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.

[Robin Seligman]

Thank you very much.

I very much support the Canadian Bar Association's position. I'll try to elaborate on some of the points that we were not able to because of time constraints.

We're very concerned—and I'm very concerned—about this serious change in direction of citizenship. It makes citizenship more vulnerable and totally insecure.

Once again, please remember this impacts people born in Canada, so people who have never lived in another country but might , through relatives or grandparents, have a claim to citizenship.

Looking around at the names in this room, I can tell you that most people here probably have a claim. It affects people that have Italian parents, British parents, U.K. parents, Chinese parents, and of particular concern is that every Jewish person in Canada has the right to move to Israel and claim Israeli citizenship. In effect—and I've provided materials on the right of the law of return—every Jewish person in Canada can be impacted by this legislation, because they could claim status in Israel.

Of particular concern to me as well is the reverse onus that this legislation puts on a person to prove that they would not become stateless, so I ask that you look at proposed section 10.4 that specifies this.

Also, there are no appeal rights. It only talks about a leave for judicial review, and if I have time I'll talk about what that means.

To be honest with you, if a person gets a parking ticket in the City of Toronto, or probably anywhere in Canada, you would have more judicial rights and appeal rights and the right to a fair hearing than you would under the Citizenship Act as proposed under Bill C-24. As a parking-ticket holder you have a right to a fair hearing. Under the Citizenship Act, as proposed, there is no hearing. It is up to the minister to decide whether there's a hearing or not. This can be very political, and these decisions should definitely be taken out of the hands of a minister.

As well, there's no discretion. There's no humanitarian and compassionate review, or allowing a decision-maker to review the full circumstances of a case. The legislation appears—as Barb said—to be focusing on young Canadians who have committed acts that seem to be heinous. However, if you look at the definition of terrorism under the Criminal Code, it's very broad. It includes funding, giving money, giving a donation. For example, right now we see Mohamed Fahmy, the journalist, who is in Egypt in jail. He would be caught under these provisions. He's been charged with terrorism in Egypt for helping put the Muslim Brotherhood's position by reporting through the news. This would be covered under our legislation. Do we really want this type of thing to happen? Is this what we want citizenship to be valued at? Or not valued at?

I respectfully submit that if you've read the legislation, read the details, you may not fully comprehend how broad the provisions are and how many people they'll capture. And I clearly don't think that most Canadians would understand this, so I fully support proper debate and discussion across Canada about this legislation and its broad ramifications.

As I said, almost everyone in this room, or their children or grandchildren, would probably be affected because they might have a claim to citizenship in another country. So it doesn't only affect those who are citizens of other countries now. If they have a claim based on the laws of another country, then they would be affected by this legislation. Once again, it's very broad in terms of terrorism and the offences that would qualify under this act.

Do I have more time?

[Christopher Veeman, Executive Member, National Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association]

We all share the goal of strengthening Canadian citizenship. In the CBA's view, a full public debate on this topic is very important.

We understand that the last time there were significant amendments to the act in 1977, the government published a white paper and cross-country forums were organized to make sure that all citizens of Canada were able to be involved in the discussion. We would encourage the government to consider a similar approach in this case. Many of the proposals in the bill come out of the blue in some respects, and we're reacting without knowing the true rationale.

I'm going to talk about two of the topics that we covered in our submission: the grants of citizenship, and a particular aspect of that, the intention to reside in Canada.

In general, the CBA is of the view that this bill, which is entitled the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, proceeds on the assumption that by making something harder to obtain you increase its worth. The CBA takes the view that citizenship is a bundle of rights that should be assessed on the rights that it gives to the holder. Simply making it harder to obtain doesn't make it better.

Bill C-24 does make it harder for people to become citizens of Canada, but in the CBA's view, it doesn't enhance the rights that accrue to citizens. The CBA takes the position that the bill diminishes Canadian citizenship by focusing solely on administrative efficiency in determining citizenship applications, reducing appeal rights for people involved in citizenship matters, and the topic that my colleague's going to discuss, permitting the possibility of banishment of Canadian citizens.

In terms of grants, Bill C-24 focuses on efficiency in the handling of citizenship applications. Unfortunately, in the CBA's view, this efficiency is achieved at the cost of the Canadian values of discretion and compassion. The only residency that's recognized under the bill is physical presence in Canada. In our submission we point to a number of examples that are published in the CIC's citizenship processing manual CP5, which shows the types of situations that, in the CBA's view, merit consideration for citizenship applicants. As an example, consider a young permanent resident who wins a Rhodes Scholarship and is off to study at Oxford. Bill C-24 might force such a person to forsake either the opportunity offered by the scholarship or their citizenship application.

I want to talk briefly about the “intention to reside” requirement. As you'll see in the submission, the CBA has concerns with this provision. First of all, contrary to the rest of the thrust of the bill, it's the CBA's view that this will complicate the adjudication of citizenship applications. Trying to determine someone's intention at the time of application is next to impossible.

The other problem that this provision creates is discrimination between natural born citizens, who have no obligation to reside in Canada, and naturalized citizens.

I'm realizing I'm already almost out of time, so I'm going to turn it over to Barbara.

[Kerri Froc, Staff Lawyer, Law Reform and Equality, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

The Canadian Bar Association is pleased to appear before the committee today to address Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

The Canadian Bar Association is a voluntary association of 37,500 lawyers across Canada, whose primary objectives include promotion of the rule of law, improvement of the law, and improvement to the administration of justice. It's in the spirit of this mandate that the members of our immigration law section have made the comments we've submitted to you in writing and we will speak to you about today.

