Bill C-6 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) remove the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security;
(b) remove the requirement that an applicant intend, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada;
(c) reduce the number of days during which a person must have been physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship and provide that, in the calculation of the length of physical presence, the number of days during which the person was physically present in Canada before becoming a permanent resident may be taken into account;
(d) limit the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of Canada and of one of its official languages to applicants between the ages of 18 and 54;
(e) authorize the Minister to seize any document that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe was fraudulently or improperly obtained or used or could be fraudulently or improperly used;
(f) change the process for the revocation of Canadian citizenship on the grounds of false representation, fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances; and
(g) remove the requirement that an applicant be 18 years of age or over for citizenship to be granted under subsection 5(1) of that Act.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[Martin Collacott, As an Individual]

Thank you, Chairman.

I've appeared before this committee more than a dozen times in the past, but I think Mr. Tilson is the only one who's heard me before. I'll just mention as background my interest in this area.

I was a citizenship adviser to the Ontario Ministry of Education early in my career. Then I served as head of mission, ambassador, or high commissioner in Syria, Lebanon, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka, where we had very substantial immigration or refugee flows at one time or another. Since I retired from government, I have concentrated on reforms needed to immigration, refugee, and citizenship policy. That's the basis on which I appear before this committee, as well as Senate committees and U.S. congressional committees.

As for the specifics of the proposed legislation, I have a problem with shortening the residence requirements for citizenship. It will make it one of the shortest in the world. In Australia it's four years, but in the U.S., United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Ireland it's five. It's seven in Norway, Germany, and Switzerland. Clearly, all these other countries think it takes longer to establish whether someone is going to make a good citizen. Sometimes those who want citizenship in a hurry are only going to park their families here, work overseas, and pay taxes overseas—not most, but some.

Other provisions of Bill C-6 that will further erode the formation of newcomers' close links to this country are that in addition to the bill's reducing the number of years of permanent residence required before applying for citizenship, they will be required to spend fewer days in Canada during each of these years and they will furthermore no longer have to declare the intent to stay in this country after being granted citizenship. I think all of these erode the commitment.

The plan to reduce the age range for which competency in one of our official languages is required I think is particularly ill-considered. While most Canadians would agree with not requiring people of age 65 or over to have a working knowledge of English or French, those between age 55 and 64 for the most part will still be working, and lack of competency in at least one of our official languages will severely limit their employability and earning potential.

Lack of language ability, in fact, has been identified as one of the main reasons that immigrants who have come here in recent decades have been costing Canadian taxpayers a very substantial amount of money. Because their earnings are considerably lower than those of either immigrants who came earlier or the Canadian-born, they receive far more in benefits than they pay in taxes. While we're constantly told of the economic benefits to Canadians from immigration, the fact is that research shows that immigrants who arrived in recent years cost us around $30 billion a year.

I am not opposed to everything in Bill C-6, but the parts I've cited above I think will significantly diminish the value of Canadian citizenship.

I find particularly unacceptable that it will no longer be possible to take citizenship away from dual citizens convicted of treason or terrorism. We have one of the most generous systems in the world, when it comes to granting citizenship. I don't think it's in the least unreasonable, when we welcome newcomers into the Canadian family of citizens, to let them know that they can lose that status, if they subsequently commit treason or acts of terrorism. Using the pretext that revocation of citizenship establishes two-tier citizenship, and repeating the mantra that “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”, will not convince most Canadians, who made it clear in a survey not long ago that 80% support the loss of citizenship for those convicted of treason or terrorism.

I think it's worth notice that eroding requirements for citizenship can be used for a political gain. This was illustrated in the 1996 presidential election in the United States, when the Clinton administration rushed through citizenship for more than a million people so that they could vote Democrat. It's been very well documented. Many of them didn't meet the requirements.

Chairman, in closing I'd like to make a recommendation. Canada needs a total review of what is required in terms of immigration and who benefits from it. We have greatly benefited from immigration at certain times of our history when we needed a larger population and when Canadians in general gained from immigration in economic terms, and we have a much more interesting society than just a few decades ago because of the diversity brought by immigration.

