Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 28th, 2014

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

They wouldn't apply.

With respect to the language requirement in Bill C-24, how do we compare to other English-speaking jurisdictions, for example the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and the United States? Are we comparable or are we even more stringent?

[Nicole Girard]

That's quite right. In fact the measures proposed in Bill C-24 would make us more comparable with those like-minded countries. For example, the U.S. requires those requirements to be met for up to age 65. For the U.K., it's up to age 64.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

What is it for Australia?

[Nicole Girard]

For Australia it is 59.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

I asked this question previously and I need to get a feel for the technical aspect of it, regarding examples of the language skills necessary to pass the citizenship test.

For example, if a person comes in as a skilled worker, for example, he's a psychiatrist, obviously that level would require a much higher threshold versus someone who comes in as a general labourer. Do we have a uniform level for the citizenship test, and then allow those special professions to be tested otherwise, or is that handled at the citizenship level?

[Nicole Girard]

Thank you for your question.

You're quite right. The level for citizenship is uniform. It's CLB 4, which is basic language proficiency in English or French. However, as you mentioned, many skilled workers come in with a significantly higher level. I referred earlier to that list of acceptable evidence that applicants can provide for citizenship purposes, and that includes a test that a skilled worker may have already completed as part of their process of immigration to Canada. They could reuse those results for the purposes of applying for citizenship because their level was already significantly higher coming in.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I would like to talk about people with temporary residency status. Under Bill C-24 periods of temporary residence will no longer be applied toward the meeting of the physical presence requirement for naturalization to become Canadians.

There are higher numbers and growing numbers of international students who come to Canada and are taxpaying members of our society while they're students because they're able to find work and then they, the lucky ones anyway, will find work on a temporary basis as they apply for permanent residence. We're seeing a growing trend toward a two-step migration process, especially with international students where they first come as students temporarily and then transition into permanent residents.

What is the rationale for this change, where it's inviting students from all around the world to come here and then saying the time they spent doesn't count?

[Catrina Tapley]

Mr. Chair, I think as the minister explained earlier, the intent behind this is to look at that time as permanent resident as your time toward citizenship. The time that you have decided to become a permanent resident of Canada, you have embarked on a journey that we hope will lead to citizenship. It's that time that you've made that decision to stay in Canada as a permanent resident that should count toward that time as citizenship.

As the member indicated, the numbers of international students have been growing, but quite a small percentage of those students stay in Canada. I think the number of people who had applied some of their time as a temporary resident to their citizenship application is quite low. I think Mr. Orr indicated this earlier. It's less than 15%. I think it's about 13%.

The other point I would make is on comparators with other countries. For example, the U.S. doesn't include any of your time as a temporary resident toward your citizenship. That would have to be permanent resident time as well. That's consistent with some of our comparator countries.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

Switching gears again, I may have misunderstood the concept, and if so, I'd like the analysts or somebody to correct me. Under Bill C-24, I think individuals who have been accused of or charged with committing certain crimes in their country, with or without a trial, and who have maybe been jailed for whatever reason, can now—I don't remember which one it is and somebody can correct me—either be denied citizenship or have their Canadian citizenship revoked. It doesn't matter which one of those two it is; my question is about the fact that these individuals are being judged in Canada for what they may or may not have done in another country. They may or may not have had a fair trial or due process, because I know many countries where individuals don't have due process.

My understanding is that one of our honorary Canadian citizens, Nelson Mandela, would not be able to become a Canadian citizen after Bill C-24 passes, because he was charged with, I think, terrorism or treason in his country and was jailed for that. Does that mean he wouldn't be able to be a Canadian citizen? I want to know the rationale behind why we're...and who? Is it a Citizenship and Immigration Canada official, a bureaucrat, who would be given the task of being the judge, of assessing whether said country has due process and fair trials, and of making that decision? Is it going to be one CIC official who makes that decision on another country's judicial processes?

[Nicole Girard]

I'll start with your last question first.

In line with these other like-minded countries that already have these powers, it would be the minister who would decide, or a delegate if the minister decides—

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

So, more discussions with the minister. Thank you.

[Nicole Girard]

—to delegate that decision on revocation.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Right.

[Nicole Girard]

The minister did make the point earlier that for any overseas terrorism conviction where a five-year sentence or more has been imposed and the person is a dual citizen, which may give rise to revocation consideration, the department will have to do a two-step equivalent process. First of all, there would be a check to see whether the foreign offence is equivalent to a Canadian Criminal Code offence. If it's not, then we wouldn't be proceeding. If it is equivalent, then the second part of the assessment would be done based on the credible evidence available, which would look at if there are any concerns about the fairness of the process by which the conviction was achieved. If there are concerns about the independence of the judiciary or about a political prosecution, that evidence would be before the decision-maker, and he or she could make the reasonable decision not to proceed.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Is the decision-maker the minister?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, I'm sorry. We'll have to move on.

Mr. Menegakis, go ahead.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I want to go back to the change in the decision-making process the minister spoke about, going from the three-step process to a one-step process with respect to granting Canadian citizenship.

Could you give us a percentage of the number of people who would be expedited by having the decision made by a senior public servant as opposed to its having to go through the citizenship judge process?

[Nicole Girard]

Thank you for question.

We anticipate that if this bill passes, we would like to be in a position, and we are working to be in a position, to implement the streamlined decision-making provisions of the bill at the earliest opportunity in order to benefit those significant number of cases in the backlog that the minister mentioned. Under the measures proposed in the bill, it's anticipated that the vast majority of those would benefit from this new, more streamlined decision-making process.

Rather than going to a judge for a decision, they would go to the increased number of officers who are being hired with some of the new monies the department has received and who are being trained to complete this function.

I would invite my colleague, Mr. Orr, to add to that if I've missed anything.

[Robert Orr]

To add to that, I think the impact is going to be very significant in bringing down processing to under a year, estimated by 2015–16, with the new decision-maker model. With the new money, if we kept the current system, we would be down to only 14 months by 2017–18. I think that's on the chart that was distributed. It gives you some indication of the very significant efficiencies that would be accrued through Bill C-24.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I understand that with respect to the existing backlog, but going forward what percentage of applicants do you think could be decided on by the public servant and not be referred to the citizenship judge? The citizenship judge would only be dealing with cases where there was a question regarding residency, and therefore I would imagine a significant percentage of people would be processed through the system by the public servants and would not be referred there.

Do you have a sense of how high that number could be, roughly?

[Nicole Girard]

We would anticipate that the vast majority of applicants would be dealt with by a citizenship officer under this model that's proposed. It may be in the order of a couple of thousand cases that the citizenship judge may need to look at on an annual basis because the officer, on the face of the evidence that is there, may not be satisfied that the residence requirement is met. It's in that range.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

Do you have any concerns about the independence of public servants as decision-makers? Will there be a training process for some people?

[Nicole Girard]

Citizenship officers are independent decision-makers now. They decide in the range of about 100,000 citizenship applications that deal with certain matters, including proofs of citizenship, adoption cases, and grants of citizenship to minors. They already make those decisions guided by criteria under the law, as they would be under the measures proposed in the bill. Certainly they would have additional training to take on these new functions that are proposed in Bill C-24.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I certainly can understand your previous comment that it would be nice to implement it as soon as possible, because obviously it will be making life a lot easier for pretty much every MP in the House who deals with citizenship, particularly citizenship and immigration issues.

How does this new practice of going from a three-step to a one-step process compare with other countries, particularly such peer countries as the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand?