issues I addressed. The specific process of that particular issue is not one that we, as an organization, have taken a position on or—

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

What about intent to reside?

[Paul Attia]

I'm happy to discuss that.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay. That one, again I agree with you, or what I think is your view, that we should try to reduce the likelihood or incidents of citizenships of convenience, if we can do it in a fair way. That is perhaps the intent behind this, but it seems to me, by creating two classes of citizenship, by arguably going against the charter, this is not an appropriate way to achieve that end.

Do you have misgivings about this intent to reside on charter grounds or on grounds of creating two classes of citizenship, or on grounds that the minister wasn't even very clear what it meant? That is another issue.

[Paul Attia]

Thank you again for the question.

You've raised three potential issues. Issues one and two on constitutional issues are outside our ambit, but on issue three—and I made a reference to this in my opening remarks—I obviously had the opportunity to watch the hearing that took place in this room, I believe, on April 28. To be quite honest, I was left with the same impression that you were left with, unfortunately, which was it's unclear.

In principle, we support the idea that one should have an intention to reside. That's an idea that obviously came originally in 1947, wasn't there in 1977, and is placed back in now in 2014. That is an idea, and I think it sounds as if you would agree with it, and I think many people would. The question, then, of course, becomes the devil's in the details. What does that mean? How do you try to enforce that?

Somebody says they have an intention to reside here, but as Mr. Goldberg pointed out, things can change, whether for business or for family reasons. Perhaps the question then becomes: how long does that stay in place? What happens if you want to retire as a snowbird 40 years after you obtain citizenship? Clearly, I don't think that was the intention of the minister. I think it was set up—I presume—to say they're trying out for this team, they've made the team, we'd like them to be a part of it for a while in the same way that a hockey player signs a minimum contract. Maybe the answer, at least at first review, would be to clarify what that means, and then to get into the logistics of how that's enforced.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

We seemed to say it was inoperative because you could change your mind after you became a citizen.

[Paul Attia]

That was the sense I was left with as well, which just seems a little bit unclear to me.

Again, in principle, we like the idea.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay, I have one last point, if I have time.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Your time is over. Sorry.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I don't have time, okay.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Sorry about that.

Mr. Shory, you now have the floor.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing here today.

Before I ask some questions, for the benefit of all of us, I want to set the record straight on this pre-PR time, so that everyone knows that only 15% of applicants use their non-PR time for their application.

Mr. Attia, I will ask some questions of you.

I am an immigrant to Canada. I will be talking about what I experienced and what I can tell you is the key for success for immigrants, new Canadians. Based upon my own experiences, I can tell you, and I hear this from...I represent a multicultural riding with almost 26 ethnic groups. I hear day in and day out that the basic ability to communicate, in either English or French, which are our official languages, is the key for success, and also it is the key for successful integration into this society.

In Bill C-24, we are asking that high school-aged children, from 14 years old, and people of working age, up to 65 years of age, should complete a basic knowledge test in either English or French, of course.

My question is this. Do you believe and agree with me that language ability plays a vital role in the success newcomers have in integrating into our society successfully?

[Paul Attia]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

Right there in the Immigrants for Canada charter of principles is that language is a unifier. Even on a values front and a cultural front, the mere fact that you have the capacity to turn to the person to your left or the person to your right and have a conversation with that person automatically creates a natural connection.

Think, for any one of us, of any international travel we've done abroad. If I am sitting in the airport in Tokyo, a country that's not my own, but I meet people and they are able to share a language with me, regardless of their ethnicity, I immediately feel a connection to them because I can communicate with them. On that front, it's important.

On the issue that you raised, in terms of the pragmatic approach and the indication of success, absolutely. With respect to hiring, ordering food, going to the bank—even on a safety issue, calling 911 and reporting things—clearly language is important and is something that unites us.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

You mentioned Tokyo. I would say that, if you're unable to communicate with your neighbour, it would definitely put you in isolation here in Canada.