However, what is abundantly clear is that our current high immigration levels and the policies on which they are based are not serving the interests of most Canadians and are driven by special interest groups who benefit from having a larger labour force that keep wages down, by sectors of the economy that benefit from a constantly growing population, and by political parties who think they can expand their voting base. Current immigration leads to a larger economy and population, but not to a higher standard of living for Canadians in general.

Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, it costs taxpayers $30 billion a year, and in the case of those living in large cities such as Vancouver and Toronto it has a negative impact on the quality of life because of greater congestion, longer commute times, and housing prices that are beyond the reach of most younger Canadians, particularly in cities such as Vancouver and Toronto.

Thank you very much, Chairman. That's all I have to say.

[R. Reis Pagtakhan, Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The first thing I would like to address today is not what is in Bill C-6, but the major item that is missing from Bill C-6. That is an amendment to the citizenship oath that was recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Late last year the commission released its report on Canada's residential schools and made 94 recommendations. Their very last recommendation was for the government to change the citizenship oath to include a commitment that new Canadians faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including treaties with indigenous peoples. Presumably, with the Prime Minister committing to implement all of the recommendations of the commission, the failure to include a provision in this bill was an oversight. This being said, the time for action, I would submit, is now.

Some of the proposed changes in this bill, such as the reduction of the residency requirement to apply for citizenship from four to three years and the reinstitution of half-time credit for certain temporary residents, will likely cause a spike in citizenship applications when the bill becomes law, and new Canadians should be able to look at this oath and take this oath.

As a Canadian born and raised on Treaty 1 land, I would recommend that the bill be amended to adopt recommendation 94 of the commission in its entirety before the influx of new citizenship applications.

With respect to what is in the bill, my first recommendation is that Canadian law should continue to allow citizenship to be taken away from terrorists, treasonists, and spies. However, I believe that amendments must be made to the existing law to ensure fairness in this process.

The reason I believe that citizenship revocation should remain for these very narrow circumstances is that Canadians convicted of these offences are convicted of offences designed to undercut our society or to overthrow our government. It should be kept in mind that before any individual is convicted of any of these offences they are, one, presumed innocent; two, guaranteed legal representation; three, afforded all of the rights under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms; four, afforded all protections of our common law and civil law systems; five, given the opportunity to offer a vigorous defence; and after all that they must, to be convicted, be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

After being convicted, these individuals then have the right to argue how their sentences should be mitigated. In pronouncing sentences, judges must under the Supreme Court's rulings take into account the immigration consequences of their sentences. Surely revoking citizenship for these types of offences after a citizen is afforded all of these protections is proper.

This being said, changes to the current law regarding citizenship revocation are needed.

First, the ability of the government to take away citizenship for non-Canadian convictions should be totally eliminated. One only has to look at the case of Mohamed Fahmy, the Egyptian-Canadian journalist initially jailed in Egypt on trumped-up terrorist charges, to see how problematic the existing law is with respect to foreign convictions. In Mr. Fahmy's case, the government chose not to take away his citizenship. Unfortunately, the process that led to this decision seemed to be political, and taking away citizenship is serious business that should not come from a political or an administrative decision. Because Canadians tried in foreign courts do not receive the protections of our charter, taking away citizenship in these situations is improper.

When the bill that enacted the current law was proposed in 2014, I indicated that revocation of citizenship for Canadians convicted abroad could be allowed if there is a workable equivalency assessment. After the situation of Mr. Fahmy, it is clear to me that Canadian citizenship should only be revoked for convictions in Canada.

Secondly, the existing punishment threshold to revoke citizenship for terrorist offences is too short. While any conviction for terrorism is serious, and I think we'll all agree with that, revocation should only occur for individuals sentenced to stiff penalties.

Thirdly, revocation should not be automatic. Canadians should be given an opportunity to appeal, to prove that they have changed their ways, before citizenship is revoked. While most terrorists will not walk the path of Nelson Mandela, Canada should certainly leave the door open for these types of individuals.

With respect to some of the other changes in the act, my comments are as follows.

The proposal to eliminate the intention to reside in Canada is a good idea. While there is nothing wrong with wanting Canadians to live in Canada, Canadians should not be discouraged from contributing but encouraged to contribute on the world stage.

Asking Canadians to reside in Canada while our government negotiates free trade agreements that allow Canadians to work abroad is hypocritical. We cannot promote trade agreements that allow Canadian-born citizens to work abroad while telling our naturalized Canadian citizens that they must live here.

Second, the proposal to allow certain temporary residents to count the days they live in Canada before becoming permanent residents toward a citizenship application is also good. Foreign students and temporary foreign workers should get some credit for their contributions to society before they became permanent residents. I don't believe, however, that this credit should be extended to tourists. While it's important to promote tourism, I don't believe foreigners here for a vacation should get any credit toward citizenship for the vacation days they spend here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[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.

[Janet Dench, Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Canadian Council for Refugees, I thank you for the invitation to appear before you as part of your study on Bill C-6. I will be sharing my speaking time with my colleague Jennifer Stone, member of CCR's executive committee.

We have submitted a detailed brief and we would also like to draw your attention to a document that summarizes our concerns.

The CCR is an umbrella organization for about 180 organizations from all across Canada. Most of those organizations work with refugees and other newcomers, whose experiences on the ground form the basis for our comments on the bill.

As a general comment, we want to highlight the importance of citizenship for the mental health of newcomers, especially refugees. Our members see on a daily basis what a difference it makes to people once they become citizens. They are finally secure.

This is particularly the case for refugees who have been forced to flee their own country. Until they become Canadian citizens, they face not only practical problems because they have no passport, but also the psychological stress of not having anywhere they can definitively call home, of still having the fear that they might again be forced out. Facilitating access to citizenship plays a vital role in promoting good mental health. Conversely, barriers in access to citizenship and measures that call into question the security of citizenship have negative impacts on mental health.

Our comments on Bill C-6 can be summarized in two points. First, we support early access to citizenship for newcomers without discrimination, and second, we recommend that the law guarantee the equality of all citizens.

We are glad to see several amendments in Bill C-6 that advance the objective of early access to citizenship without discrimination. Refugees and others can count time spent in Canada before becoming a permanent resident toward the three years required for citizenship.

Many refugees wait years in Canada before they become permanent residents, through no fault of their own. Thousands of people who made claims before December 2012 still haven't had a hearing on their cases—the so-called legacy cases—and for those who are accepted as refugees, the processing time for permanent residence was two years, until recently. For live-in caregivers, the published processing time for permanent residence after they have met all the criteria is 49 months.

Second, we welcome the proposed residence requirement of three out of the past five years to qualify for citizenship.

Third, Bill C-6 proposes reverting the application of language and knowledge tests to people aged 18 to 54. Youth under 18 are in school when they learn English or French and are educated about Canada, so we never understood the logic of imposing tests on youth.

Regarding the older age group, while we know that many are fully capable of passing the tests, some older people struggle with learning a new language and with doing tests. This is certainly the case for people who have suffered many losses and hardships as refugees.

Despite these changes, there are still important gaps in access to citizenship, and we recommend for your future attention the need to, one, create a right to apply for citizenship for youth under 18 who do not have a parent or legal guardian in Canada; two, prevent long wait times by requiring the government to process applications within a reasonable time; three, introduce an option for applicants to request a waiver from the strict physical residency requirement when compelling facts exist; and four, prevent citizenship applications' being used to launch a process to strip status from former refugees through cessation.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Part of Bill C-6 is also about language requirement. How important is it for the new Canadians, who take the oath to become Canadian citizens, to learn English or French so they cannot be discriminated against or taken advantage of by the people who speak the language?

[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.

[Dr. Patti Tamara Lenard]

In general my understanding of Bill C-6 is that it goes back to the prior status quo about language requirements. Is that mistaken?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

There are people who, for a variety of reasons, are not able to establish their country of origin by birth, and through that process they're unable to make application for Canadian citizenship. Therefore, they're stateless, right? In that instance it's a very challenging situation for those individuals, because without citizenship obviously there are many rights to which they cannot have access. I was particularly interested to hear your points of view on how we should address that issue and whether with Bill C-6 we should find a way to address this issue by way of amendments, because it does not address it at this current time.

