Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm delighted to appear, if remotely, before the honourable committee with apologies that I could not be physically present.
Having said that, I'd like to focus on and highlight the dramatic and pragmatic positive changes to the citizenship act and point out a systemic design failure in a portion of the act that may have unintended consequences.
What is most pleasing is the requirement to file a tax return. This is a game changer. Families can plan in advance economically what it means to receive and maintain Canadian citizenship. The duration of six years, given the lifetime commitment to Canada, is reasonable and overdue.
Requiring four years on six years with a minimum of 183 days in a year for four years on those six years cuts a Gordian knot. For the first time, we have a pragmatic, transparent threshold to access Canadian citizenship. That is long overdue.
There is an issue, a design flaw, that I would like to point out in proposed paragraph 10(3)(a). I'll read the relevant portion: “Before revoking a person's citizenship or renunciation of citizenship, the Minister shall provide the person with a written notice that specifies a) the person's right to make written representations”.
That's insufficient.
How is it that to revoke refugee status, the person is entitled to an oral hearing? How is it that to revoke the status of permanent residence, the person is entitled to an oral hearing? A citizen has no right to an oral hearing when faced with revocation?
That's a design flaw and I would respectfully point out that Ms. Jackman, Ms. Seligman, and others may not be too far off point when they illuminate the strength of the charter to defend individual rights when confronted with this situation.
So that's really the heads-up. It is an easy fix, it is a quick fix, but on the whole, we got it right on this bill. And I'll donate the time to questions subsequently.