Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 28th, 2014

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

—and we're proud of the fact that we had 75,000 new citizens accepted in the first three months of this year, thanks to the resources we gave to this process last year.

So we won't apologize for the fact that more people want to come to Canada than ever before because there are more jobs in Canada than in many other places.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Leung.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Minister and staff, for appearing.

I wish to share a little bit of my experience of attaining citizenship in Canada.

I came here as an international student in 1968. You're quite correct in that at the time, I wasn't quite sure whether I was going to stay in Canada or obtain my education and do my graduate studies in the United States. The point that the new act is looking at where you have to declare your intention to stay I think is quite correct in that very often many foreign students who come here do not know whether they're going to do their undergrad here and graduate studies in the United States. Anyway, I did acquire my citizenship before the change in 1977, so there was a total of five years of residence required.

Having been here as a Canadian citizen since 1976 to the present, I have seen many cases of people who come here who don't show that intention to stay, who don't show that they're here to help us build this country, and who have moved on.

What I wish to address more specifically is the language requirement. I understand from when we did previous studies that people who have a command of one of the official languages do very well in terms of job acquisition or in being a fully participating member of society. Often I hear from the opposition that we're making the language test harder, that we're barring more people from attaining citizenship, and that we're also making it harder for youth and seniors to become citizens.

Minister, perhaps you could share with us some of the facts, some of the reasons, and some of the logic behind why it is necessary for attaining citizenship to have that language skill in order to survive in this country. You yourself, as I understand, have been a diplomat in various countries, and you know that language itself is a very important tool for business, for government, and to be able to live comfortably in another society.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Yes, many of us who are born here are still working on our English and French, and that is a process that never ends.

But let's be clear, language requirements have been part of citizenship and were first introduced in the Citizenship Act in 1947. This is nothing new.

All the studies that we have from within government, from outside government, and from other countries show that tests that test people's knowledge of the country of which they're becoming a citizen, and official languages knowledge, help with successful integration. There are better outcomes for those who have this kind of knowledge. We're quite confident that the measures we're taking are moving us in the right direction.

Moreover, new Canadians, permanent residents who are becoming citizens, are responding to this challenge. Over the whole period from November 2010 to September 2013, almost three years, the pass rate for the citizenship test was 80.8%. In January 2014, this year, it was 87%. In February 2014 it was 92%. As these measures have been introduced, as people have become used to the predictable assumption that they will have to take these tests, they are making the necessary preparations and they are having success. That serves Canada well, and it serves new Canadians very well.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

In the new form of English testing, do we go to an independent third body to get uniform testing results, or is this handled internally by the department?

[Nicole Girard, Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you for your question.

There's information on the department's website. You're quite correct in that a citizenship applicant can go to one of the third party test bodies that meet our criteria for tests to be equivalent with the Canadian language benchmark, CLB, level 4, which is a basic official language capacity. There is a range of other forms of evidence that the department accepts, such as academic evidence, evidence that the person has been through language Instruction for newcomers, settlement training that the government funds, which is free and the person has obtained a certificate indicating that the CLB level 4 has been obtained.

Applicants do have a number of types of evidence that they can either pay for or get for free at their disposal.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Can you share with us whether level 4 is out of a scale of 10 or a scale of 12? Regardless of what age a person is, I think in a society like ours, which requires a reasonable level of language competence in filling out income tax forms, giving directions in case of emergency, or even going to hospital, we need to have that language skill. Could you share with us where level 4 is on the total scale?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

It is on a total scale of 12. It is a low to middle level of mastery of our official languages. One would be expected to be able to formulate simple sentences, fill in a form, perform the basic tasks of life. Obviously most new Canadians go well beyond that level very quickly. We're also very conscious of the fact that with regard to certification by third parties this can be open to abuse as well.

A British colleague told me just yesterday about a very large case in their country of a third party language validating authority that somehow was giving out this certification to people who hadn't achieved the level. Even this criterion for citizenship requires constant review and supervision to make sure it's being applied uniformly and met by all the new Canadians who want to become citizens. The vast majority obviously achieve it, and achieve it honestly. We want that to become the firm and expected practice.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Ms. May, you may speak very briefly.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the chance to ask a very brief question.