With respect to Bill C-6, there are other provisions that address the issue of citizenship, particularly barriers to access to citizenship. There are two areas related to that. One is the citizenship test by way of language, and then the other piece related to it is, of course, the fee. I wonder if you have any thoughts with respect to the language aspect. There's a two-level test at the moment, which creates barriers for people to access citizenship.

I'll go to Ms. Lenard.

[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.

[Bernie M. Farber]

I have just a very brief comment.

There does remain in place, as I understand it, judicial review on revocation of citizenship. For example, I was talking earlier about an individual who has now gone through 20 years of having his citizenship removed because of his work as a translator in a Nazi death squad. That began in 1998, and he's still a citizen here in Canada because he was able to avail himself of reviews and judicial reviews all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I'm not exactly sure where the situation lies in terms of Bill C-6 and Bill C-24 and the issue of protection, but it is clear to me that judicial review is permitted because it's permitted under fraudulent access to citizenship. There is still a way to ensure that justice is being done and is being seen to be done.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for their presentations.

I'd like to focus on the process after grounds have been established, or perhaps categories of individuals whose citizenship would be revoked.

In our previous presentations from other witnesses, the issue around process and due process was key. None of you has really touched on this, so I'd like to inquire whether or not, with the change of Bill C-24, the process is also altered. Bill C-6 does not bring back the process prior to Bill C-24, which is that for the persons whose citizenship is being revoked to go before the Federal Court for a decision, to be assessed on a case-by-case basis in terms of the due process to be followed.

I'd like to ask this question to you, Ms. Lenard, to see what your thoughts are with respect to that aspect of it.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All three of you have addressed the issue of the revocation of citizenship, and there are obviously different views among the three of you. The comment, of course, that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian seems to be the justification for Bill C-6 in repealing the relevant section of Bill C-24.

Ms. Saperia and a witness on Tuesday morning raised the issue of the oath, which says:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

That's important for dealing with the statement that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, because if you're born in Canada, you don't take that oath. If you're a new Canadian, you have a choice. The law, notwithstanding Bill C-6, still allows revocation for fraud and for misrepresentation.

I would like all of you to comment on that. Perhaps we'll start with Ms. Saperia, although most of what I've said has been in her statement.

Maybe I'll go further, however. Is it really proper to repeal the clause in Bill C-24, or should it be amended?

We'll start off with you, Ms. Saperia.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a few questions.

First of all, I'd like to ask Mr. Farber a few questions. Allow me to start off by saying welcome back to Ottawa. We are very happy to have you here, given your rich experience that has obviously informed your work at the Mosaic Institute.

I was going over the testimony that you provided back in 2014, I believe it was, and you were very articulate. At one point, when you were considering Bill C-24, you did say that Bill C-24 will, “make citizenship not a rewarding end to their long and difficult journey, but an unreachable destination filled with roadblocks and diversions.”

I was wondering if you could kindly explain to us if you've had the opportunity to review Bill C-6, and if there was anything in particular that stood out for you and is of interest to you.

[Sheryl Saperia, Director of Policy for Canada, Foundation for Defense of Democracies]

Good morning, distinguished members of the committee.

On behalf of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a think tank focused on national security and foreign policy, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today.

My comments will focus exclusively on the provisions in the Citizenship Act that revoke citizenship for treason, terrorism, and armed conflict against Canada, which Bill C-6 seeks to repeal.

As I explained in my testimony on Bill C-24, I believe it is reasonable to predicate Canadian citizenship on a most basic commitment to the state that citizens abstain from committing those offences considered most contrary to the national security interests of Canada. Treason and armed conflict against Canada are actions clearly intended to damage the country as a national entity and political community. It seems fitting that one consequence of these crimes might be the loss of citizenship to the country the offender seeks to harm.

