Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 14th, 2016

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their thoughtful presentations, as well as for the written presentations.

I'm not going to rehash some of the issues that were brought forward with Bill C-24 because we now have Bill C-6, which I'm very happy about. More to the point, there are issues that we need to focus on and address with C-6 that still need to be remedied.

On the issue of revocation, I think we've dealt with that. On the issue around independent and impartial hearing, I think we have the full sense of it. On the issue around statelessness, we have full sense of it as well.

There are a couple of other issues that were not touched upon due to time limitations, I think. One is the issue of knowledge of official languages. I know that was in the brief from the Canadian Bar Association. I wonder whether or not you could elaborate on the requirement to pass a knowledge test in one of the official languages. Would it amount to double testing, and what is your remedy for this issue?

[Christopher Veeman]

Prior to Bill C-24, applicants could take the knowledge test with an interpreter. So the knowledge test was really a test of their knowledge and not necessarily of their language ability. Our submission was that requiring people to take the knowledge test in an official language amounts to a second-language test. So the proposal is just to revert to the prior system, where people could take that test with an interpreter.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I would like to move on to a different topic, the issue of criminal offence abroad. Bill C-24 brought in provisions that were left in place in Bill C-6, which prohibited citizenship from being granted to individuals charged with, or serving a sentence for, a criminal offence abroad.

There is also a related matter of term bars to citizenship, which I think was in some of your submissions as well. I wouldn't mind hearing about this issue and whether or not this committee should entertain making changes in addressing these two items.

I would open it up to any of the witnesses.

[Andrew Brouwer]

Legal Aid does have concerns about that provision. It permits a situation where, if a repressive regime has a problem with a dissident who has come to Canada, all they need to do to deny that person access to citizenship in Canada is to lay a charge against them. That would be enough to delay indefinitely that person's getting citizenship. I would certainly support removing that provision.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I gather that all the witnesses are in support of that change.

As you may know, the citizenship fee has gone up significantly over the last number of years. It has increased almost 500%. In your experience with people making application, do you see that as a hardship for people, and should the government—although not in this bill because it's beyond its scope—look at measures to reduce that hardship?

[Andrew Brouwer]

Given our client base, the citizenship application fees and permanent residence application fees do present a serious barrier for many families. We made no submissions in this context because it's not part of the act. To the extent those fees can be reduced or can somehow be tied or related to income, or that there be exceptions allowed for people who are impoverished, I think that would be an important way to get rid of one of the barriers to citizenship for our clients.

[Prof. Audrey Macklin]

My understanding from the limited research that was done following more recent changes is that they have the strongest detrimental impact on access to citizenship by people who came as refugees. I think that includes the financial dimension of it. To the extent refugees are among those who most desperately want, need, and embrace citizenship as soon as possible, we should be mindful of not erecting arbitrary barriers to their ability to access it.

[Christopher Veeman]

My only additional comment is that to my understanding, the processing fee is intended to be a cost recovery model. From our point of view, we like to see fast processing of citizenship applications. In terms of addressing the issues of access, perhaps something like a waiver on humanitarian grounds could be considered, but we would not necessarily support the reduction of the fee if that's going to negatively affect processing times.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I would like to remind everyone to stay within the scope of BillC-6. Thank you.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Can you also comment on the question of humanitarian and compassionate grounds being considered at all stages of citizenship revocation? There have been changes made with respect to Bill C-24 related to that. In your experiences, why is it important that humanitarian and compassionate reasons be considered, and at what stages should they be considered?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

There are 40 seconds to answer.

[Prof. Audrey Macklin]

Humanitarian and compassionate consideration is crucial in any immigration system, because one can never foresee the impact of the law in all circumstances and on all people.

