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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask a question to Mr. Green and Mr. Kurland, in particular, and it has to do with subclause 1(8) of Bill C-6, which repeals the requirement that a person intend to reside in Canada if granted citizenship. This was established in Bill C-24. Are you concerned that Canadian citizenship might be sought by those looking for a citizenship of convenience, without the intent of living in Canada once it's obtained?

It appears there are many citizens who get their citizenship and then they're gone. They go to Saudi Arabia and make a lot more money there. I don't mean to pick on Saudi Arabia, but they go to another jurisdiction where they make substantially more funds than they do here.

One of the witnesses in the first round gave the example of Lebanon. In July of 2006 there were 34 ship evacuations of Canadian citizens who left Lebanon. That's ships; that's not individuals. There were 34 ship evacuations and 65 air evacuations. It's interesting to know that many of the people who had the air evacuations, even though it was paid for by the Canadian government, wanted the travel points. That amounts to approximately 15,000 Canadians at a cost of about $75 million. Many of those people returned to Lebanon when things settled down. That's just one example.

That section is gone. I think it was raised by Mr. Wong about this whole issue of citizenship by convenience. It's a great thing to have a Canadian passport. Many people on this planet would love to have a Canadian passport.

Those are my questions for Mr. Green, and then Mr. Kurland.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to thank all the witnesses. I've had the opportunity to go over all your statements, and it's quite obvious that each of you brings a lot of expertise to bear, and you've had the chance to actually go through the legislation, through the various provisions to ensure that we do have a good Bill C-6, to ensure that there are no shortcomings or gaps, things of that nature.

I was wondering whether I could ask each and every one of you whether you agree that insofar as the revocation provision is concerned, there isn't enough procedural oversight or mechanisms. Do you agree with that particular statement? What would you envision to ensure that we can strengthen that particular area of Bill C-6? I'd like to ask all three of you to answer that question.

[Avvy Go, Clinic Director, Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic]

Thank you.

My name is Avvy Go. I'm the clinic director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, which is a not-for-profit, community-based organization providing free legal services to low-income people in the greater Toronto area. With me is Vince Wong, who is a staff lawyer at our clinic. We're very pleased to be here and we thank you for the opportunity to comment on the bill.

For us, the Citizenship Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation in our country. Citizenship defines who we are as a people and therefore what Canada is as a nation. Being able to become a Canadian citizen is important, particularly for many immigrants, because our legal system reserves certain benefits, rights, and privileges to those with citizenship status, and of course, the most important, which is the right to vote.

Citizenship also gives immigrants to Canada a sense of belonging and it reaffirms their place in the country they call home. It's important for many of our clients at the clinic—many of them are racialized, many are non-citizens—to be reassured that our Citizenship Act does not promote injustice and exclusion. In fact, I will argue it's in the interests of all of us in our country that our citizenship law signals to all of our immigrants that Canadian society is a welcoming place for all people, regardless of their race, gender, socio-economic status, and so on.

We are pleased to see that Bill C-6 repeals many of the provisions that previous Bill C-24 had put in, for example, resetting the language and knowledge requirement so that they only apply to applicants aged 18 to 54, repealing the intent-to-reside provision, and reinstating a half-day credit for time spent prior to acquiring permanent resident status. These and others are positive changes, but many serious problems still exist with the current framework, and I'm going to turn to my colleague to address some of those problems.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fogel, you cited historical examples to demonstrate your support for citizenship revocation, and as you know, under Bill C-6 citizenship can still be revoked for reasons of fraud or misrepresentation. You seem to be satisfied that these grounds should remain for those that willfully, as you put it, commit fraud. How do you determine willful fraud?

Some critics have argued that under the current legislation a single immigration officer is empowered with making that decision of whether or not to revoke citizenship on these grounds. It seems to me it's quite a subjective decision. What are your thoughts on this?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

In the same vein, might this argument not also apply to those with a criminal record abroad? As it stands right now Bill C-6 did not make any changes relative to Bill C-24 in that if you have a criminal record abroad for an indictable offence, you are automatically exempt from consideration. You will not become a citizen here in Canada.

