Evidence of meeting #25 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was revocation.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I'm going to ask you to submit your recommendations, instead of what is in front of us, because the study is on the issue of the law, not actually the bill, because the bill is not in front of the committee right now. If you have suggestions of actual recommendations or changes to what is before us, then please do send it in writing to the clerk of the committee.
Thank you so much.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe
Thank you, Madam Sitsabaiesan. Mr. McCallum, you have the floor.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Thank you very much, and welcome to all the witnesses.
In all the committees we have heard, I don't think I've heard one with a broader spectrum of opinion in general, on things in general. Yet you are unanimous that international students should be credited with their time as students in becoming citizens.
I don't think the government is going to change much, if anything, on this bill. They might change that, because you should know, if you don't already, not only is the government not giving any credit to students, but they're taking away the 50% credit that already exists, and the 50% becomes zero. I think you all agreed on 100% credit, but even 50% is better than what we're going to end up with.
Now I did ask the ministerthat question when he was here, and he said he wouldn't change it, but he hadn't heard this very broad diverse committee be unanimous yet. The one argument he gave for his position was that for some reason, which I couldn't understand, time when you're a permanent resident counts, and time when you're not yet a permanent resident, for some reason, doesn't count.
I know Ms. Smirnoff and Ms. Shcherbakova have done a really good brief on this. Can you very briefly, because I don't have that much time, refute that argument by the minister?
Representative, Pre-PR Time Counts
Most definitely, and I appreciate your asking that question.
We did hear Minister Alexander make the comment that there has to be a clear distinction made between someone who is a temporary resident and someone who is a permanent resident. This view ignores the fact that the decision to become a permanent resident, for those who are in Canada, happens long before that permanent residency is received.
For example, for international students, a student might make a decision to become a citizen of Canada after one or two years of studying here. After making friends, after getting work experience here, after maybe meeting a life partner here. The problem is that the immigration system precludes this person from applying for citizenship until one year after they've graduated from their studies.
Representative, Pre-PR Time Counts
Sorry, it's for permanent residence.
For example, in Taisia's case, she came here in 2004, graduated in 2009, and could only apply for permanent residence in 2010, which she received in 2012.
There is a system that really precludes these individuals from applying for permanent residence, and during this time they're still in Canada, still paying taxes, still owning property, and doing all those Canadian things.
Temporary workers, too, are affected by this. They also can't apply for permanent residency until after they enter Canada and it's been proven multiple times that there are a number of obstacles not in their control that present a further delay. For example, closing of these offices—
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Thank you, sorry.
You made a very good argument, but I'm about to run out of time.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
In more general terms, I just think time spent here as an international student is not worth zero, in terms of what you learn about this country and to equip you to become a citizen.
Professor Lenard, I certainly agree with you 1000% in terms of your strong condemnation of citizen revocation.
I would just correct, I think, Mr. Menegakis. It is not true that you can only have your citizenship revoked if you're convicted, because there is a provision in the bill that if you participate in some armed group against Canada, which doesn't imply a conviction—whatever that means—you can also have your citizenship revoked.
Out of curiosity, more than anything, Ms. Lenard, I'd also heard that story about the British people's citizenship being revoked, and then soon after, they were shot down by drones in some faraway place by the U.S.; Pakistan, perhaps....
Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It was Somalia.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Is there any evidence that those actions were coordinated?
Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
There's widespread suspicion, but no formal evidence that they were coordinated. We only know that the U.K. government was entirely unwilling to have a conversation about what happened as a result of having denationalized those individuals.
Liberal
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Khan, you were just at the end of your story, and you didn't have much time. I heard your position on students and on language. Are you saying an English language test for people aged, say, 55 to 65, should not be imposed?
National Secretary, Public Affairs, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Canada
I would actually be more concerned with the younger age of 14 to 18. I think there should be some sort of test, but I think there should be some subjectivity applied to it. I think there should be a commitment to being Canadian.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
It seems to me a 55- to 65-year-old.... Their children will speak perfect English if they don't.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe
That's all the time we have. Sorry about that.
Mr. Opitz, you have up to four minutes before the committee ends, so please go ahead.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Well, you do have to be convicted, and it's compared to the Canadian system. As a former soldier I would take great umbrage to anybody from this country going over there and fighting against me and my troops and friends anywhere else. That's something that is an unbelievable development.
By the way, the reality is numbers of youth have been radicalized and have returned and have fought against many of our allies, so that's not outside the realm of possibility. I'm not particularly concerned about anybody in that category losing their citizenship, when it comes to armed groups like that.
Mr. Bissett, last week the minister was here and he had heard from stakeholders themselves and local constituents, a broad range of Canadians across the country, and he was hearing quite loudly that they liked, overall, the proposed residency requirement, because it strengthened the value of Canadian citizenship. He said Canadians appreciated that those who committed acts of terror or treason—as I just talked about—against this country would have their citizenship revoked, on the grounds that they are dual citizens. Of course we are signed up to the UN convention and we don't leave anybody stateless, so that's something we do deal with.
Can you tell me, overall, what you've heard, and would you agree that the value of Canadian citizenship would be strengthened through this legislation, through this act?
As an Individual
Yes, I certainly think so. As I said before, I think the average Canadian would be shocked and very much concerned if his neighbour was convicted of acts of terror or treason, or had gone off to another country to fight against Canadian troops or their allies. I think they would assume he's lost his privilege of citizenship, he's abused it.
I'm not sure there's been any polling on that, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Canadians would agree with it. Professor Lenard may not agree, but I think so. It's one thing for academics to think this is a very serious matter, but in my own view it's something that's self-evident.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Well I think we agree on that, and I think the vast majority of Canadians would.
Our government takes immigration policy clearly very seriously. We've made a number of reforms to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in order to protect the safety and security of Canadians, obviously. We have welcomed a record number of immigrants and new citizens since 2006, over 1.4 million new citizens. Since the beginning of 2014, there have been 75,000.
How would you say Bill C-24 would support a newcomer's integration into the Canadian economy, and into communities, and to ensure that our new citizens have a stronger and deeper attachment to Canada?
As an Individual
I think the fact that they'll have to wait a year longer than they used to is an added benefit in conditioning them to Canada and Canadian society, and Canadian values, so I think it definitely will help in that regard. I think that's important because Canada has drastically changed demographically since the 1977 act. Since 1990, five million newcomers have come to Canada. They're not coming from the traditional European countries that used to supply us with 99% of the immigrants. That changed in 1967. As a matter of fact, I was one of the originators of the point system that enabled us to go out to the world and welcome people.
Having said that, I still think that three years is not enough time for a person to suddenly decide that they are ready to take on the responsibilities and obligations of citizenship, so I welcome the additional period of time. As I said in my presentation, I don't think it's quite long enough, quite frankly.