Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 12th, 2016

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

What I mean by double-testing is that people have to pass the proficiency test and then have an additional testing in terms of information about Canada. That's double-testing.

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

I'm told that change came before Bill C-24.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

With the Conservative administration...?

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

To make this perfectly clear, perhaps Ms. Tapley can answer.

[Catrina Tapley]

The changes to requirements to provide upfront evidence of language at the Canadian language benchmark 4 level were a change that was made prior to Bill C-24.

I believe, Mary-Ann, that it was about a year before Bill C-24?

[Mary-Ann Hubers]

Yes, in November 2012.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I would advocate for a change. Even though it's not part of Bill C-24, it's still part of the set of legislation that we're dealing with in respect of Bill C-6.

With that, I want to move on to another area, which is the fees issue. Under changes to regulations that were made by the previous government, fees were increased to such a degree that a family of four could expect to spend nearly $1,500 on citizenship processing fees. On top of that, there's a $100 right of citizenship fee as well. For many families, this is equivalent to greater than a month's rent. It's significant.

I wonder whether or not the government has any plans to examine the high fee structure. Is there any action that the minister might be undertaking to correct that?

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

I understand, as you've just pointed out, that for certain households the fee issue can be important. However, I would say that in the way we have presented Bill C-6 we have responded to every item that we committed to do in our platform and in my mandate letter, and neither the platform nor the mandate letter referred to fees. This is something that over time we will examine, but we have not made any commitment to change those fees and there was no fee change in the bill.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I see. Is the minister saying that if it wasn't committed to in the election campaign or the platform these are things that this government would not consider, even if they're brought to his attention and even though he may actually support those kinds of changes?

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

No, that is not what I am saying. I think that anything that is in my mandate letter is something we are committed to do, but we may well do things beyond that. There's no reason why we cannot.

I'm saying that fees are something we could consider in the future. It's not a part of the mandate letter, and that does not preclude us from considering changes in the future, but that's not a part of this new Bill C-6.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I would urge the minister to look into this issue. Hopefully, action will be forthcoming.

Let me move onto another issue. Bill C-24 eliminates the right to a judicial hearing for anyone who could have their citizenship revoked. Those involved with the civil liberties movement are calling on the government to make changes in this regard. Bill C-6 leaves this provision untouched.

Would the minister agree with the Canadian Bar Association that someone who is about to lose their citizenship should always have the right to a hearing before an independent and impartial decision-maker?

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

As I said in my speech in the House on Bill C-6, a general point is that we are always open to amendments if those amendments improve the bill. We're not sitting here saying that it's perfect and that we will not contemplate any amendments.

More specifically, what I said, that point having being drawn to my attention, was that I would also be open to considering amendments that provided a greater right to appeal for those whose citizenship is revoked on grounds of false information provided. I won't go further than that, because I think this committee will hear from the CBA and from other witnesses who might themselves have ideas on how to proceed in this area, but certainly I've said that I'm open to amendment in that area.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Zahid.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us today as we examine this important legislation, Bill C-6.

This is a very important issue for me and for my constituents in the riding of Scarborough Centre. After the Conservatives passed Bill C-24, effectively creating two tiers of Canadian citizenship, as a mother I had to explain to my two sons why they were second-class citizens in the country they have grown up in. They love their country.

This was wrong, and it went against the fundamental values of the country that has shaped them into the fine young men they have become. As a mother, a parliamentarian, and a Canadian, I am proud to see the integrity of Canadian citizenship restored. Could you please explain why it is so important to defend the integrity of Canadian citizenship, which is a beacon for people around the world?

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

Thank you.

I appreciate that question. I certainly agree with the sentiment expressed.

As you know, in the election campaign that was one of the major issues we argued. The Prime Minister argued, I argued, and many of us argued that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. We do not believe there should be two tiers of citizenship. We believe all citizens are equal. That is the reason we repeal this provision whereby somebody's citizenship could be removed, but only if he or she was a dual citizen. We believe there should be only one class of citizen. That is why this is actually the first item on this bill, which I mentioned in my abbreviated opening remarks.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I've heard from a number of permanent residents in my riding, as I meet them every day in my constituency office, who are ready to apply for Canadian citizenship but have had to wait longer because of the previous government's lengthened waiting period. These are people who have worked hard, pay their taxes, and are making a valuable contribution to the economy of our society. Now they want to join our Canadian family.

Could you please discuss how Bill C-6 will help these people join our Canadian family sooner?

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

Thank you.

I am not hesitant to change things the previous government did with which we disagree, but neither am I wishing to change everything. I would also be fine with giving credit where credit is due. I do think one of the areas where we have improved is the processing time for citizenship. Partly as a result of changes made by the previous government, the processing time for citizenship is now 12 months for those who apply today. For those legacy cases that are from the past, it has been longer, but I am told that those legacy cases will be fully resolved by the end of this year.

I think we will then have an across-the-board standard for processing time for citizenship of 12 months. Six months would be better, but 12 months is better than 31 months, which is what it used to be. I think some progress has been made.

The other thing we are doing that will speed up the process is that the length of time that one has to be in the country is one year less. Under this bill, an individual can become a citizen one year earlier than before. After the individual applies to be a citizen, the processing time is one year.

There has been some improvement. I think the reduced barriers I mentioned will also make it easier for individuals to become citizens.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I represent a riding that has a very heavy Filipino and Gujarati population. I know several of the Filipino and Gujarati families who have brought their parents to Canada to help them look after their children. These grandparents are providing valuable child care by looking after their grandkids, allowing both parents to work and contribute to Canada's economy.

Could you please explain how the changes in the language proficiency requirements and the age range in Bill C-6 will impact these families?

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

If you are talking about parents and grandparents being brought into the country as permanent residents, our move to raise the number of applicants from 5,000 per year to 10,000 per year will help on that front. In terms of language requirements, should they want to become citizens, then, if they are in the age range of 55 to 64, the provisions in our bill will provide some help to that group.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

What is the profile of the 55 to 64 age group?

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

What do you mean by “the profile”?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Do we have any statistics about the people who apply? How many are in that age range of 55 to 64?

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

Do you mean, to become citizens?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Yes.

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

Of those who apply to become citizens, 8% are in the age range of 55 to 64.