Evidence of meeting #22 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-24.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and on your instructions I'll be very polite to Conservatives. I won't mention them.
I'm a bit confused over this intent to reside provision. As you know, there have been quite a lot of concerns expressed by lawyers about the constitutionality of it, and the idea that a person could have his citizenship revoked if, having expressed an intent to reside in Canada, he then lived elsewhere. Now the minister has just told us it doesn't apply at all after you become a citizen that your intent may change, and before you're a citizen, when you're a permanent resident, it doesn't really matter what your intent is, you're legally required to be here four out of six years.
What purpose does it serve to have it at all since it doesn't apply after you're a citizen and it is not needed before, other than perhaps to frighten people into the mistaken belief they could have their citizenship revoked?
4:50 p.m.
Catrina Tapley Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Chair, our intent certainly wasn't to frighten people. We looked at this as something that would reinforce the expectation that citizenship is for those who intend to make Canada their permanent home, and it was seen as another tool to reinforce that message.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
But does it have any effect? It doesn't apply post-citizenship.
4:50 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
That's correct.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
The rules are in place pre-citizenship, so would anything be different if that provision were not there?
4:50 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
If you declare that you have no intent to live in Canada post-citizenship or after your ceremony, then we could refuse the citizenship in that case. It's an attestation on the part of the individual.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I think that would be exceptionally rare. This is a hypothetical situation so I'm treading on thin ice here, but if it were absolutely crystal clear that someone had no intent to reside in Canada before they were made a citizen, and it was made clear to the government and clear to the ministry, then it could be something we would pursue, but I would say that would be a very exceptional case.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
But the minister said you could always change your intent after becoming a citizen.
4:50 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
That's correct.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
If that's the case, your pre-citizenship intent wouldn't matter, would it?
4:50 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
This is an attestation on your part that you intend to stay in Canada. What happens after you become a citizen and those opportunities are a completely different thing. That provision is not meant to apply to that. If you had no intent to reside in Canada post-citizenship, you did not intend to make Canada your home, and you were untruthful in your attestation, then that's something different.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I'm as confused as I was at the beginning. Are you saying effectively, in theory at least, that a person's citizenship could be revoked post-citizenship if that person did not have the intent pre-citizenship of residing here?
4:50 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, if that were very clear, and it were clear that the person had misrepresented themselves, then yes.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I think there's a difference between what you said and what the minister said, but I'll leave it at that.
On this question of expenditures of money to reduce citizen waiting time, in budget 2013 the government committed certain funds, but according to the estimates there weren't any funds for the year 2013-14.
Does that mean you're in the gearing-up phase and the money was all spent in the subsequent year? How do you explain the commitment in the 2013 budget and the lack of money in the estimates for the current year, 2013-14?
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
For the year 2013-14, Mr. Chair, the department was able to cover a lot of the ramping up in the citizenship program through lapses in other areas of the department. This year, in 2014-15, I believe $28 million will be spent to improve processing time in the citizenship program. As you recall, $44 million was assigned to the department for citizenship through the economic action plan.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
We did have expenditures.
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
That's correct, which we covered through lapses.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Daniel Conservative Don Valley East, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, folks, again.
I want to explore the role of the citizenship judges in the process, and how they're used to improve it.
Can you confirm the role the citizenship judges will have in the faster processing model in Bill C-24?
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Under the new processing model, we're going from a three-step to a one-step decision-making process, where in the vast majority of cases, the minister or a delegated citizenship officer would decide on the vast majority of citizenship grant applications. However, there would be a minority of cases where citizenship judges would continue to decide. Those cases would be the ones where the delegated citizenship officer is not satisfied that the applicant is meeting the residence requirements. Those cases would continue to be referred to citizenship judges for a transitional period of five years, which could be renewed by the minister at the end of five years, if deemed necessary. The citizenship judges would also continue to maintain the very important role of conducting citizenship ceremonies, which of course they do now, and which is the final step that applicants complete before becoming Canadian citizens.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Daniel Conservative Don Valley East, ON
Okay.
Maybe you could expand a little on the role the citizenship judges would play, apart from dealing with the residency cases.