I want to thank the minister for doing some work on the lost Canadians issue. It has taken a while to get that sorted out.

I'm baffled by the attention being given to the idea of fast-tracking citizenship for people serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. On the website for the Canadian Armed Forces, it says that to apply to the forces you must be a Canadian citizen. I understand there's a rare exception. The Chief of the Defence Staff can appoint someone who is not a Canadian citizen if it's necessary, “if he is satisfied that a special need exists”.

How many people would possibly be in the Canadian Armed Forces who aren't Canadian citizens? Why are we essentially making such a thing of this particular fast-tracking of citizenship?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

We currently have 15 permanent residents serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, and 140 other nationalities serving on exchange with Canada. Of those exchange officers or soldiers, about 30 would have at least three years' service with the Canadian Armed Forces. Those would be the people who qualify. It's a very small group.

Traditionally, as you say, we've had recourse to it when a permanent resident has a competency, a form of expertise that other Canadians don't have in the Canadian Armed Forces. It recognizes the fact that all those who have the right to work here in principle have the right to work in the private sector or the public sector.

It's not a widespread practice in the Canadian Forces, but it's certainly not prohibited by law.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Sandhu.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

Minister, you talked about these reforms taking place after decades of neglect by previous governments. I just want to make it clear for this committee that it's your government that's been in place for the last eight years, so obviously, these neglects and abuses, if there are any, are taking place under your government.

There seems to be quite a trend of a lot of abuses going on under your government, whether it's temporary foreign workers, the Senate expense scandal, or the inability of this government to go after the tax cheats.

If you're so concerned about some of the abuses that are going on—you brought this bill to the House in February—why not bring it up for second reading?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

We have had debate on second reading. We would be delighted at the end of the next time in the House devoted to second reading to vote all together to bring it to committee for study. That would be a great breakthrough on behalf of the many Canadians waiting for a speedier processing of their citizenship applications. We will take your suggestion on board and look forward to the NDP's support at second reading for an early move to committee.

The point we made about decades of neglect doesn't refer to our government. We're grateful if you predict that we will be here for a decade or more. We certainly look forward to renewing our mandate with Canadians and earning the confidence of Canadians at the next election, but we've only been in office for eight years. The neglect and the failure to address fraud with regard to the residency requirement, the issue of lost Canadians, the issue of revoking citizenship for those who engage in extreme acts of betrayal of their Canadian citizenship really belong to the Liberal Party, which brought us the last version of this bill in 1977.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Bill C-24 proposes to change the Citizenship Act to extend the requirement of successfully completion of official language and knowledge requirements to those in the age group of 14 to 18 years. These requirements compromise the rights of the child under the age of 18 by violating the child's right to family reunification under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

What is the rationale behind this change, Mr. Minister?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

We have the utmost respect for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the optional protocols to which we are a party. We will uphold our international obligations in every way.

At the same time we, as you do, recognize that 14-year-olds are generally in high school. They generally take many more tests, and harder tests in fact, than the citizenship one that is being proposed for them right now, starting at the age of 14. We think that's fair.

The test results for younger people show that they are almost certain to do as well or better than adults, and it seems reasonable to us that children of high school age and pre-retirement adults of working age should be subject to the language and knowledge tests.

To give you an example, more than 57,000 students participated in the Historica Canada Citizenship Challenge in 2014 and wrote a citizenship test based on “Discover Canada”. Of those in grade 9, 70% passed the test. This means that they achieved a score of 75% or better, which is the same pass grade as that for the official citizenship exam, and they weren't getting citizenship. With that added inducement, we would count on people of that age doing even better.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Another area of concern to me is in regard to foreign convictions. Citizenship can be denied if those charges were laid outside of Canada. You talked about this in the House in regard to having some sort of judicial review.