We have seen situations like Mr. Fahmy's, whereas in other jurisdictions the judicial system might be different. There might be other factors that should be considered. I wonder what your thoughts are on that issue, and whether or not there should also be a proper process to deal with that as opposed to an automatic decision.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Winter.

My next question is for Mr. Fogel. I am confused by your support of the intent-to-reside provision of Bill C-24, which is being proposed to be repealed in Bill C-6.

I think we all dislike the concept of the so-called citizens of convenience. As you know, the Charter of Rights grants all Canadians mobility rights. That is part of the Charter of Rights. The intent-to-reside provision would seem to be unenforceable symbolism.

How do you reconcile it with the charter?

[Professor Elke Winter, Associate Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you.

It is a great honour to be in this House again, so thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-6.

I am a sociologist who looks at citizenship legislation as a part of the government's effort of nation-building. My testimony is based on past and ongoing research, and today I would like to emphasize three points.

First, I commend the minister for proposing to repeal subsection 10(2) of the Citizenship Act, which provides the grounds for revoking citizenship related to national security. I would like to make three points to support this.

First, from a nation-building point of view, the revocation of citizenship is not a solution for a social problem, because it means exporting potential criminals to countries that cannot handle these individuals any better than Canada. Perpetrators may be either submitted to the death penalty, incarcerated in inhumane conditions, or most likely, the countries they are exported to may not be able to prevent them from committing terrorist acts from abroad. None of these are desirable, I believe, from a Canadian point of view.

Second, research suggests that perpetrators seldom refrain from heinous crimes due to drastic penalties. Not even the death penalty deters them, and potential terrorists rarely feel discouraged by the threat of citizenship revocation.

Third, and probably most important, our research has shown that past legislation, maybe unintentionally, contributed to the stereotyping of Canadian Muslims. Supported by a grant from Public Safety, researchers at the University of Ottawa have studied the media and social media coverage of the terms of revocation for Canadian dual nationals convicted for the threat of committing treason, espionage, and terrorism.

You will be interested to hear that the revocation measure was discussed skeptically by the media. Although the media was skeptical of it, their way of reporting also supported the idea that it is among Canadian Muslims, as well as dual Canadians more generally, that we are most likely to find terrorists. This, I would argue, is not conducive for multicultural nation-building.

I now come to my second substantial, larger point. In my reading of Bill C-6, as it's proposed, this legislation will bring Canadian law back in line with the idea that naturalization, becoming a citizen, is not an end point or reward of integration, but rather an important step toward immigrant integration.

Comparative research shows this approach is much more conducive to making immigrants not only part of the country's socio-economic fabric, but also to winning their hearts and minds, which is the ultimate goal when building a nation.

Once again, let me make three points to support this. Language skills are important to facilitate participation in society, but so is formal citizenship. Restoring the previous age limits for language and knowledge testing, and adjusting the language level in the application kit, will reduce barriers to the less educated, non-European-language speakers, and the economically vulnerable.

As we well know, at universities testing is a stressful undertaking, specifically for older persons and accompanying family members, often women.

As the previous speaker has already noted, restoring the pre-permanent resident 50% credit toward citizenship is an important incentive to those with Canadian experience: students, refugees, and former temporary workers. It highlights the interpretation of formal citizenship as a step within the longer journey to becoming fully integrated.

Third, changing the residence requirement to three out of five years, I believe, is conducive to retaining immigrants who are highly skilled, and highly mobile, the so-called best brains in the world that Canada and other countries want to attract. This measure enables these individuals to also become citizens, even though they may have to work outside of the country for some time and not be physically present. It gives them more flexibility.

My larger point is not part of Bill C-6 as it is presently proposed, but I urge the government to consider implementing a recommendation made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, namely to revise the citizenship oath to include the respect of treaties between the crown and indigenous people.

Interviews that I conducted with new Canadian citizens show for them the citizenship ceremony and the oath are very important and meaningful elements of the naturalization process. Since the current government has already pledged to value the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations, from the perspective of building a nation, this may be a good moment to strengthen the relations between our new Canadians and our oldest ones.

