Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 28th, 2014

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

We can do so in exceptional cases where it is in Canada's interest that Canadian citizenship be granted—for example, for the so-called lost Canadians. We already have to publish in our annual report the number of citizenships we grant every year. We mean to continue that fine tradition.

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

Do you have to provide the reasons for granting citizenship?

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

The reasons are already set out in the bill.

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

You say that you report the number of citizenships granted. But do you also justify your decisions?

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

The criteria for special grants are provided in detail in the bill.

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

So you do not need to....

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

If you want to know what the exact wording used is, we could find that for you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Excuse me. You each have to wait until the other finishes.

Proceed.

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

Minister, if I have understood your answer correctly, the criteria is already set out in the bill, and you have no further obligation to justify your decision whether or not to grant citizenship. I think that harms your intention to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. If that citizenship has so much value, I see a problem with a minister being able to grant it to individuals without necessarily having to explain why or under what conditions. A minister is a minister, of course, but they are also a member of a political party. The Conservative government tends to use its bills to give more discretionary powers to its ministers. That opens the door to partisan influences in the granting of Canadian citizenship or to a lack of transparency in ministerial decisions. We think that is a reason for concern.

My next question is about lost Canadians. A few experts have told us that the bill does not go far enough, that lost Canadians have been forgotten and that their situation will not be resolved through this bill. If experts came before our committees and proved that some lost Canadians will not be able to regain their citizenship despite Bill C-24, would you be able to broaden the measures related to lost Canadians in order to ensure that justice is served for everyone?

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

That's why—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry, you haven't given the minister enough time. Your time has expired.

Mr. McCallum.

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

Minister, thanks for being here.

I have limited time and some concise questions, and I would appreciate fairly concise answers.

First of all, foreign students are going to be deprived of any credit for their time spent in Canada for purposes of citizenship. I think we all agree international students are potentially very good citizens, so would you give any consideration to restoring some credit for the time international students spend here as counting toward citizenship?

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

As we all saw in today's question period, and we have realized in recent years, it's very important to distinguish between the two different broad categories of status that non-Canadian citizens can have here. One is temporary resident status and the other is permanent resident status. We are saying that the time that will count toward citizenship is permanent resident status. We don't want those lines to be blurred. It has been very unclear up until now what qualifies. A lot of people who were here as students didn't know they could apply at that time. That seemed to us to be unfair. The new measures will make it much clearer, and also will strengthen the residency link that we want new Canadian citizens to have. We want them to have been here for four years as permanent residents, not as temporary residents who can come and go.

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

I think the time a student spends here contributes to his or her Canadianness, and I'm disappointed in your answer, but thank you for clarifying.

On the issue of intent to reside, it seems to me the answer you gave means there's no purpose in having that provision in the bill at all. While the person is a permanent resident, they have the four out of six rule. After they become citizens, you say the intent may change. All these constitutional concerns people have are of no value if the intent may change and the law does not pertain, so why have that in the law at all?

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

Because in the current law, which was brought in by the Liberal government in 1977—

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

I'll take the credit. Thank you.

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

—which led to unprecedented levels of fraud and abuse with regard to the residency requirement, it became hard to question the determination of people to not be here for three years when in fact they claimed to be here for three years, because we had never required them to declare their intent to be here. We think it is reasonable to ask citizens who are expected to reside in Canada for four years to simply declare their intention to reside.

That intention had never been made clear before and unfortunately some permanent residents took residency, physical presence in Canada, to be optional. We don't want it to be optional. That was a Liberal policy of neglect which we want to do away with and replace with a clear rule. If you want to be a Canadian citizen, you have to live here for four years under this new bill.

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

I would still say given your answer that this rule is redundant because the rules are clearly set out for permanent residents, and you say that rule does not apply post-citizenship.

The next question I have deals with a person having dual citizenship. The law puts the onus of proof on the individual. That is very difficult to prove sometimes. It could lead to abuse. Why do you not put the onus of proof on the government to prove the person is a dual citizen, rather than the other way around?

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

The onus of proof for what? If the person is a dual national?

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

Yes.

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

The onus of proof begins with the government. It obviously can be disputed by the person affected. Every case we are talking about here that I think you're referring to—terrorism, treason, espionage, working with an organization that is fighting the Canadian Forces—will involve some judicial standard of review or judicial process. It's not just the government acting alone. It's certainly not just the claim of the individual. There is going to be due process to different degrees with regard to these different crimes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have 15 seconds.

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

Since I don't have time to refute that, the chart you held up, the down time for processing time is a prediction. The up time historically, which doubled over your period in office, is a fact. Why did you allow it to double? You acknowledged in your document it was due to lack of resources. Why is there a lack of resources? Is any of the money from the 2013 budget going to be spent in the current fiscal year? It was not in the estimates.

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

We're proud of the fact that citizenship is more popular than ever. We're proud of the fact that last year the largest number of applications in history was received. We're proud of the fact that the naturalization rate continues to grow—

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

I'm talking about the doubling—