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

This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.

Sponsor

John McCallum  Liberal

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

June 13, 2017 Passed Motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act
May 17, 2016 Passed That Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, {as amended}, be concurred in at report stage [with a further amendment/with further amendments] .
March 21, 2016 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

April 19th, 2016 / 11 a.m.
See context

Bernie M. Farber Executive Director, Mosaic Institute

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak about Canadian citizenship and Bill C-6. I'm honoured to be here in my capacity as the executive director of the Mosaic Institute.

The Mosaic Institute is a think and do tank that was founded in 2007. Our mandate is to create platforms for learning and dialogue amongst diverse Canadian communities to advance justice and peace. Our initiatives are a combination of dialogue, research, education, and action, and all of our activities are community-grounded with an empirical approach.

Our work strengthens Canadian civil society through emphasizing respect for each other, respect for human rights, good global citizenship, and community development.

Today, my friends, I hope to de-sensationalize some of the ideas about those seeking Canadian citizenship and what it means to be a Canadian.

Before I do so, I'd like to share a bit of my family history, which has served as a backdrop for my work in the field for the last 30 years. I have a visceral understanding of the refugee and immigration experience simply because I was brought up in its shadow. I understand in the heart of my hearts the value and power of Canadian citizenship. Both my parents left their ancestral homes not because they wanted to, but as a result of anti-Semitism and persecution.

My late mother, Gertrude, was brought to Canada as a child, driven from her village of Zaslav in Ukraine by violent pogroms. Canada then was a welcoming home. Arriving at Pier 21 in Halifax must have been a daunting experience for a six-year old child fleeing violence, who spoke no English and knew nothing about Canada.

She took well to her new home. Ottawa in the late 1920s was a hodgepodge of diversity. Made up of recent refugees and immigrants, their familial Jewish home in Sandy Hill, not far from this very place, was not uncommon. The spoken language was Yiddish. My mother never really lost her accent, since she spoke Yiddish at home and only learned English when she went to public school. My mother and the rest of her family thrived in Ottawa, working at the small vegetable stall opened by my grandfather in the Byward Market.

My father, Max, and his family were not so fortunate. Just prior to World War II, a young man from a small Polish village saw what many others refused to see, the real possibility of a war in which Jews would be targeted by the Nazi regime. Wanting to live, he took matters into his own hands and through stealth and luck he managed to stow away on a boat headed to the United States.

Velvel Farber, my father's oldest brother, made it across the Atlantic. However, like many others before him, he was apprehended upon arrival and was returned to Poland. Velvel was murdered in the death camp of Treblinka. Indeed, my late father suffered the brutalities of the Holocaust. At its tragic conclusion he had to face the tragic fact that he was the sole Jewish survivor of a small Polish village. Murdered in Treblinka were his first wife, two young children, and seven brothers and sisters.

Once again, this time following a heartless closed-door immigration policy, made infamous by Harold Troper and Irving Abella in their book None is Too Many, Canada finally reopened its borders to the stateless people of Europe, amongst them thousands of Jewish survivors like my father.

Both of my parents' immigration experience and the work I am involved with today at the Mosaic Institute have informed my life. I have learned much that may be helpful to this committee.

First, people love being Canadian. Whether they arrived yesterday or have been here for generations, there is something about this country that simply inspires. Our work has proven that our diversity is one of the reasons people quickly ascribe to and adopt Canadian ways of life.

In 2014 the Mosaic Institute received a grant from Public Safety Canada's Kanishka fund to conduct a study titled “The Perception and Reality of 'Imported Conflict' in Canada”. This research was conducted as part of Public Safety Canada's efforts to shed light on terrorism and how best to address it in Canada.

We asked this question. To what extent, if any, do Canadians with connections to countries in conflict import that conflict to Canada? After surveying 5,000 Canadians across the country and speaking to more than 220 Canadians connected to countries in conflict, we determined that, for the most part, Canadians do not import their conflict here.

In fact, one-fifth of the people we surveyed told us that they were no longer as one-sided about their conflict, that being in Canada had helped them to be empathetic and recognize larger factors driving these conflicts.

One of the reasons given for this attitudinal shift is that people were able to connect with others who have experienced conflict. Essentially they realized that they were not alone. The shared element of being Canadian gives people a common ground and the foundation upon which to build their lives.

We have also found that when citizenship is achieved, it is treasured and harnessed. I say harnessed because it becomes a vehicle by which people's lives are improved, work is rewarded, people are safe, and access to education and other social services is available.

