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.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The minister mentioned a two-tier citizenship, and a citizen is a citizen is a citizen.

Now the issue of lost Canadians I think has been brought to the minister's attention, and there are great concerns around this issue. Essentially the current legislation denies Canadians born abroad from the ability to pass on citizenship to their children, even in the event that there is significant contribution to Canada and to Canadians.

I wonder whether the minister would be willing to entertain amendments to this effect, if not to Bill C-6, then in a separate amendment. My former colleague, Olivia Chow, had tabled a private member's bill in this regard. Would the government be interested in entertaining such a move?

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

You only have to have three years for citizenship, so that would be two out of three. Again, these things are all debatable, but we thought that where we went was sufficient.

You mentioned international students, and I might add that we've moved to reinstate the 50% credit for citizenship, but more important is access to permanent residence. Here's an example of something that's not in my mandate and not in my platform, but I still wanted to do it, which is to increase the points under express entry for international students to give them greater access to permanent residence.

My aim is to help international students, not just through reinstatement of the 50% credit for citizenship but also by improving their access to permanent residence through the express entry system. I don't think there's any more positive group of people for what good Canadians they will become than international students. They're educated. They know French or English, and they know something about the country. This is a double-courting of them, if you will; one way is through Bill C-6 to reinstate the 50% credit, and also through something that hasn't happened yet but hopefully will soon to make it easier for them to become permanent residents.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Also, I want to thank you for the energy you've brought to the task and for the important and timely changes you are making to the Citizenship Act. This was a very lively issue in my riding of Willowdale, so it's very nice to see that some of the excesses of Bill C-24 have been addressed in Bill C-6.

Now if I could, I will focus my question on the credit that is being provided to those who are temporary residents in this country and who intend to apply for citizenship. I find that to be a very useful change, and I have every confidence that it will have a discernible impact on attracting some of the best and brightest from around the world to apply for Canadian citizenship. One could think of international students, or of course, people who are experienced workers.

I had an opportunity to look at the changes being contemplated and to compare them to provisions that are also available in the American and Australian citizenship system. My colleague had a chance to ask you whether there was some consideration of providing more than 50% credit for that period.

My question is whether there was any consideration of having a cap that would not be for 365 days, but actually for a two-year period. Is that something that was contemplated?

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

And through Bill C-6, Zakaria Amara stands to regain his Canadian citizenship. Is that also correct?

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

We obviously would like to get Bill C-6 through as quickly as possible, subject to the will of Parliament. The first step involves your committee and you will have witnesses. I don't know exactly when you will get it back to the House of Commons, but I'm hoping that won't take too long. Then it goes to the Senate and the Senate is a little bit more difficult to predict, given that we don't have a majority in the Senate but we do in the House. We will then have to speak to senators and hope that they will pass the bill, and that's the next stage. Then after that, it will receive royal assent and different aspects of the bill will be implemented at different speeds.

I think in terms of the issue of time spent in the country, there will be some delay in implementing the bill in order to prevent the buildup in backlogs resulting from this change.

Is that correct? Yes.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I think it was under Bill...maybe I have the wrong one. I'll just go on to my second question, then.

My second question is that there is a constituent who came.... Again this will be out of the scope here I think.

My third question.... Here, I'll ask this one. I got an email from an engineer in my riding who became a permanent resident in 2013, and then went back to the U.K. for a few months to finish his university degree, and moved to Canada permanently in 2014. He is so eager to apply for citizenship as soon as possible after Bill C-6 becomes law. As mentioned earlier, my office has received a number of emails.

Minister, can you have an estimate of the length of time that it might take to bring Bill C-6, to introduce the implementation once it's enacted?

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here.

Minister, you appeared in the committee on February 23, and I congratulated you for restoring the interim federal health program for refugees. I just want to thank you once again for restoring that.

Then I asked you when you would reintroduce the legislation to repeal Bill C-24, and you responded, “In the coming days, and not very many”. Then two days later, you introduced Bill C-6, so again I want to congratulate you for that.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I represent a riding that has a very heavy Filipino and Gujarati population. I know several of the Filipino and Gujarati families who have brought their parents to Canada to help them look after their children. These grandparents are providing valuable child care by looking after their grandkids, allowing both parents to work and contribute to Canada's economy.

Could you please explain how the changes in the language proficiency requirements and the age range in Bill C-6 will impact these families?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I've heard from a number of permanent residents in my riding, as I meet them every day in my constituency office, who are ready to apply for Canadian citizenship but have had to wait longer because of the previous government's lengthened waiting period. These are people who have worked hard, pay their taxes, and are making a valuable contribution to the economy of our society. Now they want to join our Canadian family.

Could you please discuss how Bill C-6 will help these people join our Canadian family sooner?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us today as we examine this important legislation, Bill C-6.

This is a very important issue for me and for my constituents in the riding of Scarborough Centre. After the Conservatives passed Bill C-24, effectively creating two tiers of Canadian citizenship, as a mother I had to explain to my two sons why they were second-class citizens in the country they have grown up in. They love their country.

This was wrong, and it went against the fundamental values of the country that has shaped them into the fine young men they have become. As a mother, a parliamentarian, and a Canadian, I am proud to see the integrity of Canadian citizenship restored. Could you please explain why it is so important to defend the integrity of Canadian citizenship, which is a beacon for people around the world?

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

As I said in my speech in the House on Bill C-6, a general point is that we are always open to amendments if those amendments improve the bill. We're not sitting here saying that it's perfect and that we will not contemplate any amendments.

More specifically, what I said, that point having being drawn to my attention, was that I would also be open to considering amendments that provided a greater right to appeal for those whose citizenship is revoked on grounds of false information provided. I won't go further than that, because I think this committee will hear from the CBA and from other witnesses who might themselves have ideas on how to proceed in this area, but certainly I've said that I'm open to amendment in that area.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I would urge the minister to look into this issue. Hopefully, action will be forthcoming.

Let me move onto another issue. Bill C-24 eliminates the right to a judicial hearing for anyone who could have their citizenship revoked. Those involved with the civil liberties movement are calling on the government to make changes in this regard. Bill C-6 leaves this provision untouched.

Would the minister agree with the Canadian Bar Association that someone who is about to lose their citizenship should always have the right to a hearing before an independent and impartial decision-maker?

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

No, that is not what I am saying. I think that anything that is in my mandate letter is something we are committed to do, but we may well do things beyond that. There's no reason why we cannot.

I'm saying that fees are something we could consider in the future. It's not a part of the mandate letter, and that does not preclude us from considering changes in the future, but that's not a part of this new Bill C-6.

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

I understand, as you've just pointed out, that for certain households the fee issue can be important. However, I would say that in the way we have presented Bill C-6 we have responded to every item that we committed to do in our platform and in my mandate letter, and neither the platform nor the mandate letter referred to fees. This is something that over time we will examine, but we have not made any commitment to change those fees and there was no fee change in the bill.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I would advocate for a change. Even though it's not part of Bill C-24, it's still part of the set of legislation that we're dealing with in respect of Bill C-6.

With that, I want to move on to another area, which is the fees issue. Under changes to regulations that were made by the previous government, fees were increased to such a degree that a family of four could expect to spend nearly $1,500 on citizenship processing fees. On top of that, there's a $100 right of citizenship fee as well. For many families, this is equivalent to greater than a month's rent. It's significant.

I wonder whether or not the government has any plans to examine the high fee structure. Is there any action that the minister might be undertaking to correct that?