Evidence of meeting #7 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-6.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Thank you, Mr. Bissett.
Ms. Douglas, you have seven minutes, please.
I'd like to stress to our witnesses that in consideration of our limited time, please stay within the time allocations.
April 14th, 2016 / 12:15 p.m.
Debbie Douglas Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)
OCASI, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, welcomes the amendments introduced in Bill C-6. I was here for Bill C-24, and it's good to be back.
We hope it will remove certain barriers to citizenship, particularly for disadvantaged groups, such as racialized immigrants and refugees, and immigrant and refugee women, children, and seniors.
We welcome the potential for the bill to move toward a more inclusive and accessible citizenship process and remove the two tier citizenship created as a result of changes introduced through the previous Bill C-24. We are pleased that the present government made the repeal a priority and has moved so quickly to bring this forward.
Bill C-24 extended the residency eligibility from three out of the previous four years to four out of the previous six years. It required six months of physical presence in Canada for each of the four out of six. It took away the pre-permanent residence credit that could be counted toward residency to a maximum of one year for those legally in Canada prior to becoming permanent residents, such as refugees, international students, live in caregivers, and in Canada, sponsored spouses.
Bill C-6 will change the residence requirements to three out of five while maintaining the six months physical residence requirements for each of those three out of five years. It returns the pre-permanent residence credit of up to one year.
The bill reduces the waiting time required to become eligible for citizenship and allows immigrants and refugees to become citizens more quickly. It will let them participate more fully in Canadian society to become full members and to contribute to their full potential. This is particularly important for refugees who may not have any other country in which to turn to for protection, and it will meet practical needs such as a passport for travel.
Reducing the time is especially important for future citizens, such as live-in caregivers, other migrant workers, and international students. They would have been living and working in Canada for a certain period even before they became permanent residents, getting to know the country and the people, and contributing to the communities in which they live, including by paying local taxes.
Maintaining the strict physical presence requirements removes any discretion, even if extraordinary circumstances have forced potential applicants to travel for too many days.
OCASI supports the proposed residency eligibility period of three out of five years and supports allowing applicants to count at least one year in Canada before becoming a permanent resident.
We do not support the strict physical presence requirement. We recommend a citizenship judge should be allowed to exercise flexibility to approve an application when an applicant has met all other requirements and has a compelling reason for missing certain days of physical presence in Canada, particularly for applicants who are otherwise stateless.
On the issue of language, Bill C-24 extended language and knowledge test requirements from those aged 18 to 54 to those aged 14 to 64, thus extending it to more people. Older applicants may very well learn English or French enough to function, but have difficulty in passing the test. Those with limited formal education and literacy will have the most difficulty in passing the test. Learning a new language and passing a test is often difficult as one gets older.
OCASI believes it is important to encourage and support all residents, including older residents, to learn one of the official languages and acquire knowledge about Canada, but making this a condition of citizenship would exclude many from full participation in our society. Given the general vulnerability of older people, we should support improving access to citizenship so more residents have secure status and the additional rights, entitlements, and protection citizenship would give them.
Younger applicants aged 14 to 18 would still be in high school, and in that process will be learning one of the official languages as well as about Canada. It was never clear to us why Bill C-24 reduced the age requirement to 14 years. Reversing this requirement is the right thing to do.
OCASI supports the proposed amendment to require language and knowledge tests for those aged 18 to 54. We also ask the committee to recommend that particularly older applicants, and I will add here particularly older refugees, should be allowed the use of an interpreter in the interview with the citizenship judge to satisfy the knowledge requirement. This element was in place before the Bill C-24 changes.
Through Bill C-24, the previous government changed citizenship application rules in 2012 to require up-front proof of language ability. We suggest that the requirement for up-front proof also be eliminated. Many potential applicants have been excluded from applying for citizenship because of this requirement. For example, applicants who have been working in more than one job to support themselves and their families, and who therefore have found it difficult to also fit in language classes, have not even attempted to take the test. Some others could not afford the testing fee. Yet others live and work in communities that don't have a test centre. Those who don't have the time or money to travel to a test centre have not been able to take the tests either.
We have heard from immigrant and refugee settlement workers that because of a variety of difficulties, their clients are opting to wait until they are older so that they can apply for citizenship without having to take a language or knowledge test. Refugees, especially refugee women in particular, are those who are most impacted. Often they have met all other requirements for citizenship. These are Canadian residents who are living and working here. They are part of our communities. They are contributing to Canadian society in many different ways, and yet they are excluded from citizenship because of this language requirement.
OCASI asks the committee to consider a recommendation that would remove the up-front proof of official language ability. Instead, we ask you to recommend that having met all other criteria, the citizenship judge should be given the flexibility to determine through an interview if the applicant has sufficient official language ability and knowledge of Canada to satisfy these requirements of citizenship.
Other amendments in Bill C-6—
12:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)
Oh. Then let me jump to applicants with disabilities.