Chris Veeman, an executive member of the CBA's immigration law section, and Barbara Jackman, a member of the section, are here with me today. I will now turn things over to them to address the substance of our comments on the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 23.

We are studying Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

This meeting is televised.

We have three representatives from the Canadian Bar Association: Christopher Veeman, Barbara Jackman, and Kerri Froc. Good afternoon to you, and thank you for coming. We also have Robin Seligman, a lawyer—this is lawyers' day—and we have, from British Columbia by teleconference, Richard Kurland, who is well-known to this committee and also a lawyer. You will all have to be very careful with what you say today.

Ms. Jackman, are you speaking on behalf of the Bar Association?

[Nicole Girard]

The fast track for individuals working in the military is broadly in line with the allies. The proposal under Bill C-24 to extend that not only to permanent residents but also to individuals on exchanges is the most closely aligned with what they do in the United States, where they don't require you to have permanent resident status in order to have the opportunity to be fast-tracked for citizenship.

[Nicole Girard]

The proposed measures in the bill are limited to permanent residents and individuals on exchange to recognize their extraordinary service to the country. It doesn't extend to others. This is a function of the fact that when we did our homework and our comparative research on what other countries do, in the U.S., Australia and New Zealand they offer a fast track to individuals who work in their military only. Canada's proposed approach under Bill C-24 is in line with what those comparator countries do.

[Nicole Girard]

Citizenship officers are independent decision-makers now. They decide in the range of about 100,000 citizenship applications that deal with certain matters, including proofs of citizenship, adoption cases, and grants of citizenship to minors. They already make those decisions guided by criteria under the law, as they would be under the measures proposed in the bill. Certainly they would have additional training to take on these new functions that are proposed in Bill C-24.

[Robert Orr]

To add to that, I think the impact is going to be very significant in bringing down processing to under a year, estimated by 2015–16, with the new decision-maker model. With the new money, if we kept the current system, we would be down to only 14 months by 2017–18. I think that's on the chart that was distributed. It gives you some indication of the very significant efficiencies that would be accrued through Bill C-24.

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

Thank you.

Switching gears again, I may have misunderstood the concept, and if so, I'd like the analysts or somebody to correct me. Under Bill C-24, I think individuals who have been accused of or charged with committing certain crimes in their country, with or without a trial, and who have maybe been jailed for whatever reason, can now—I don't remember which one it is and somebody can correct me—either be denied citizenship or have their Canadian citizenship revoked. It doesn't matter which one of those two it is; my question is about the fact that these individuals are being judged in Canada for what they may or may not have done in another country. They may or may not have had a fair trial or due process, because I know many countries where individuals don't have due process.

My understanding is that one of our honorary Canadian citizens, Nelson Mandela, would not be able to become a Canadian citizen after Bill C-24 passes, because he was charged with, I think, terrorism or treason in his country and was jailed for that. Does that mean he wouldn't be able to be a Canadian citizen? I want to know the rationale behind why we're...and who? Is it a Citizenship and Immigration Canada official, a bureaucrat, who would be given the task of being the judge, of assessing whether said country has due process and fair trials, and of making that decision? Is it going to be one CIC official who makes that decision on another country's judicial processes?

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

I would like to talk about people with temporary residency status. Under Bill C-24 periods of temporary residence will no longer be applied toward the meeting of the physical presence requirement for naturalization to become Canadians.

There are higher numbers and growing numbers of international students who come to Canada and are taxpaying members of our society while they're students because they're able to find work and then they, the lucky ones anyway, will find work on a temporary basis as they apply for permanent residence. We're seeing a growing trend toward a two-step migration process, especially with international students where they first come as students temporarily and then transition into permanent residents.

What is the rationale for this change, where it's inviting students from all around the world to come here and then saying the time they spent doesn't count?

[Nicole Girard]

That's quite right. In fact the measures proposed in Bill C-24 would make us more comparable with those like-minded countries. For example, the U.S. requires those requirements to be met for up to age 65. For the U.K., it's up to age 64.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

They wouldn't apply.

With respect to the language requirement in Bill C-24, how do we compare to other English-speaking jurisdictions, for example the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and the United States? Are we comparable or are we even more stringent?

[Nicole Girard]

We certainly have now and would have under Bill C-24 accommodations for persons who may experience different difficulties, whether it's a learning disability, whether it's a speech impairment, whether the individual may be deaf. Those people can self-identify now at the start of the process, and they do.

We will continue to take on board the comments of the committee and stakeholders in terms of best practices on any other measures that we may need to look at in this area.

[Nicole Girard]

Yes, that's absolutely correct. Canada is one of the few countries, as part of our study, that we identified that don't have this ability to revoke that's proposed in Bill C-24. For example, like-minded countries like Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, all have such authority, as do most European countries that we looked at.

Many of these countries have broader, less defined powers than what is proposed in Bill C-24.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you.

Now I'll talk about one of my favourite topics. Bill C-24 also provides the ability to strip citizenship from convicted terrorists who hold dual citizenship, or deems an application for citizenship to be renounced. Have you done any comparative studies with other western countries that have similar legislation? My understanding is that all western democratic nations have this power, and for some of them, the requirements for revoking citizenship are far less stringent than what is being proposed in Bill C-24. Could you please comment on that?