Can you please describe the criteria and the process whereby such a review of foreign convictions would be done by CIC?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

This is the type of review that we are very accustomed to doing with our delegated decision-making model. Highly trained, independent public servants make these determinations on the basis of solid information provided to them with regard to visitors to Canada.

Those convicted of criminal acts outside of Canada in democracies with the rule of law are inadmissible to Canada. The same should be true for citizenship.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Shory.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Minister, thank you to you and your department for appearing here today.

I am not surprised by the line of questioning from the NDP, because that is the party that supports the left-wing groups where no one is illegal, but let me talk about something else today.

I want to talk about the provisions in Bill C-24 that strengthen and protect Canadian values.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Stop the clock for a minute.

Mr. Shory, I have to keep order here. There is a lot of antagonism going on here, picking on the Liberals and picking on the NDP. They're going to pick on you next, so I would just ask that everybody refrain from picking on each other.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me go back to talking about the provisions in Bill C-24 that strengthen and protect Canada's values. I had a private member's bill, as everyone knows, that dealt with protecting Canadian interests and promoting integration. These two provisions would fast-track citizenship to those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and would strip citizenship from those convicted of terrorism and treason. I know, Mr. Minister, that these provisions enjoy broad support across a broad spectrum of Canadians and I am very thankful to you for adopting the contents of my bill in Bill C-24.

Would you please share with the committee the reasons behind protecting and promoting the values of Canadian citizenship through these two provisions?

I have a second question. You have been criss-crossing Canada to discuss Bill C-24 with stakeholders and constituents. Could you also tell us what you are hearing from local constituents, stakeholders, and the Canadian public on Bill C-24?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Shory.

First, on the second part of your question, we're hearing uniformly across the board from Canadians, those born here and those who immigrated and in many cases are new citizens, that the residency requirement and all the other measures to back up the integrity of Canadian citizenship, to make sure that the rules are followed for obtaining Canadian citizenship, are the right moves for today. Almost everyone we speak to emphasizes that we shouldn't just have these rules, that they should be enforced uniformly, and any failure to enforce them undermines the value of Canadian citizenship.

Second, on your mention of permanent residents serving in the Canadian Forces, lost Canadians, we rightly celebrate those who choose to serve our country so soon after choosing to live here. That's what this is about: honouring those who serve, honouring those who serve the crown abroad, not penalizing them for being in the Philippines or South Africa as defence attachés or RCMP liaison officers or foreign service officers when they have children there, and also resolving the issue of lost Canadians, which should have been dealt with much earlier.

To conclude an earlier part of our conversation, the special grants of citizenship have to meet two very firm criteria. One is for unusual hardship. That has been the case of lost Canadians. That's what we used to resolve their cases. If there are new cases that anyone around this table wants to bring to our attention, please do so. That's what this special award of citizenship is for service to Canada. Believe me, the standard for determining what service to Canada is must be a very high one. We need to be able to defend it as a government, defend it in public. The people who receive citizenship are proud of it. They will talk about it. They have the right to privacy, obviously, but these criteria are high standards.

This tool of special awards of citizenship is not unusual. It exists in every similar jurisdiction around the world, governed by slightly different criteria in each case, but it's essential to meet the kinds of challenges that we have found through the history of the development of our citizenship.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

You may want to comment on what you are hearing from local constituents, stakeholders, and the Canadian public on Bill C-24 during your Canadian tour.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

They like the residency requirement. They also like the measures that you proposed initially, which have been taken up in this bill. There are those we want to honour and historical injustice we want to correct by awarding citizenship to lost Canadians, to those who serve in the Canadian Forces, but there are also those who betray the trust that citizenship represents. Most of us receive our citizenship at the moment of our birth by being born in Canada. Many others receive it by earning it through residency, by following the law. Now there will be a few, only dual nationals, who, if they go to the absurd length of spying against this country, committing treason against this country, fighting the Canadian Forces with an enemy formation, will face the revocation of their citizenship for those reasons. These are measures that other democracies have, often in an even more robust measure. It is right that we should be able to expect that basic level of loyalty to Canada from dual nationals.