At present, certain applicants with disabilities, such as those with vision or hearing impairment, are exempt from language and knowledge requirements, but the rules are vague with respect to everyone else, other than suggesting to those who have a certain order or condition, and can provide certain documents, can ask for a waiver.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Thank you, Ms. Douglas. Perhaps we can continue during the questioning.
12:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)
Absolutely I will continue during the question period.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Mr. Gardee, you're next.
Just as a reminder, please try to stay within your seven minutes.
12:25 p.m.
Ihsaan Gardee Executive Director, National Council of Canadian Muslims
Good afternoon, honourable Chair, and respected members.
On behalf of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, I'm pleased to have this opportunity to offer the committee our organization's perspective on Bill C-6 and the Citizenship Act.
Briefly the NCCM is an independent, non-partisan, and non-profit grassroots organization that is a leading voice for Muslim civic engagement and the promotion of human rights. Our mandate is to protect the human rights and civil liberties of Canadian Muslims, promote their public interests, build mutual understanding between communities, and confront Islamophobia. For over 15 years, we have worked to achieve this mission through activism in four primary areas, including community education and outreach, media engagement, anti-discrimination action, and public advocacy.
At the outset, the focus of NCCM's submissions today will be on the provisions in Bill C-6 that repeal the grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship as related to national security. We do not take a formal position on the bill's other proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act.
As a civil liberties organization, the NCCM supports the proposed legislative changes under Bill C-6 in order to remedy the problematic and legally dubious elements introduced by Bill C-24. Specifically, in our view and that of many other respected Canadian human rights organizations, including Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association to name a few, removing the grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security upholds Canada's democratic ideals and ensures the protection of our deeply cherished and hard-won civil liberties.
The law as it exists today has created, in essence, two classes of citizenship. That dual citizens are more vulnerable to losing their citizenship means that some individuals and groups are less Canadian than others and therefore are less deserving of equal protection of the law. This is completely antithetical to the equality rights guaranteed by section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely equality before and under the law, and equal benefit of the law. In effect, exposing dual citizens to banishment, something not faced by Canadians holding no other citizenship, makes dual citizens unequal before the law.
The Citizenship Act allows for a dual national found guilty, and incarcerated for a national security-related criminal offence, to be punished again with banishment through citizenship revocation and deportation. In our view, and that of many legal experts, this is inconsistent with the rule of law and the protections of the charter.
Aside from these human rights concerns, there is also the larger context to the social implications of the citizenship revocation provisions, which our organized is cognizant of, as we regularly receive and hear the concerns of Canadian Muslims. Simply stated, these laws do not exist in a vacuum and have harmful consequences. Stripping dual citizens of their citizenship for national security reasons unfairly targets immigrant and racialized groups, particularly those belonging to Muslim communities. It does little to enhance our national security by effectively unloading our problems on the doorsteps of other countries, many of whom may be our allies in the fight against violent extremism.
Make no mistake, the implications of the current law also go beyond dual citizens. Canadian Muslim individuals, families, and the broader community have been disproportionately affected by ostensible anti-terrorism measures enacted in the name of national security. In some cases, citizenship revocation proceedings have been commenced against individuals who were born in Canada and held only Canadian citizenship, merely because it was theorized that they would be able to obtain citizenship in a foreign country through their parents, even though they had never held such foreign citizenship or even lived in a foreign country.
This is an astonishing and deeply draconian and archaic development. Such an arbitrary and dangerous interpretation and implementation of the citizenship revocation provisions speaks to the urgent need to repeal them.
It is in this context that we remind the committee of what the Arar commission report warned about in 2006:
Given the tendency thus far of focusing national security investigations on members of the Arab and Muslim communities, the potential for infringement on the human rights of innocent Canadians within these groups is higher.
Since 9/11, Muslims have been living under a microscope and are subject to heightened suspicion, which is perpetuated by negative stereotyping and discrimination in Western countries, including Canada. The potential reliance on terrorism convictions outside of Canada to revoke citizenship further exacerbates the issue. Had the citizenship revocation provisions been fully in effect, it is not difficult to imagine that someone like Canadian journalist Mohamed Fahmy could absurdly have been stripped of this citizenship after being convicted in what was widely described as a flawed legal process. That should give us all pause.
Ultimately, while Canadian Muslims benefit as much as our fellow citizens from our shared national security and public safety, Canadian Muslims also pay a higher cost for any benefit that may be derived from national security measures. This is also true when we take into consideration the impact of other national security measures, such as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2015.
NCCM strongly believes that repealing provisions that revoke citizenship for national security related criminal offences is both a necessary and critical step in protecting the constitutional rights of Canadians. It is imperative, as a democratic and free society, that Canada upholds equal treatment for all under the law. At the same time, the NCCM supports measures that effectively enhance security and public safety while respecting civil liberties and the protections afforded under the charter.