Comparatively, Canadians are fortunate and new Canadians are the first to recognize this; 94% of people we surveyed feel attached to Canada, with 78% considering themselves first and foremost Canadian. This is almost eight in 10 of those surveyed. More new Canadians supported this statement than second- and third-generation Canadians. This is resounding evidence that the majority of those seeking Canadian citizenship do become personally connected to this country and in doing so, decide to contribute richly to Canada.

Some will dismiss my statements because of recent tragic events in this country. To them, the fact that a person perpetrated such acts in a manner connected to other acts around the world must mean that the person came to Canada with the intention of harming this country. To those with this view I would respectfully disagree. However, our research indicates that while people do not import their conflicts, they do import their trauma. When this trauma is left unchecked, it can lead to social isolation and a dissociation from Canada, particularly when it is exacerbated by other barriers, such as discrimination and economic exclusion.

But when Canadians are able to fully participate in society not only do their lives improve, but they also help improve Canadian society as a whole.

April 19th, 2016 / 11 a.m.
See context

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Good morning.

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. I'd like to remind the witnesses that you have seven minutes for opening remarks. We will follow the order appearing on the notice.

Hence, Mr. Farber, you have the first seven minutes.

April 14th, 2016 / 1:30 p.m.
See context

Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)

Debbie Douglas

The 14- to 18-year-olds are enrolled in our school system. If they came in at that age as new immigrants without either of our official languages, they are often enrolled in English as a second language. But for us, the majority of these kids actually have been in the school system for a number of years and do have English.

The problem is about having to pay for a test to prove they have that language ability, which we find problematic. Also, there is no evidence for why that requirement was put in place through Bill C-24. If parents are applying for citizenship and including their 14- to 18-year-olds and they go in and write their tests, we hope that our school systems are teaching our kids enough civics that they would understand how our country operates. As for the fact that now parents have to take on this extra cost of proving language, we never did understand why that was necessary. That's why we support the changes that are happening in Bill C-6.

Also, as you've heard me talk about, on the other end of the age spectrum we do have permanent residents who come into Canada and who have had such traumatic experiences, especially our refugee seniors, that there is absolutely no way that they will ever acquire enough language skills or be comfortable in writing in either of our official languages, and especially when literacy is an issue. We've heard from Ms. Kwan, whose mother had a grade 6 education. That's not unusual with some of our older immigrants and refugees.

April 14th, 2016 / 1:30 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

My next question is for you, Ms. Douglas. I would like to focus on the changes to the age range for the demonstration of language proficiency as proposed in Bill C-6, which is under discussion, and discuss the work of your member organizations with immigrants and permanent residents on a path to achieving citizenship, which I am sure has included language support and services.

First, with regard to teenagers between the ages of 14 to 18, what has generally been their experience with gaining a knowledge of English or French?

April 14th, 2016 / 1:30 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Thank you, Chair, and I would like to thank our witnesses for their patience today.

My question is for Mr. Gardee. Your organization, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, includes as one of its objectives “protecting the human rights & civil liberties of Canadian Muslims (and by extension of all Canadians), promoting their public interests, building mutual understanding and challenging Islamophobia and other forms of xenophobia.”

In this context, could you discuss the impact that the two-tier citizenship aspect of Bill C-24, which Bill C-6 seeks to revoke, has had on the Muslim community in Canada and its perception by other Canadians?

April 14th, 2016 / 1:30 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

In your estimation, what evidence would be necessary in order to precipitate such a change as we see here in Bill C-6?

April 14th, 2016 / 1:25 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Great. Thank you.

Mr. Gardee as well, I'm just wondering if your organization has any affiliation or ties to the caregiver class of immigration and if you would like to comment on that particular program or any of the changes that have been made, which will be affected as well by some of the changes to Bill C-6.

April 14th, 2016 / 1:20 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My apologies to witnesses. This happens from time to time when we're checking out the routine motions, and whatnot, in a committee.

Mr. Gardee, I want to thank you for your time here today and for your comments.

Ms. Douglas, I want to thank you for the work you do with newcomers to Canada in ensuring they have a successful experience here and they overcome obstacles they may face in terms of social inclusion. Sometimes we get caught up in the heat of legislation, but at the end of the day, regardless of political strife, that is something we all seek to maintain. When we ask questions about how to do that best, sometimes that's with legislation and sometimes that's with programming. Certainly I appreciate it. At some later point in time, I'd like a meeting with you to discuss that.

