Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 14th, 2014

[Dr. Bal Gupta]

Do you want the answer or do you not want the answer?

Proposed subsection 10.4(1) says clearly there would be no “conflicts with any international human rights instrument...”.

Second, yes. The bill doesn't say, for conditional spouses, residents, whether or not it will be counted. If she's a permanent resident, then as far as I am concerned, it will be counted.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Mr. Gupta.

Madam Siddiqui, I'm sorry, but we won't have time to hear your answer to the last question.

Thanks to all of you for contributing to this study.

We will now suspend the meeting in order to invite our next witnesses to the table.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

We are resuming the meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We are still studying the subject matter of Bill C-24.

During the second hour, we are hearing from two witnesses.

With us as an individual is Mr. Reis Pagtakhan, immigration lawyer.

Thank you for being with us.

We are also hearing from, by live videoconference from Montreal, Quebec, Jonathan Chodjai, Chair of the Governing Council of Immigrant Québec.

Thank you for your participation.

We will begin with Mr. Pagtakhan, who will have up to eight minutes to deliver his opening statement. We will then continue with our second witness.

Mr. Pagtakhan, go ahead.

[R. Reis Pagtakhan, Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to address three issues with you today.

First, I would like to support the proposal to change the residency requirement for citizenship from three out of four to four out of six years. I believe that the longer an individual lives, works, or studies in Canada, the greater connection that person will have to our country.

Requiring prospective Canadians to be physically present in Canada for four out of six years is not onerous, given what is granted to them, which is citizenship. Citizenship bestows rights and protections many foreign nationals do not have. As Canadian citizens, they can vote and seek elected office, so it is important that they participate in Canadian life before they become citizens.

The requirement that prospective Canadians file Canadian income taxes is also positive. Under the Income Tax Act, Canadian residents must file Canadian income tax. This requirement is logical and should not be controversial.

A concern I have is with respect to changes in the residency time calculation for individuals who have resided in Canada before as temporary foreign workers.

The minister has said that residency is important to demonstrate a commitment to Canada, and I agree with that. However, the immigration system in this country has progressively moved to an employer-driven system, in which most economic immigrants must work as temporary foreign workers before they are eligible for permanent residence. The waiting time for permanent residency can range from months to years. By allowing these individuals to count some of their time as half-credit, they are given the opportunity to accumulate time toward the four our of six required, and this half-credit should be maintained, as these individuals have worked in Canada and have filed Canadian income taxes.

As well, I believe that certain specific days spent outside Canada should be counted as days inside Canada for the purpose of the residency calculation. In this connection, I look at section 28 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which allows for certain periods of time outside Canada to count as time in Canada for the retention of permanent residency. I believe that time spent outside Canada by a permanent resident employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business should be counted as time in Canada. As well, family members going to that country with that permanent resident should be able to count that time.

On the issue of intent to reside, with respect to this declaration, while I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting Canadians to live in Canada, there are many Canadians who contribute to Canada on the world stage. Canada has long recognized the importance of Canadian business people, entertainers, and athletes overseas, and we should not require them to live in Canada if their ability to contribute to our country can best be served abroad.

In this connection, I'd like to note for you that this government and previous governments have worked very hard to negotiate free trade agreements that give preferential treatment to Canadian citizens who want to work abroad. We can't be negotiating free trade agreements with various countries, allowing Canadian citizens to work abroad, and then turning around and saying that if you're naturalized, you must have an intent to live here.

On treason, terrorism, and spying, I think those provisions that allow for the revocation and refusal of citizenship are also welcome. Treason and spying are offences against Canada's interests, and the proposal to allow citizenship to be revoked for these offences is reasonable. Since terrorism is an offence not only against Canadians but also against people in other parts of the world, a process to strip away citizenship from these types of criminals is also reasonable.

Having said that, it is important that individuals be convicted of these crimes in a Canadian court before their citizenship is taken away. As long as an individual has first been presumed innocent, has had an opportunity to defend themselves in a Canadian court, and then is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, revoking Canadian citizenship is reasonable. This being said, citizenship should not be revoked for minor offences, and the minimum threshold of five years of incarceration for terrorism offences may be too short.

I have a concern about revoking citizenship or refusing it for terrorism for those convicted outside of Canada. Should our country revoke citizenship for an individual convicted of terrorism in Syria, Iran, or North Korea? Should we revoke citizenship for an individual convicted of terrorism in the U.S., U.K., or Japan? As it is impossible to ensure that an individual is provided with all the protections of Canadian law, including our charter, unless that person is tried in Canada, citizenship revocation for terrorism should occur only if that person is convicted in Canada.