To be clear, all Canadians agree that people should be held accountable for the crimes they commit. There is no question that the offences listed under the existing act are serious crimes; however, these crimes are appropriately punished by the criminal justice system, founded on a robust and transparent adversarial system and due process. In stark contrast to this principle of fundamental justice, the power to enforce banishment, as the law currently stands, is profoundly unjust and discriminatory.
In keeping with the spirit of Bill C-6, we would also like to take this opportunity to encourage Parliament to, at best, repeal or, at worst, significantly amend other harmful pieces of legislation that threaten the principles of democracy, equality, and the rule of law. Bill C-6 would have little meaning if the same principles are undermined through other legislative measures such as the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, and if any changes made to these are only cosmetic in nature.
As mentioned, given the disproportionate impact that previous security measures and legislation have had on Muslim communities, it is not unreasonable that they fear they will be the collateral victims in a web of unchecked power and unbridled information sharing, if not the direct targets of unfair scrutiny.
The temptation to create more powers of enforcement, detention, and punishment to make the general population feel safer can be appealing, but represents a slippery slope in a liberal democracy. The Citizenship Act provisions for citizenship revocation—
12:30 p.m.
Executive Director, National Council of Canadian Muslims
—are part of that slippery slope.
In closing, the NCCM strongly supports the removal of the grounds for citizenship revocation as related to national security under Bill C-6. By repealing these measures, the government can reinforce its commitment to rebuilding the trust of Canadians that they will be treated equally, including Canadian Muslims, who have felt stigmatized by national security policy and the public discourse surrounding it.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
I'd like to thank everyone for appearing before the committee. Obviously, one of the issues that we did have surrounding Bill C-24 is that there was very little input from experts such as you, so I'm very grateful that we've been provided this opportunity to determine if there are any gaps in Bill C-6.
I wanted to follow up on the testimony that you provided, Mr. Gardee. I understand that you're very much concerned about revocation of citizenship. I'm not quite sure whether you were here in the first hour when Professor Macklin provided a mechanism that would deal with revocation of citizenship. I was wondering if you would have any comments, and if you can think of any proposed mechanism to make sure that there are safeguards in place.
12:30 p.m.
Executive Director, National Council of Canadian Muslims
I was only here for part of the last hearing, so unfortunately I would not be in a position to comment on the mechanism appropriately.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Okay. Perhaps I could ask Mr. Bissett a question.
Mr. Bissett, you obviously have many years of experience insofar as immigration matters are concerned. You're probably aware that when Bill C-24 was introduced, the Canadian Bar Association prepared lengthy submissions. One of the issues that they were very much concerned about was safeguards in ensuring that Bill C-24 was consistent with the charter or, more specifically, with section 7 of the charter. I was wondering if you have any comments on that situation.
12:30 p.m.
Former Ambassador, As an Individual
No. I was aware that the Canadian Bar Association expressed concern that it might not comply with the charter, but as far as I know, it does comply with the charter. I'm not sure if it's been tested, but certainly, the Department of Justice officials would have looked into that very carefully. If they thought there was a chance that it did not comply, they would have been reluctant, I think, to let the government of the day go forward with that bill.
Of course, there are always two opinions on legal issues of that kind, and I would have thought that Bill C-24 would have been challenged by now. It's been in effect for some time. Indeed, it has been enacted in one case, as far as I know, where one Canadian has had his citizenship taken away.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Well, as you can imagine, the Canadian Bar Association is responsible for speaking on behalf of the bar. It obviously canvassed the opinions of experts in the field, people who are fully aware of the charter and its implications for any piece of legislation. I think one can assume that if they adopted a report that saw all sorts of gaps and shortcomings in the legislation, they brought their legal training to bear. Would you have anything to say about the—
12:35 p.m.
Former Ambassador, As an Individual
I wouldn't other than to say that the Canadian Bar Association speaks for the lawyers who belong to the association, but many lawyers who also belong to the association would perhaps disagree with their association's presentation, or at least would have some doubt as to whether the bill, if challenged before the courts, did or did not meet the charter.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I'll start with my questions with Mr. Gardee.
We started our review of the bill with the minister this week, and we spoke a lot about the change in the language requirement. I'm just wondering, it's something the minister agreed on, but would you agree that having language proficiency in one of Canada's official languages is important for any new Canadian coming to Canada in terms of being able to overcome barriers related to social inclusion?
12:35 p.m.
Executive Director, National Council of Canadian Muslims
As I mentioned in my opening statement, the NCCM does not take a position on the other elements of the bill itself. The positions we took were in relation to the citizenship revocation elements.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
So you have no comment whatsoever on the language requirements?
12:35 p.m.
Executive Director, National Council of Canadian Muslims
No. That is correct.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Okay.
Ms. Douglas, I would direct my question to you then.
12:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)
Yes, we believe it's important to function that newcomers speak one of Canada's official languages. As I said in my presentation, many folks are able to speak in English and French as a way of functioning. However, having language requirement as a condition of citizenship, especially for folks who may not be able to meet the threshold—