Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 12th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Good morning.

Pursuant to the order of reference received by the committee on March 21, 2016, the committee will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

The minister should be with us shortly. However, senior department officials are here to discuss the implications of Bill C-6, and I invite Ms. Tapley to proceed with any opening comments she may have.

[Catrina Tapley, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sometimes in a meeting I would joke on a legal question that I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV. I think I'll start by saying that I am not the minister and I am not going to play him on TV.

I do have a few opening remarks. These aren't his. Perhaps it would be helpful for the committee if I give a quick overview of what's in Bill C-6 and highlight some of the key elements of Bill C-6, the changes to the Citizenship Act.

The first is repealing the national interest grounds for citizenship revocation. These are legislative changes that came into effect in May 2015, which created new grounds for citizenship revocation that allowed citizenship to be taken away from dual citizens for certain acts against the national interest of Canada. This bill repeals those provisions.

This bill also repeals the “intent to reside” provision. Since June 2015, adult applicants must declare on their citizenship applications that they intend to continue to reside in Canada. Bill C-6 repeals that provision.

Other things in Bill C-6 include reducing the length of time someone must be physically present in Canada to qualify for citizenship. To use the vernacular, we've gone from four of six years to three of five years. To be more precise, the time required to be spent in Canada for citizenship for adults goes to three years, or 1,095 days, from the former or current 1,460 days.

I will stop now, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Tapley.

Welcome, Minister.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

I really do apologize. I was held up for unavoidable reasons.

In light of that, I thought I could forego my opening statement and start right in with questions, because I am almost 20 minutes late, unless you have a strong desire to hear my opening statement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I believe that everyone has received your opening remarks in written form, so in the consideration of the time, perhaps we can start with the first round.

I would ask Mr.—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

On a point of order, I would actually like to hear the minister's comments, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Okay.

Minister, a point of order has been raised, and Ms. Rempel would actually like to hear your opening remarks.

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

I'll give you an abbreviated form of my opening remarks.

Basically there are three elements of this bill that are important to me.

One is the issue of revocation of citizenship, and we say that no longer will a government be able to revoke citizenship for terrorists convicted of crimes, because we believe there should be just one class of Canadian. A second series of issues is about reducing some of the barriers to citizenship that were erected by the previous bill. The third is about program integrity, to do things that enable the department to maintain integrity, for example by making it easier for officials to seize documents thought to be fraudulent.

In a nutshell, those are the three main rationales for this bill. I would be very happy to receive your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Chen, go ahead.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the minister for being here with our committee today.

I know that in Bill C-6 there is a change in terms of the language requirements and the ages to which they apply. I can share that in my riding of Scarborough North there are many new immigrant communities. I've heard the concerns from families that elders and grandparents find it difficult. Under the new rules, the age requirement would see that those between 14 and 17, and between 55 and 64, no longer need to fulfill the requirements that were set by the previous government.

Can the minister explain the rationale for this decision in light of the context that new Canadians are expected to master one of the official languages?

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

I think it's a question of balance. I accept totally the evidence suggesting that mastery of one of the two official languages is a good thing, that it promotes and enhances an individual's ability to do well in Canada, to get good jobs, to integrate. On the one hand, we do favour language requirements. On the other hand, I think for older newcomers it's less important.

I think one has to take into account cultural issues. I think for many years, for decades if not forever, people have come here from countries where the first language isn't English. Many upon arrival have not mastered the language properly, but almost always their children do, and certainly their grandchildren do. I don't think that has been a negative factor for Canada over the years. That is why we are returning the age range to where it was, so that older Canadians....

I don't regard 55 to 64 as super-old, but those above the average age will not necessarily be required to do this, even though as a general principle we believe that the mastery of English or French is important for the success of newcomers.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

For individuals who do apply for citizenship, they are required to achieve Canadian benchmark level 4, using third-party assessment results. What does that benchmark level require of the candidate?

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

It requires a pretty basic level of English.

Perhaps Catrina Tapley can answer that more specifically.

[Catrina Tapley]

As the minister said, it's a pretty basic level of English or French. It would include things like how to give or follow directions, how to call 911, and a very basic level of conversation. Those would be the hallmarks of Canadian language benchmark 4.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

In addition to the basic ability to speak French or English, there are the responsibilities of having knowledge of Canada and holding Canadian citizenship. How do those pieces factor into the measure of benchmark level 4?

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

Well, there is this book put out describing Canada. People are expected to read that book. I think the questions largely derive from the contents of that book, which purport to describe some of the essential features of our country.

As I've indicated before, we will be making some revisions to that book. I think it should be a politically neutral statement of the essence of our country, something that we would expect new citizens to be able to master. On that, they would be required to take this test.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

With respect to the written component of the testing that's required, some prospective Canadians might still fail that written test. Is there a possibility for individuals who do not pass the written test to meet with a citizenship judge to complete the test orally? Is that a possibility for those who might fail the written test?

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

Yes. They can write a test a second time. If that still doesn't work, they're entitled to have a meeting with a citizenship judge.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Okay.

Bill C-6 also allows time spent in Canada as a temporary resident to count towards the residency requirement for citizenship. Periods of temporary residence had been eligible prior to Bill C-24 as well. Before the provisions excluding time as a temporary resident came into force, approximately what percentage of citizenship applicants included periods of temporary residence in their application?

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

About 13%, I am told. This, by the way, is a provision we are super-keen to add. We want to court international students in particular, and we think it is absolutely right that they be granted 50% credit for time spent in Canada, because that has enabled them to better understand the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Mr. Chen, do you have one last question and answer?

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Yes.

What specifically was the rationale for the 50% time credit? Was there a consideration that more than 50% credit would be given for those applicants?

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

That is arguable. We could certainly have done that. I think to restore the 50% credit was certainly a movement in the right direction. One could argue for more, but I think 50% is quite fair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Ms. Rempel, you have seven minutes.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Minister, you started your remarks by talking about how language mastery is important for the success of newcomers. I think we both agree on that.

I'm curious as to why the rationale was to lower the age requirement rather than look at other policy options, such as increased programming or different types of programming to assist newcomers with language training.