I also want to thank Mr. Bissett for his time here today.

On that, Mr. Chair, I move:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee study the 2016 Immigration Levels Plan; that the study include an examination of planned reductions to the Caregiver Class; that the study investigate whether or not these reductions will result in increased backlogs; that this study be comprised of no less than two meetings to be held prior to May 1, 2016; that departmental officials be in attendance for at least one meeting, and that the Committee report its findings to the House.

I think this is a very important study to look at, given the changes to Bill C-6. We've heard over and over again of the backlogs that certain classes of applicants to Canada come into, especially the spousal sponsorship stream.

I think this study is important. The immigration levels report that was tabled significantly reduces the amount of caregiver class spots available in Canada. We've heard a lot of concern about this. I don't think there was a lot of consultation done, and I think this would be a study that is completely worthy of the committee's time. I also think it would be of interest to a lot of people, including those in the spousal sponsorship class.

April 14th, 2016 / 1:20 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Shaun Chen Liberal Scarborough North, ON

With respect to that statement, and in light of your other comments around Bill C-6, there was an article dated March 1, 2010, by Mr. James Bissett stating that the charter had in effect undermined Canadian sovereignty. This article also asserted that all prospective immigrants of Muslim faith should be interviewed to determine if they hold extremist views.

Could you indicate whether you are the same Mr. James Bissett? If you are, do you hold those same views that were written in this article?

April 14th, 2016 / 12:45 p.m.
See context

Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)

Debbie Douglas

With the elimination of the need for upfront testing, that will take care of the financial barriers, but we're also concerned that citizenship went from $200, to $400, to $630. Imagine large families having to pay that significant amount of money. This is not in Bill C-6, but this committee should be recommending a reduction in citizenship acquisition fees.

April 14th, 2016 / 12:45 p.m.
See context

Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)

Debbie Douglas

We've asked, and that was the conversation I wanted to have about issues of disability. There are folks who do have disabilities who may not be able to write, or even speak, or sign about the test. With the introduction of Bill C-24, we were active in advocating, together with some of our agencies who work with folks with disabilities, and then had processes put in place for those who are hard of hearing as an example. There are other folks with disabilities who may also need a waiver. It is certainly something that Bill C-6 is silent on and that we want this committee to take a look at in terms of the barriers that exist for folks with disabilities in being able to meet language requirements or being able to pass the citizenship test.

April 14th, 2016 / 12:45 p.m.
See context

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

To that end, Bill C-6 makes the change for the aged. The elderly, in Bill C-6 in that context, would be exempt from this process. In my experience, there are a lot of people who may not be in the elderly bracket. Would you suggest this change should also be applied to all the categories?

April 14th, 2016 / 12:40 p.m.
See context

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their thoughtfulness. There may well be some elements where I do not agree with some of the witnesses' presentations. That being said, I do appreciate the effort and the time they have taken.

I would like to direct my question to Ms. Douglas. I was particularly intrigued by the experiences that I know your organization brings and the number of people you are in contact with, your on-the-ground knowledge of reality. You mentioned that the issue and concern around the upfront proof of language in obtaining citizenship should be eliminated. I understand that. I can tell you that my mother, for example, has been a citizen for close to 50 years now, but if that test were to apply to her today, she would likely fail. In fact, she would fail it in her first language as well, because she has only a grade 6 level of education from China.

That being said, I wonder if you can elaborate on the point about the importance of the issues around barriers to citizenship in language and in finances. Why should it be changed, and what should be done in Bill C-6?

April 14th, 2016 / 12:40 p.m.
See context

Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)

Debbie Douglas

For a very long time, we had the age of requirement for writing the Canadian citizenship test between 18 and 54. The changes to lower the age to 14 and to increase it at the upper end to 64 were an arbitrary decision that was made. We flagged at the time that there were a significant number of folks—particularly refugees, and particularly refugee women—who would not be able, regardless of how many English or French classes they took, to acquire the language for them to be able to pass a citizenship test. What I am suggesting is that Bill C-6 is actually going back to what has been proven in the past.

April 14th, 2016 / 12:40 p.m.
See context

Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)

Debbie Douglas

We have a robust language training system here in Canada. Resources are always a problem because of scope and scale, more so than content and quality. It is interesting that you are asking the question, because that was exactly what our concern was when the changes were made to Bill C-24—that it was not based on any evidence, given the many years when we had the language requirement and the writing of the test for those between 18 and 54. The fact that Bill C-6 goes back to a proven system is why we support the changes that were made.