Thank you, Chairman.
I've appeared before this committee more than a dozen times in the past, but I think Mr. Tilson is the only one who's heard me before. I'll just mention as background my interest in this area.
I was a citizenship adviser to the Ontario Ministry of Education early in my career. Then I served as head of mission, ambassador, or high commissioner in Syria, Lebanon, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka, where we had very substantial immigration or refugee flows at one time or another. Since I retired from government, I have concentrated on reforms needed to immigration, refugee, and citizenship policy. That's the basis on which I appear before this committee, as well as Senate committees and U.S. congressional committees.
As for the specifics of the proposed legislation, I have a problem with shortening the residence requirements for citizenship. It will make it one of the shortest in the world. In Australia it's four years, but in the U.S., United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Ireland it's five. It's seven in Norway, Germany, and Switzerland. Clearly, all these other countries think it takes longer to establish whether someone is going to make a good citizen. Sometimes those who want citizenship in a hurry are only going to park their families here, work overseas, and pay taxes overseas—not most, but some.
Other provisions of Bill C-6 that will further erode the formation of newcomers' close links to this country are that in addition to the bill's reducing the number of years of permanent residence required before applying for citizenship, they will be required to spend fewer days in Canada during each of these years and they will furthermore no longer have to declare the intent to stay in this country after being granted citizenship. I think all of these erode the commitment.
The plan to reduce the age range for which competency in one of our official languages is required I think is particularly ill-considered. While most Canadians would agree with not requiring people of age 65 or over to have a working knowledge of English or French, those between age 55 and 64 for the most part will still be working, and lack of competency in at least one of our official languages will severely limit their employability and earning potential.
Lack of language ability, in fact, has been identified as one of the main reasons that immigrants who have come here in recent decades have been costing Canadian taxpayers a very substantial amount of money. Because their earnings are considerably lower than those of either immigrants who came earlier or the Canadian-born, they receive far more in benefits than they pay in taxes. While we're constantly told of the economic benefits to Canadians from immigration, the fact is that research shows that immigrants who arrived in recent years cost us around $30 billion a year.
I am not opposed to everything in Bill C-6, but the parts I've cited above I think will significantly diminish the value of Canadian citizenship.
I find particularly unacceptable that it will no longer be possible to take citizenship away from dual citizens convicted of treason or terrorism. We have one of the most generous systems in the world, when it comes to granting citizenship. I don't think it's in the least unreasonable, when we welcome newcomers into the Canadian family of citizens, to let them know that they can lose that status, if they subsequently commit treason or acts of terrorism. Using the pretext that revocation of citizenship establishes two-tier citizenship, and repeating the mantra that “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”, will not convince most Canadians, who made it clear in a survey not long ago that 80% support the loss of citizenship for those convicted of treason or terrorism.
I think it's worth notice that eroding requirements for citizenship can be used for a political gain. This was illustrated in the 1996 presidential election in the United States, when the Clinton administration rushed through citizenship for more than a million people so that they could vote Democrat. It's been very well documented. Many of them didn't meet the requirements.
Chairman, in closing I'd like to make a recommendation. Canada needs a total review of what is required in terms of immigration and who benefits from it. We have greatly benefited from immigration at certain times of our history when we needed a larger population and when Canadians in general gained from immigration in economic terms, and we have a much more interesting society than just a few decades ago because of the diversity brought by immigration.
However, what is abundantly clear is that our current high immigration levels and the policies on which they are based are not serving the interests of most Canadians and are driven by special interest groups who benefit from having a larger labour force that keep wages down, by sectors of the economy that benefit from a constantly growing population, and by political parties who think they can expand their voting base. Current immigration leads to a larger economy and population, but not to a higher standard of living for Canadians in general.
Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, it costs taxpayers $30 billion a year, and in the case of those living in large cities such as Vancouver and Toronto it has a negative impact on the quality of life because of greater congestion, longer commute times, and housing prices that are beyond the reach of most younger Canadians, particularly in cities such as Vancouver and Toronto.
Thank you very much, Chairman. That's all I have to say.