Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 12th, 2016

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

I would perhaps consider that, but first of all I would want to have a clear understanding of it. This is a fairly technical issue, and I would ask Ms. Hubers to comment.

[Mary-Ann Hubers]

You're right. The act as it was before did allow for anyone who was in Canada prior to becoming a permanent resident to count that time. It didn't stipulate whether it had to be lawful residence or not.

The change here does reinstate the ability to have non-permanent residence time, but it does stipulate that it's time as a temporary resident or as a protected person.

As was explained earlier, an individual who is an asylum claimant and is then successful becomes a protected person, and they can then count that time towards their citizenship credit once they become a permanent resident and apply for citizenship. They still do benefit.

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

I guess my answer to your question is that I'd be willing to think about it more. My first reaction is as a matter of principle, I don't think we want to give credit for time if the person is here illegally. I don't think we want to give credit for illegal time. I see at least some members nodding their heads on that issue.

I'm not sure that the bill currently does more than just rule out credit for time spent if you're here illegally. Is that right?

[Mary-Ann Hubers]

Yes. Anyone who's here as a temporary resident, whether as a visitor, worker, student, could count that time. Likewise, for someone who's here as a protected person, once they get that status, they can count that time as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

I have a final question. Minister, the previous Conservative government gave your predecessor the unfettered discretion to grant citizenship. Bill C-6 does not reinstate the necessity of the Governor in Council's approval for ministerial granting of citizenship. Bill C-6, as written, doesn't provide the scope to make such an amendment.

Under what circumstances, other than the humanitarian or compassionate discretion you already have, would you override or short-circuit the arms-length citizenship process, with its prerequisite qualifications and checks? Fundamentally, do you believe that a politician in the executive branch of government should have the unchecked power of granting citizenship?

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

First of all, I have, with great enthusiasm, limited my power to take away citizenship, because one of the essential thrusts of the bill is that the Minister of Immigration will no longer have the power to revoke citizenship for people convicted of certain crimes. As for the ability to award citizenship—

[Mary-Ann Hubers]

There are the two criteria under which the minister can grant citizenship to an individual. One is for exceptional service to Canada. The other is to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Previously, it required Governor-in-Council approval. That's no longer the case. Is there a thought that perhaps we should move back to the previous system, which at least provided some sort of check?

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

I'm not in pursuit of unfettered powers. I was not aware of that. I think that there could be a case for that, but the main thing that this bill does is remove the power of the minister to revoke citizenship in the case of people convicted of certain crimes. On that issue, I'm very content. That was the intent from the beginning.

On the other issue, in terms of limitations on the minister's power to name citizens, I'll certainly look into that.

I think that the main issue here was to limit my ability to revoke citizenship and that is clearly accomplished in this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Minister. Thank you for appearing before our committee.

We'll suspend while the minister departs, and the meeting will pick up where we left off in approximately two to three minutes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

The meeting will resume.

Mr. Sarai, you have seven minutes.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Many of my constituents have concerns about terrorists and those participating in or previously convicted of terrorism coming into Canada or getting citizenship.

I'd like to confirm that we can still revoke the citizenship of someone who lies in the process of getting citizenship, i.e., a terrorist who would have his or her citizenship revoked if he had lied or had hidden connections to illegal groups. Is that correct?

[Catrina Tapley]

That's correct, Mr. Chair.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

So those involved in terrorism who lied during their application will have their citizenship revoked. That ability still remains.

[Catrina Tapley]

Bill C-6 doesn't change any of the provisions related to revocation for reasons of fraud or for those who lied on initial applications. Nothing in this bill would change that.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

That's good.

My next question goes to the test for citizenship. Will the changes to the test for citizenship be more reflective of the key component of the test being the Charter of Rights? I just want to make sure. Is that one of the ideas of the new book or the new test? Will the Charter of Rights be a key component?

[Catrina Tapley]

Mr. Chair, the test for citizenship is based on a series of prescribed factors, which are on regulations including knowledge of certainly the Charter of Rights, but also Canadian history, Canadian society, and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. I think what the minister has indicated is that he's looking at updating “Discover Canada”, which is the guide to citizenship, and making sure that it's current and reflective of those factors.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Here's my concern. Obviously we all value our rights when they reflect our own rights or rights that we subscribe to, but it would be very important, and I think very significant, where new citizens are shown and taught, to show that protecting, cherishing, and allowing others to have those rights is very important even if those practices are not compliant with your own values or faith.

I would emphasize that the department look at that and consider that in the new test results. That is a key component. Not only is having the right to practice your own faith and have your own rights important, but it's also very important to cherish others' rights to practice, even if they are different or not in concurrence with your own. I'm just hoping that you will look into that when creating your new book.

[Catrina Tapley]

Mr. Chair, we think this is a very important point, and many of those elements are in “Discover Canada” now. The test, which has 20 questions, is based on the content in “Discover Canada”, and that would certainly be something that we would look to retain.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Next, has the minister considered reducing the time to getting citizenship to the actual three years? I'm a little confused, and perhaps I should have read the bill a bit better, but right now it's going to five, three of the five. Can the person, once they've done their three years and have continuously stayed here for three years, go right away and immediately apply, or do they have to wait for the five-year process?

[Catrina Tapley]

They can apply as soon as they've met that three-year requirement.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

My next question, which I know has been asked before, is on the actual demographics of those who are aged 55 to 64 and the 8% who usually apply. How many more would be eligible for citizenship? Have we been able to study that to see how many would have perhaps failed the test or who hesitated at taking the test because of language proficiency, particularly between the ages of 55 and 64 and the younger ages of 14 to 18?

How many more permanent residents would be eligible for citizenship with this change?

[Catrina Tapley]

Mr. Chair, we monitor our pass rates on the citizenship test pretty closely, so I can say that there's an 87% pass rate on the citizenship test of people taking it for the first time. As the minister indicated, individuals can take the test a second time if they're not successful the first time. When that happens, we bring the pass rate over to over 90%.

Indeed, there is a third safeguard in the system, in that you can have a hearing to ascertain knowledge if you're not successful on either the first or the second try.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

My question is more of a survey, because I have some constituents who won't take the test out of fear that they will not be able to pass, whether it's the language proficiency or the knowledge-based test. They've been asking when the changes are coming in.

I wanted to know if the department has undertaken any survey or poll to see the actual amount of people who would apply in addition to what they would expect otherwise. So somebody, if they already on their own think they will not pass a level 4 English requirement, may not even go do the test. Therefore, you won't know their pass or failure rate.

How many more people do you believe would apply for citizenship with this new measure? Is there any poll or study conducted by the department?

[Catrina Tapley]

It's pretty difficult to isolate certain factors. I appreciate the question, but I can say in general we have a very high naturalization rate. It's about 85%. So of those 15% who don't seek citizenship over a fairly long period of time, there are a number of reasons for that. Some of that has to do with dual citizens or the host country, people's own desires. There are a lot of factors.

But in terms of being able to analyze those who are afraid to take the test, I'm afraid I don't have much on that.