However, there are areas where the current law could be improved. Rather than repeal outright the provisions allowing citizenship to be stripped on national security grounds, I would propose several amendments. For instance, I recommended in my previous testimony, and in various newspaper publications, that the law should be amended to stipulate a tighter connection between the terrorist crime and the consequence of losing one's citizenship. Specifically I suggest the stripping of citizenship for terrorism be triggered only by terrorist offences in Canada, against a Canadian target, or when committed in association with a listed entity. Listed entities have been publicly designated by the Canadian government as terrorist organizations and are in effect public enemies of the state. Committing a terrorist act that meets one of those three criteria is, to my mind, a clear attempt to damage Canada, for which loss of citizenship is appropriate. If the terrorist act has nothing to do with Canada, the revocation of citizenship should not be the consequence.

I would also suggest an amendment with regard to foreign terrorist convictions. I can understand Canada giving credence to a terrorism conviction from a like-minded country with legal standards similar to our own, but while the original legislation was clear that the substance of the foreign offence would be examined to ensure its equivalence to a Canadian Criminal Code terrorist act, the law failed to require an assessment of the fairness of the process by which that conviction was achieved.

I would like to take a moment to address Minister McCallum's most vociferous objection to the current law, namely that it creates two classes of citizens: those with dual or multiple nationalities who are at risk of having their Canadian citizenship stripped, and those with only Canadian citizenship who may be punished in a variety of ways but cannot lose their citizenship.

First, that distinction is not arbitrary. It only exists because there is a law that prohibits rendering a person stateless. Second, for dual nationals who have chosen that status, often because of personal connection to, or benefit from, more than one citizenship, this is not a compelling argument. Dual citizenship was not forced upon them, and they are not being subject to discrimination as a result of any inherent trait. It is a choice they have made, just as they can choose to renounce their other citizenship, so as to be solely Canadian and therefore not subject to these provisions.

In cases where a Canadian citizen is also citizen of a country that does not enable renunciation of that citizenship, that's a different story. In that case, the minister or department could use their discretion to assess the extent of what I call the active relationship to that second citizenship. Does the individual maintain deep ties to the other country? Has the individual invoked any of the rights of that citizenship? Has the individual travelled with the passport of that country, or served in an official capacity only open to citizens? The less active that second citizenship, the weaker the argument the Canadian citizenship should be revoked.

In short, it is simply not always true that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. It is not an absolute category. Naturalized Canadians are Canadians only so long as they are not found to have lied on their citizenship application. Those who have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide can have their citizenship removed as well. Consider also that naturalized citizens must pledge an oath of allegiance to the Queen as the personification of Canada. By committing treason, armed conflict, or terrorism against Canada, are they not renouncing that oath through their actions?

Canadians with more than one nationality have a very easy way to retain their Canadian citizenship under this law, do not commit criminal acts of treason, armed conflict, or terrorism that are directed at Canada as a country.

Lastly, if the government believes that our national security interests are better served by keeping dangerous terrorists in Canada where we can watch them properly, rather than potentially letting them loose in another country, I urge them to follow that commitment through. The safety of the Canadian public demands that if those involved in terrorism are to remain in this country, they need to be closely monitored while they are imprisoned and afterwards. Canada must develop a strategy for preventing convicted terrorists from radicalizing and recruiting members of the general prison population. The threat of Islamist prison radicalization is an important feature of modern counterterrorism, with prison being a unique incubator for violent radicalization. As more terrorists are incarcerated in this country, the related threat of prison radicalization will also rise. This issue is all the more potent now that there are Canadians who have travelled abroad to wage jihad, and whose narrative might be more compelling than that of a foreign recruiter.

If indeed we are going to keep in Canada those who have demonstrated their allegiance to the destruction of Canada, we cannot hide from developing the necessary strategies to protect the public from the consequences.

Thank you again for inviting me to appear before you today. I look forward to your questions.

[Bernie M. Farber]

Historically, immigrants and refugees who adopted Canada as their country of choice contributed to the development of Canada and its social, economic, and civil fabric. Today we stand on their shoulders.

To conclude, my work with the Mosaic Institute has proven my belief that Canadian citizenship is valued, earned, and that our diversity is indeed a source of our great strength. For these reasons we support Bill C-6 and the amendments put forward.

Thank you very much.