Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 14th, 2016

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

Thank you, Ms. Douglas. Just as a matter of time, I'd like to continue with my questioning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Rempel, I believe Ms. Douglas was about to finish answering the question.

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

Mr. Chair, I believe, on a point of order, I do have time to direct the questions along my own lines. But thank you.

My question would then be related to a discussion that's come up in the Quebec legislature. There was an article written in the Montreal Gazette earlier this month, in April, wherein a proposal had been made essentially to deal with overcoming some challenges in terms of getting new Canadians, or people new to Canada who are settling in Quebec, to learn French as a language to overcome inclusion issues.

The proposal, which I'm reading out of the Montreal Gazette, was that under the plan:

...an immigrant would be issued a transitionary certificate valid for three years on arrival in Quebec. At the end of the period, the immigrant would be evaluated on his or her knowledge of French and Quebec values...as well as their efforts to find work. If they pass the test, the immigrant would get an immigration selection certificate after signing a commitment to respect Quebec values. Those who fail would be given an additional year to improve themselves. If they fail again, they will not be issued the certificate which means they could not apply for Canadian citizenship.

Certainly this would have some implications, if passed or discussed, under the provisions in Bill C-6. I'm just wondering if you could comment on whether or not you would see that as something that would be acceptable.

[Debbie Douglas]

I would hesitate to comment on something that I haven't read myself. But on the face of what you've just read, I have many problems with the whole idea of folks being asked to sign off on a document that talks about Quebec values, and having that be a condition for Canadian citizenship.

I think that's as much as I'm willing to say until I've seen the article or have a sense of the broader context in which this is coming forward.

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

Okay.

Mr. Gardee, I would give you another chance to answer the question. In terms of lowering the language requirement as per this bill, would your organization have a position in terms of what has been proposed in Quebec as it would relate to the changes under Bill C-6?

[Ihsaan Gardee]

I would repeat my answer, honourable member, that we take no position on the other elements of the bill. Thank you.

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

Excellent.

Ms. Douglas, we heard from the minister that the department hadn't conducted any quantitative research regarding whether or not it would be more beneficial to newcomers to Canada to perhaps invest in more, or more effective, language training services as opposed to simply reducing the age of language requirement. Given that a large percentage of people who would come to Canada fall in that new 10-year window, would you perhaps explain any research that your organization has done that shows this is a preferable method to seeing newcomers to Canada integrate into society rather than to simply lower the age, and again, look at perhaps a more structured system for providing language training services?

[Debbie Douglas]

We have a robust language training system here in Canada. Resources are always a problem because of scope and scale, more so than content and quality. It is interesting that you are asking the question, because that was exactly what our concern was when the changes were made to Bill C-24—that it was not based on any evidence, given the many years when we had the language requirement and the writing of the test for those between 18 and 54. The fact that Bill C-6 goes back to a proven system is why we support the changes that were made.

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

In the interest of time, when you talk about proven system, could you explain that? What sort of proof is there—

[Debbie Douglas]

For decades we had—

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

—that lowering the language requirement shows better integration into Canadian society?

[Debbie Douglas]

Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Douglas, go ahead.

[Debbie Douglas]

For a very long time, we had the age of requirement for writing the Canadian citizenship test between 18 and 54. The changes to lower the age to 14 and to increase it at the upper end to 64 were an arbitrary decision that was made. We flagged at the time that there were a significant number of folks—particularly refugees, and particularly refugee women—who would not be able, regardless of how many English or French classes they took, to acquire the language for them to be able to pass a citizenship test. What I am suggesting is that Bill C-6 is actually going back to what has been proven in the past.

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

You talk about overcoming barriers for these women, and I agree with you. We should ensure that women coming to Canada should be able to have full participation in Canadian society and shouldn't have social inclusion issues. In your opinion, why would the argument be made to change the age language requirement, rather than look, perhaps, at better language training services?