However, if the government still wishes to pursue this type of revocation for convictions outside of Canada, then one thing that should be considered is looking at a list of countries that we would consider as having an equivalent system, outside of the broad discussion of equivalency in the bill. What I would think would be the best way to look at things is to take a look at the countries where we have extradition treaties. Now, I've not reviewed this list and I'm not an extradition expert, but that may be the basis of saying that these are the countries where we can take terrorism offences and say that we will accept these for the purposes of citizenship revocation.

Madam Chair, thank you very much. I don't have any other remarks, and I stand available for questions.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Mr. Pagtakhan, for your opening remarks.

I will now yield the floor to Mr. Chodjai, from Immigrant Québec, who is appearing by videoconference.

[Jonathan Chodjai, Chair, Governing Council, Immigrant Québec]

Good afternoon. Thank you very much.

I would like to begin by speaking to the bill.

I want to say that our organization is satisfied with most of the amendments proposed, in terms of how well they reflect today's reality.

We thought it was important that these amendments were proposing to standardize the way the application for permanent residence is used. We felt it was beneficial to have the same model, where a declaration would be completed before being sent and any requests would be made quickly, so that the files could be processed.

We are also somewhat satisfied with the proposed change to consider four years of residence out of six, instead of three years out of four. In fact, the timeframe is one of the key elements for recognizing landed immigrants' true will to become Canadian citizens.

However, this is clearly a matter of recognizing the time spent in Canada for purposes other than those of permanent residency. Since residency is a luxury not everyone can obtain quickly nowadays, many people use a student or work visa. The importance of that time must be emphasized, even if only half of it counted toward the threshold, as the case has been so far. It may even be a good idea to decompartmentalize the time limits considered as acceptable under these types of visas or statuses.

Moreover, it is important for those who have to leave the country for professional reasons that the time spent abroad on behalf of companies or Canadian governmental institutions not be deducted from that period, or at least be deducted as little as possible. That would help avoid penalizing people who are doing something important for Canada.

Our organization is located in Quebec. We mainly serve a Quebec clientele, or at least aspiring Quebeckers. That said, we feel that the issues are very similar. From that perspective, we see the processing time reduction as proposed in this bill as a good thing, of course. However, we are wondering what the situation will be regarding the judges, who will have a less significant role. Finally, we would like to know what criteria the department or the minister will use to decide which cases should be referred to the judges. We don't want to see a two-tiered justice system where certain types of immigrants would be stigmatized by systematically being referred to the judges, while others would not. So it would be desirable to establish more specific parameters, instead of basing the decision on reasonable doubt with regard to this notion.

In addition, we want to emphasize the importance of having a consistent approach toward landed immigrants who are currently permanent residents and will have to justify their lives here. In our opinion, it is important and laudable to set out clearly and specifically what documentation is required, including income tax returns. We fully agree that those landed immigrants should have to submit evidence to prove they have been physically present and have complied with Canadian rules if they aspire to become Canadians. We are just waiting for the recognition that the time spent contributing to the local economy could count toward their threshold for Canadian citizenship eligibility.

This bill sets out a rule that directly gives the minister a power that has so far been reserved for the governor in council, unless I'm mistaken. We think some sort of political interference is possible in this case. That may not apply to the current administration, but we have to consider the coming decades.

Once again, it's a matter of knowing based on what criteria the minister in power could decide to grant or refuse an individual Canadian citizenship. We feel that this status must be a virtually inalienable consideration, notwithstanding key criteria such as terrorism and everything that entails.

Of course, I agree with the previous witness on this matter. It seems obvious to us that, if we are to accept rulings rendered abroad under this decision, it would be essential that our partner countries at least adopt, in the same way, our recognition of foreign convictions for the repudiation or granting of our citizenship. For instance, if we are to recognize a ruling made in the United States regarding an aspiring Canadian, we would want the United States to recognize, in the same way, a judgment rendered in Canada for their aspiring citizens.

All those issues gravitate around a problem that is real today. Tomorrow, future citizens will be part of the Canadian population just like us. So we think it is essential to wish them a warm welcome, but also to provide them with some very clear and specific rules on how things are going to work, especially regarding what is expected of them, before we consider what they expect from us.

Ultimately, we don't feel that the increase of fees from $100 to $300 is disproportionate. However, we expect to receive further explanations of that increase. In particular, we want to know why the fee is going from $100 to $300, and why the amount is not higher or lower. We still want to know what the cost is and what aspects that decision relates to. Of course, some questions I see as important are arising. It should be pointed out that the last major amendment to the legislation goes back 25 years or 35 years. If the same thing had to be done in 35 years, would the $300 amount be adapted to that time? Finally, even though we have to keep in mind the means of those aspiring citizens, it should be determined whether that increase reflects today's reality or whether this amount was set somewhat arbitrarily.

We have a slight reservation regarding the department's somewhat discretionary power, especially considering the less significant role judges would have.

However, we want to emphasize the importance and interest to Canada of having consistent residency and citizenship rules and demonstrating openness toward its aspiring citizens. The government should recognize both the time devoted to and spent in Canada, compared with the duration of permanent or temporary residency. We feel that those are two similar considerations.

Ultimately, it is important for those individuals to be able to use clearly defined rules. In addition, their only advisors should be professionally recognized people, and not anyone else. We often hear about individuals who are not accredited and are still benefiting from a sort of a no man's land that enables them to provide advice and be compensated, while they do not necessarily provide information we would like to see disseminated.

Thank you. I am available to answer any questions.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you very much for your testimony.

We will begin the question and answer period.

Mr. Opitz, go ahead.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to both witnesses today. Thank you so much for being here and taking the time to share with and express your views to the committee, because it's very important that in this process we get a wide range of opinions from Canadians.

Mr. Pagtakhan, just to clarify, under the new process—and I think you would agree—the vast majority of cases, such as those related to residence fraud, concealing criminal admissibility, identity theft, and that type of thing, would be decided by the minister, but of course only with evidence presented from law enforcement, courts, and so forth. More exceptional cases, such as something like war crimes, of course, or crimes against humanity, as well as security cases, international human rights violations, organized crime, and that sort of thing, would be decided by the Federal Court.

I'll start with you, sir. We know that a Canadian citizen can have their citizenship taken away if they've obtained it fraudulently. Almost all of our peer countries have the ability to revoke citizenship for things like treason, terrorism, and other sorts of serious offences. However, people who criticize this bill claim that Canadian citizenship is an unalienable right. How would you respond to that?

[R. Reis Pagtakhan]

I support the provisions to revoke citizenship for those offences, but again, with the proviso that these are Canadian courts, that they've had the opportunity to defend themselves in court, the protection of the charter, the right to counsel—all those things.

Those types of offences—let's talk about espionage and treason—are offences against Canada, not just Canadian interests, and are not just a disloyal thing. It's actually an offence to try to bring down this government and this country. I'm not too sure if you should have Canadian citizenship if you're trying to bring down the country that you are a citizen of. I think there is an issue there, and I support the revocation of citizenship on those grounds.

Where I have the problem is terrorism for convictions outside of Canada, just because those people will not have the protection of the charter. While I have a problem with that and I would rather see that provision struck, if it is going to proceed, I would like to see some sort of guidelines that are more specific than what is in the bill, and perhaps some sort of reference to extradition laws, as a starting point. Again, I'm not an expert in extradition laws, but those countries where we have extradition treaties would be a good starting point, those countries where we can say that we've agreed with their justice system enough that we would extradite people to those countries to face charges on a variety of matters.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

As part of your answer, then, you've said that you don't feel that convictions outside of Canada, if they're equivalent to our Criminal Code, should be considered. If somebody is convicted for a serious crime like treason, organized crime, and that kind of thing, which would find an equivalency under the Criminal Code here in this country, that should not be considered?

[R. Reis Pagtakhan]

Theoretically, if they're equivalent I have no problem with it. The difficulty is the way in which it would be administered. It would be administered by an officer. It wouldn't be administered by the court. There wouldn't be a finding of guilt here for the equivalency, and because it would be an administrative function, that's where I have a challenge, and that's where I have some concern.

If there were a retrial, which is not overly practical, and they had all the protections of the charter, that would be fine. But if you are convicted of an offence in another country, you don't have the protections of our charter because it's not their charter. That's where I have my concern.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Even if somebody was a convicted terrorist who may have bombed a restaurant and somehow made it to Canada?

[R. Reis Pagtakhan]

I don't have a problem, Mr. Opitz, with the equivalency, but I think there has to be something more than just saying that we will have a bureaucrat make that decision. There has to be some other guidelines and more than just what is equivalency.

