Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 28th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Daniel.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for being here. As always, it's a pleasure to have you here.

My question is about some of the revocation issues. In particular, we've noted that the Liberals and the NDP, not surprisingly, like to defend serious criminality and pretend that those convicted of six months in jail or more are not serious criminals. The leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Trudeau, has said he would repeal—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Stop the clock, please.

I guess you didn't hear me before.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Chair, what do you expect me to call them?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're here to study the bill, not take shots at each other—

[An hon. member]

It's not a shot.

[An hon. member]

We're just making a statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

If you start aggravating these people, they're going to start going at you. I'd rather you didn't attack, and didn't take political shots at the opposition.

Ask your question.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you. I will do that, Chair.

Minister, can you tell me what the impact is on the victims and the law-abiding Canadians if we do not remove citizenship from those serious foreign criminals before they commit more crimes and victimize more innocent Canadians?

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

The simple answer is there is an inconsistency in our laws at the moment.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, someone convicted of a crime or someone who committed an act that would have been a crime in Canada is inadmissible to Canada as a visitor. At the moment, our Citizenship Act does not make that person ineligible for citizenship for having committed the same crime. That's an inconsistency, and we're cleaning that up. It stands to reason that those who have met all the requirements of citizenship, who have the skills, the language, the competencies, the education to come here should meet the basic criteria of not having a criminal record as determined by a jurisdiction that we respect in a fellow democracy with the rule of law. That, I think, is common sense to Canadians. In the case that you mentioned, of a war crime, we have a particular responsibility both for visitors and for those applying for citizenship to screen people for just that.

As we start to have permanent residents and citizens coming from all parts of the world, often regions or countries that have had terrible conflict where atrocities or war crimes were committed, we have a responsibility to the Canadian people under our laws to make sure that the perpetrators of those crimes do not become our immigrants or our citizens.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you.

How fair is it to revoke citizenship for a foreign offence? What will the assessment or the equivalence between the foreign and domestic offence include? Will this include equivalence of a judicial process?

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

As I mentioned earlier, a conviction in a country that is totalitarian or doesn't have the rule of law, is not a democracy, a conviction that was political in nature, would not be grounds for refusing citizenship in Canada. We would have the ability to make that determination.

A conviction for terrorism, a sentenced of at least five years' imprisonment for terrorism, will not only prohibit someone from becoming a Canadian citizen, but in the case of a dual national could lead to revocation. For these serious crimes, we think there is a need to send a very clear message that citizenship is a responsibility that we all have, and in the case of dual nationals they can lose the privilege of being a citizen if they engage in these signal acts of disloyalty.

For all of these offences, there is some level of judicial review or proof that is required either in the Federal Court or in a foreign jurisdiction where an equivalence with our system is recognized.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Okay.

Along that same line, how fair is it to revoke citizenship without a hearing? What criteria will the minister use for determining whether to hold a hearing?

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

The decision is certainly not taken lightly. In a case of criminality, if a person made a written declaration that they had no criminality to declare when in fact they had been charged or convicted prior to taking the oath of citizenship and that comes to our attention, that should be grounds for revocation. In the case of identity fraud, if a person impersonates a deceased family member and that is found out beyond a shadow of a doubt as part of the review of the application, that's grounds for revocation. In the case of residency fraud, if someone declares that they've met the residency requirements for citizenship when in fact conclusive evidence shows that they have not lived in Canada during the relevant period, that should lead to revocation. If I'm not mistaken, all of these decisions can be appealed to courts of law, but these are objective criteria that must be met. When they're not met, revocation follows.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Daniel.

Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to what you said about the intent to reside in Canada.

Someone who states that they intend to reside in Canada, becomes a citizen and leaves Canada to live abroad could not be accused of having made a false statement to acquire their citizenship. Their citizenship cannot be revoked because they left Canada shortly after acquiring it. Did I understand correctly?

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

Absolutely. Under the new bill, the declaration of intent to reside in Canada applies to the period of four years out of six when the individual must live here to be eligible for Canadian citizenship.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

So that does not apply after they become citizens.

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

That's correct.

Of course, we will continue to promote residing in Canada, as that is the objective of our immigration system and our citizenship program. However, we recognize the global nature of our economy and we know that a Canadian company could offer a new citizen a job in Berlin, Hong Kong or Kinshasa.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

That's not what I had understood, and it would appear that a number of lawyers, and perhaps even the Canadian Bar Association, do not have that understanding of the bill as it is currently worded. We will probably have an opportunity to hear from lawyers, and we will see whether the bill should be improved to better reflect your intent.

I would now like to talk about the fact that the time people spend in Canada as non-permanent residents will no longer be taken into consideration. If Bill C-24 is passed, students will no longer be able to use the time they spent in Canada while they were non-permanent residents. Even if they have worked and paid taxes for a number of years, they could no longer use the time they spent in Canada to become permanent residents.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're running out of time. Go ahead and finish.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Will this change apply only to students who arrive in the country after the bill has been passed, or will it apply to current students, thus delaying their application for citizenship? Can you explain this decision?

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

The new measures will not come into effect until the bill has been passed.

I must point out that students now have much more opportunities to immigrate to Canada than they had in the past thanks to the Canadian Experience Class and the Provincial Nominee Program, which are aimed at students and temporary skilled workers.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

You have been here an hour, and a lot of issues have been raised. We thank you for coming, sir. You are excused.