In summary, Canada has a long history of selecting immigrants who make an economic contribution to this country. For this it is envied in the world. This rationale, however, needs to be complemented by a warm welcome of new Canadians. I believe that this bill as it stands will move the legislation closer to that end.

Thank you.

[Shimon Fogel, Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs]

Thank you. I am grateful to be here representing the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the advocacy agent of the Jewish Federations of Canada, to discuss Bill C-6.

As I noted in my testimony before this committee regarding Bill C-24, Canadian citizenship is one of the most valuable and highly respected commodities in the world, but it is far from being just a prestigious status one acquires. Citizenship in this country is an unparalleled package of balanced rights and responsibilities based on a set of core values designed to ensure dignity, freedom, and equality for all. I am certain that everyone around this table agrees that immigrants are among the proudest patriots and shapers of this country, a source of cultural vitality and economic strength.

Despite the dark era of Canada's “none is too many” immigration and refugee policy for Jews, we have come here from all corners of the globe for more than 200 years. Our community has made a positive contribution to the Canadian story, like so many others whom we join in appreciating the extraordinary opportunity and privilege of being Canadian.

We are glad that Bill C-6 will once again allow time spent in Canada as a temporary resident to count towards the residency requirement for citizenship. This will be particularly beneficial with regard to retaining talented international students who come to this country to advance their education and skills while simultaneously integrating with Canadian peers. They would seem to be ideal candidates for citizenship, and there should be no unnecessary obstacles in their path.

As this committee considers the merits of repealing many of Bill C-24's other provisions, I would like to highlight some elements that Bill C-6 quite correctly will leave in place, the importance of which cannot be overstated.

Retaining a physical presence standard in determining residency requirements for citizenship is an important principle that can enhance integration and decrease marginalization of new immigrants and, as Minister McCallum has mentioned, can also help counteract the problem of citizens of convenience. Bill C-6 will also maintain basic language and knowledge testing requirements for citizenship applications. Coupled with physical presence, this can make a significant contribution towards counteracting the importation of anti-Semitic and other extremist views, which, though marginalized here in Canada, are unfortunately still prevalent in many parts of the world.

We are very pleased that Bill C-6 does not seek to repeal Bill C-24's streamlined provisions for revoking citizenship from those who obtained it through fraud or misrepresentation. These provisions consolidated a process that has been routinely abused by those who hid their Nazi past when coming to Canada. The ongoing case of Helmut Oberlander is a timely example. Oberlander was a decorated member of the savage Nazi mobile killing unit responsible for the murder of more than 90,000 Jewish men, women, and children. When he applied for entry into Canada in 1954, he misrepresented his wartime past and fraudulently obtained Canadian citizenship. Oberlander has avoided the final revocation of his citizenship and removal from Canada by exploiting a flawed system for more than 20 years.

This ongoing experience demonstrates the need for Bill C-24's revocation provisions to be retained, and the government's commitment in this regard should be universally supported.

In this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the government for seeking leave to appeal the latest Federal Court of Appeal's decision regarding the revocation of Oberlander's citizenship to the Supreme Court.

There are other components that Bill C-6 seeks to repeal that we believe merit further consideration. We supported the introduction of measures to ensure that those who apply for Canadian citizenship actually intend to maintain a meaningful connection to Canada. The intent-to-reside provisions that Bill C-6 will repeal are an important element in this regard and could continue to have an impact on reducing the problem of citizens of convenience.

That said, the current articulation of this provision does indeed create a potential for abuse. Safeguards are needed to preclude a minister from commencing a revocation proceeding for someone who declared intent to reside but then went abroad to study, work, or tend to an ill relative. People should not fear being penalized for such eminently reasonable actions, even if the chances of a minister actually doing this are remote.

In reference to this provision, Minister McCallum when he was a member of this committee in the previous Parliament noted, with regard to:

...the question of citizens of convenience. We want measures in place to deter that. I sympathize with that goal, in principle. We want measures in place to deter that. I sympathize with that goal in principle.

Instead of repealing “intent to reside”, the existing law could be amended to more closely align this provision's substance with its principle. This could be achieved with a check on ministerial discretion, a requirement for the minister to seek a court declaration in cases of misrepresentation of intent to reside, similar to the requirement included for other cases of fraud.

When I last appeared before this committee to testify regarding Bill C-24, I articulated a position in support of the revocation of citizenship from dual national Canadians who commit certain offences, including terrorism offences. This position was a reflection of our belief that in the case of certain particularly heinous political crimes, the perpetrator is actually guilty of two distinct offences. First, they're guilty of the particular crime they have committed; but second, they're guilty of a fundamental betrayal of the core values on which Canadian citizenship is based.

Our support for this provision reflects the desire to address not just the crime but also the grievous insult to Canada and Canadian identity that has taken place. This is why we advocated for the revocation provisions to be expanded to include those convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I would like to call the meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference received by the committee on March 21, 2016, the committee will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

We have three witnesses before us. The witnesses will make opening remarks in the order in which they appear on the notice. The first witness is Mr. Shimon Fogel, chief executive officer of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

The second witness will be Ms. Elke Winter, associate professor of sociology, department of sociology and anthropology, University of Ottawa, as an individual.

The third witness will be Mr. Peter Edelmann, lawyer, Edelmann and Company Law Offices, and he is here as an individual as well.

Mr. Fogel, you have seven minutes, please.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank all the witnesses. All the testimonies have been very helpful.

I was wondering if I could ask Ms. Dench about her comments on counting time in Canada before becoming a permanent resident. First of all, it's incredible how lengthy your submissions are. They're very helpful.

I note in the recommendations you make here, first of all, you state, “We support the proposed residency eligibility period of three out of five”, which is great, as it's reflected in Bill C-6. There's also another recommendation, which in principle you're saying you agree with providing credit for people who've been here previously. You say, “We support allowing applicants to count at least one year in Canada before becoming a permanent resident.”

In your opinion, would it make any sense to provide more credit than a year? Would there be any advantages to doing so?

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

By your own admission, you've just stated that the Conservative Party was also courting votes.

However, with respect to this piece of legislation, we heard from a University of Ottawa professor earlier today who stated that it's quite convenient when the law is made to ensure that perceived criminals are punished.

Don't you agree, then, that Bill C-6 in particular is more about doing what's right rather than what's convenient, and would you then withdraw or reconsider your previous claim that this is about getting votes?

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all I'd like to also thank all of the witnesses who came to our meeting today, especially those who are now from another province.

My remark first is that we believe new Canadians enrich and strengthen our country. Their experiences and perspectives make us stronger. Immigration is an important part of who we are as a nation and the strength of our nation's future. We want newcomers to Canada to have every opportunity to succeed, opportunities for economic success, the experience of our many freedoms, and the experience of safe communities.

My first question is about the intent to reside. It does not restrict mobility of new citizens.

My question is directed to Mr. Collacott. Could you please comment on the fact that now the intent to reside provision is going to be repealed under Bill C-6?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

You touched on another issue in regard to appeal. With regard to providing better procedure rights for loss of citizenship based on fraud or misrepresentation, could you expand on the elements you would like to see included in the decision and appeal process in this area in this proposed Bill C-6?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

My next question is for Mr. Pagtakhan.

In a March 4 article for CBC.ca, you wrote that for family-class immigrants and refugees, “language abilities and education levels are not relevant”, as the “intention of these immigration categories is to reunite families or protect people from persecution”. Given that the people at the upper and lower ends of the age ranges for language- and knowledge-testing who would be excluded from testing under the changes being brought by Bill C-6 largely fall into this category, do you see the changes to the age range having any negative effect on the ability of the new citizens to integrate into Canadian society?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Okay.

With regard to changes to language and knowledge testing in Bill C-6, you were quoted in the Vancouver Sun on February 10 as saying that this change was designed to increase the pool of Liberal voters, adding, “They’re more concerned with getting votes and not so concerned that they (new Canadians) will integrate socially and economically”.

Can you share with this committee what if any evidence and research you have to support this theory? It seems unlikely, given that Bill C-6 returns to the previous system under which the previous government won a majority government.

Also, is there any evidence you can cite to support the idea that fourteen-year-olds have integrated more successfully into Canadian society since Bill C-24 came into force?