In this case, H and C consideration with respect to citizenship revocation should be located with the immigration appeal division or with whatever tribunal, if there is to be one, that will consider an appeal. The factors to be considered for H and C should be specified, or could be specified in relation to that particular task with respect to citizenship.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Mr. Tabbara, for seven minutes.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I have a constituent who is a permanent resident. His wife and children are 100% present in Canada. His family immigrated here from overseas, and he's developed a successful business in the Gulf, which he frequently attends to. He flies back and forth. He continues to operate that business to support his family. He has spent time in the Gulf tending to that business. Bill C-24 changed longstanding Canadian citizenship law by reducing residency to a question of days of physical presence.

Our current Minister of Immigration, when he was a third-party member of a committee, criticized Bill C-24 by saying it tightened the definition of residence so as not to allow any more time spent abroad.

The constituent is working for a Canadian company, but Bill C-6 doesn't address that restriction. As a result, my constituent's wife and children would easily qualify for citizenship, which they already did, but he may never be able to get citizenship due to his attending to his business overseas.

Your brief today addresses the issue at length, on pages 5 through 8. Could you take us through your evidence in regard to the undue restriction on the definition of residence?

[Christopher Veeman]

This was a submission we made at the time that Bill C-24 was coming into effect. We're still proposing, in what we call the “hard cases”, that there be a provision to allow the department to grant citizenship.

The test that existed prior to Bill C-24 I described as a bit of a vacuum. Nobody really knew, but there were multiple different tests that were applied. As a compromise position, we proposed what IRCC had in citizenship policy manual 5, which were some allowable exceptions to physical presence in Canada. They're set out there on pages 6 and 7.

It's a bit more of a nuanced assessment of the persons's connection to Canada, and potentially could allow someone like your constituent to qualify for citizenship. On the other side of the coin, the physical presence test makes things very black and white for officers who are processing cases. I think that may have contributed to the speed with which they can process them. There's a bit of a trade-off in terms of having discretion on the one hand, to allow those cases to be processed, and the fast processing that everybody wants. CBA's position is that there are those cases where deserving potential citizens should be heard.

[Prof. Audrey Macklin]

I would add that there's a difference between having a rule that's unclear—what does “residence” mean—and having a rule that's reasonably clear and capable of being implemented effectively and speedily, namely “residence as physical presence”, plus an exception where people can apply for a discretionary exemption from that.

I think it makes a difference administratively in how efficiently you can operate your system. The latter, I think, is probably much more efficient than the former.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

You touched briefly on this, but if you were to propose an amendment to broaden the definition of residence beyond mere physical presence, to allow for some common situations, do you have any recommendations on what kind of criteria you'd implement?

[Christopher Veeman]

They're set out on pages 6 and 7 of the test from that manual. These apply, for example, to a person who is travelling on business, but their family lives in Canada and their children go to school here and they have a house or a residence here. It depends on whether they've centralized their mode of existence—that's the language from the case law—in Canada. It depends also on the extent of the absence from Canada. If you've got a large gap, it may be harder to justify.

The last factor that's listed—and this is again from the citizenship processing manual prior to Bill C-24—is what is the quality of their connection with Canada? Is it more substantial than that with another country? For example, if your constituent is more established in the Gulf, then it would be harder for him to be accepted as a Canadian citizen.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

In brief, you suggested the minister be given discretion or that citizenship judges make the decision. If the minister were given the discretion, would the minister be able to delegate that authority to immigration officers?

[Christopher Veeman]

Yes, I think that's the thrust of the submission. Under section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, officers can be delegated the authority to grant exemptions, and that's how we would approach this as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Mr. Saroya, for five minutes.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I have a question regarding revocation of citizenship. Is there any condition where a person's citizenship should be revoked, like a condition such as fraud or lying on the application in any shape or form? Would you support anything?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Who is the question being directed to?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

It's for anyone.

[Christopher Veeman]

The position of the Canadian Bar Association would be that citizenship should be revoked in cases of misrepresentation and fraud, but that there should be some consideration available for someone who has been in the country for a long time and is established, and where the revocation could have a serious effect—for example, on their job. Maybe there could be an exception there.

But in general, yes, we don't support maintaining citizenship for people who have misrepresented.