If you take a look at something like using extradition law and taking a look at those countries and saying, okay, those countries are fine.... But for someone who is accused and convicted of bombing a restaurant, as you say, in North Korea, how do we know that is not trumped up? How do we know and how do we prove that North Korean terrorism offences are not equivalent versus the American ones? There's enough of a broad unclearness in the bill, and rightly so; I mean, that's the way bills are written. But that causes me a concern.

But if you can prove equivalency—and that's why I'm suggesting using extradition law as the basis for determining which legal systems we will look at as equivalent—then I think that would be a better protection.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

We had a couple of witnesses here on previous dates, Martin Collacott and James Bissett, and both expressed their support for the new residency requirement. I thought I heard you echo that. In fact, both of them would have preferred it to go to five years rather than four years. That was certainly the system my parents were under.

They pointed out, of course, that amongst our peer countries Canada is still the most generous. In some European states, for example, there is an eight- or nine-year requirement.

Mr. Collacott made the point that he thinks newcomers will value their citizenship more if they know that it is not something they're going to acquire quickly or cheaply and that they have to meet certain standards. That's something I believe: that once you're a citizen, there are duties and responsibilities that you're not exempt from.

In your experience, what would you estimate that it normally takes—how many years—for newcomers to adapt to Canada? Would you say that more than three years gives them enough time to understand our society and learn our values and our laws and so forth? About 45% of permanent residents right now actually wait about four years before they apply for citizenship. Do you think four years is good? Is five years better? Do you think you're given sufficient enough time to become a Canadian citizen?

[R. Reis Pagtakhan]

My parents also went under the five-year rule. I don't have any problem with extending it from three to four years. Four years is a reasonable amount of time.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Mr. Opitz.

Madam Sitsabaiesan, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've been doing a bit of a poll with most of our witnesses, so I may do it with the two of you.

Mr. Pagtakhan, you've already started to talk about this. This is pre-PR time. You mentioned that pre-PR time for temporary foreign workers should count as half-time credit. I'm wondering if you think the pre-PR time should also count for people who are here in the Canadian experience class. That includes international students, live-in caregivers, refugees—not refugee claimants—who have conventional refugee status in this country, and people who are here on conditional PR, because it's not clear in the legislation, especially for conditional PR, if that time counts or not. I don't have too much time, so I'm going to ask if you can both be brief with your responses.

Do you think it should count for these categories of people, Mr. Pagtakhan and Mr. Chodjai? Go ahead, either one of you.

[R. Reis Pagtakhan]

If it's temporary resident status of any nature outside of a visitor, because I think a tourist shouldn't get a half-credit—

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

Oh no, absolutely.

[R. Reis Pagtakhan]

But if it's temporary resident status for anyone who is resident here and filing taxes here under temporary resident status, I think that should count as half-time, under the exact same process that it is now.

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

That it has currently.

[R. Reis Pagtakhan]

For conditional permanent residence, I think that should count as full-time.

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

Thank you.

Monsieur Chodjai.

[Jonathan Chodjai]

We feel that those who have obtained a visa and have been selected by Canada satisfy the criteria for their time spent here being recognized, be it at full time or half time.

The situation of refugees is a bit more complicated, since the criteria are not the same and the adaptation to the country is also different. That would be based on the visas obtained by selection, by Canada, to meet the needs.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to change gears now and go to revocation. Citizenship revocation seems to be the topic of the day today.

Mr. Pagtakhan, you mentioned that revocation—I'm paraphrasing, and I'm sorry if I use the wrong word—is good or that you're fine with it as long as the Canadian courts are deciding this. It was along those lines.

The subject matter in Bill C-24 actually gives the minister the discretion to revoke somebody's citizenship without a hearing before an independent tribunal. It also gives broad powers to the minister to strip Canadians of their Canadian citizenship, including those who were born in Canada and if they have a claim to citizenship in another country. I'm reading from notes that were given to us by another witness, who is also an immigration lawyer.

Examples of people who could have their citizenship stripped are Canadian-born children with Chinese, U.S., British, or Italian parents, because they automatically have dual citizenship, and also Jewish Canadian citizens who have the right to return to Israel and claim Israeli citizenship. Even though they are born in Canada, these people are not naturalized Canadians; they are born Canadian.

We're creating two tiers of citizenship. We're creating naturalized Canadians and born-in-Canada Canadians, but then some of those born-in-Canada Canadians can also have their citizenship revoked by a minister, who is an elected person, not a judge, and not through the courts.

I think my opinions on this don't matter. I want to know what your opinions are, Mr. Pagtakhan first, because you're an immigration lawyer.