[Debbie Douglas]

For many refugees who have been victims of violence and war, who have had many years of deprivation, or who have spent a generation in a refugee camp, regardless of how many hours of language training they have, they may never be able to acquire the language at the level where they are comfortable or able to write a test. They may very well be able to carry on a conversation with their neighbours or at their corner stores, to be able to get along.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Douglas.

The time is up. However, I would like to use the chair's discretion, if you would like to take a moment to complete your thoughts on Ms. Rempel's first question.

[Debbie Douglas]

I don't remember what Ms. Rempel's first question was.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

We will move on, in that case.

Ms. Kwan, you have seven minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their thoughtfulness. There may well be some elements where I do not agree with some of the witnesses' presentations. That being said, I do appreciate the effort and the time they have taken.

I would like to direct my question to Ms. Douglas. I was particularly intrigued by the experiences that I know your organization brings and the number of people you are in contact with, your on-the-ground knowledge of reality. You mentioned that the issue and concern around the upfront proof of language in obtaining citizenship should be eliminated. I understand that. I can tell you that my mother, for example, has been a citizen for close to 50 years now, but if that test were to apply to her today, she would likely fail. In fact, she would fail it in her first language as well, because she has only a grade 6 level of education from China.

That being said, I wonder if you can elaborate on the point about the importance of the issues around barriers to citizenship in language and in finances. Why should it be changed, and what should be done in Bill C-6?

[Debbie Douglas]

One of the reasons we are wanting the upfront proof of language is because of cost. We've heard both sides of the spectrum. We've heard from folks who have lived all their lives in Canada, and for some reason didn't apply for citizenship until they were much older. English is their only language, and yet they have to pay for a test that says they have language requirements. We were particularly concerned around the 14-year-olds to 18-year-olds who are in school. You would think they were going to school in English and French, but if their parents were to apply for citizenship for them, they would have to pay to take a test to prove language ability. We don't believe it adds anything to someone being able to demonstrate their knowledge of Canada and our values as a society.

As I said, and your mother is a good example, we hear this over and over again from folks on the ground, who have elder folks, and especially older women, who've come to Canada, and who are often the last ones to be able to access services because they're busy taking care of their children, they're working two or three jobs to be able to pay their rent, and yet they have picked up on what it means to be a Canadian. What we're suggesting is that instead of having to show upfront proof, a citizenship judge could have a conversation with them to test their knowledge. In cases—and I keep coming back to refugee women and particularly older refugee women—where they may well be aware of what's happening in Canada, and very much aware of our system, there should be interpretation where required in a conversation with a citizenship judge.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

To that end, Bill C-6 makes the change for the aged. The elderly, in Bill C-6 in that context, would be exempt from this process. In my experience, there are a lot of people who may not be in the elderly bracket. Would you suggest this change should also be applied to all the categories?

[Debbie Douglas]

We've asked, and that was the conversation I wanted to have about issues of disability. There are folks who do have disabilities who may not be able to write, or even speak, or sign about the test. With the introduction of Bill C-24, we were active in advocating, together with some of our agencies who work with folks with disabilities, and then had processes put in place for those who are hard of hearing as an example. There are other folks with disabilities who may also need a waiver. It is certainly something that Bill C-6 is silent on and that we want this committee to take a look at in terms of the barriers that exist for folks with disabilities in being able to meet language requirements or being able to pass the citizenship test.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On the issues around barriers and financial barriers, the implications are huge. If people cannot afford to go through the process to obtain citizenship through the requirements as they are set out, they will be prevented to do so. On the financial barrier side, would you have any recommendations for government to consider what actions should be taken to address that concern?

[Debbie Douglas]

With the elimination of the need for upfront testing, that will take care of the financial barriers, but we're also concerned that citizenship went from $200, to $400, to $630. Imagine large families having to pay that significant amount of money. This is not in Bill C-6, but this committee should be recommending a reduction in citizenship acquisition fees.