Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 19th, 2016

[Dr. Patti Tamara Lenard]

Yes I do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

[Bernie M. Farber]

Could I just add before we leave that each of you is going to receive a little USB key that has all of our reports and all of our documents so that you have a chance to see them. We didn't want to chop down trees so we're going with the 21st century way of doing things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I would once again like to thank our witnesses for appearing today. We will now suspend for two to three minutes for the next group of witnesses to settle in.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Our meeting is resuming. I'd like to welcome our second panel today, which consists of Janet Dench, executive director, and Jennifer Stone, secretary, both from the Canadian Council for Refugees; Mr. Reis Pagtakhan, an immigration lawyer here as an individual; and Martin Collacott as an individual by video conference from Surrey, British Columbia.

I would like to remind the witnesses that there are seven minutes for each presentation. The two witnesses appearing from the Canadian Council for Refugees will have a total of seven minutes, just to provide clarity on that point. I would like to begin with Janet Dench, the executive director, and Jennifer Stone, secretary for the Canadian Council for Refugees.

[Janet Dench, Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Canadian Council for Refugees, I thank you for the invitation to appear before you as part of your study on Bill C-6. I will be sharing my speaking time with my colleague Jennifer Stone, member of CCR's executive committee.

We have submitted a detailed brief and we would also like to draw your attention to a document that summarizes our concerns.

The CCR is an umbrella organization for about 180 organizations from all across Canada. Most of those organizations work with refugees and other newcomers, whose experiences on the ground form the basis for our comments on the bill.

As a general comment, we want to highlight the importance of citizenship for the mental health of newcomers, especially refugees. Our members see on a daily basis what a difference it makes to people once they become citizens. They are finally secure.

This is particularly the case for refugees who have been forced to flee their own country. Until they become Canadian citizens, they face not only practical problems because they have no passport, but also the psychological stress of not having anywhere they can definitively call home, of still having the fear that they might again be forced out. Facilitating access to citizenship plays a vital role in promoting good mental health. Conversely, barriers in access to citizenship and measures that call into question the security of citizenship have negative impacts on mental health.

Our comments on Bill C-6 can be summarized in two points. First, we support early access to citizenship for newcomers without discrimination, and second, we recommend that the law guarantee the equality of all citizens.

We are glad to see several amendments in Bill C-6 that advance the objective of early access to citizenship without discrimination. Refugees and others can count time spent in Canada before becoming a permanent resident toward the three years required for citizenship.

Many refugees wait years in Canada before they become permanent residents, through no fault of their own. Thousands of people who made claims before December 2012 still haven't had a hearing on their cases—the so-called legacy cases—and for those who are accepted as refugees, the processing time for permanent residence was two years, until recently. For live-in caregivers, the published processing time for permanent residence after they have met all the criteria is 49 months.

Second, we welcome the proposed residence requirement of three out of the past five years to qualify for citizenship.

Third, Bill C-6 proposes reverting the application of language and knowledge tests to people aged 18 to 54. Youth under 18 are in school when they learn English or French and are educated about Canada, so we never understood the logic of imposing tests on youth.

Regarding the older age group, while we know that many are fully capable of passing the tests, some older people struggle with learning a new language and with doing tests. This is certainly the case for people who have suffered many losses and hardships as refugees.

Despite these changes, there are still important gaps in access to citizenship, and we recommend for your future attention the need to, one, create a right to apply for citizenship for youth under 18 who do not have a parent or legal guardian in Canada; two, prevent long wait times by requiring the government to process applications within a reasonable time; three, introduce an option for applicants to request a waiver from the strict physical residency requirement when compelling facts exist; and four, prevent citizenship applications' being used to launch a process to strip status from former refugees through cessation.

[Jennifer Stone, Secretary, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to make submissions to you.

To continue on equal access to citizenship, I wish to bring your attention to three additional recommendations from the CCR.

First, no one should be excluded from democratic civic participation—i.e., citizenship—because of an inability to pay. The increased citizenship fee, up from $200 a few years ago to $630 presently, and the 2012 upfront “proof of language proficiency” represent a disproportionate burden for refugees and others who are overrepresented among the working poor and those in chronic low-income circumstances.

The CCR proposes that these burdens could be alleviated first by introducing a process such as exists in the U.S. whereby recipients of social assistance can request a waiver from the citizenship fee; and second by reintroducing oral language testing for those who are otherwise unable to provide documentary proof of language proficiency.

Second, provide better accommodation for applicants with disabilities by right. People with disabilities, including cognitive or learning disabilities, can presently only ask for a waiver from the language or knowledge eligibility criteria on compassionate grounds. This is a backwards framework that is at odds with well-established human rights principles. The CCR recommends that Bill C-6 introduce language confirming the need for accommodation for people with disabilities who, but for the disability, would meet the eligibility criteria.

Third, the CCR supports reverting to the pre-Bill C-24 ability for applicants to challenge a citizenship refusal directly to the Federal Court without having to hire a lawyer effectively to request leave.

Further, the CCR supports the equality and equally fair treatment of all citizens. As such, we are glad to see in Bill C-6 that people cannot lose their citizenship in cases of criminal offences such as treason or terrorism and that applicants for citizenship do not need to show an intent to reside in Canada.

We believe that Bill C-6 could go further to ensure equality of all citizens in Canada, and as such we have two further recommendations.

You heard from several witnesses last week how troubling the current citizenship revocation process for fraud or misrepresentation is from a procedural fairness point of view. We appreciate that Minister McCallum has indicated he is open to amendments on this point. The CCR recommends that full appeal rights be introduced for citizens facing loss of status.

Despite the welcome measures introduced earlier to address the so-called “lost Canadians” cases, the CCR proposes restoring the right to citizenship for second-generations born abroad, reverting back to the pre-2009 rules. In the alternative, the government should at least provide the right of citizenship for those who would otherwise be stateless.

Finally, we commend the government for making this a priority piece of legislation so early in its mandate.

Thank you. We look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Mr. Pagtakhan, you may take seven minutes, please.

[R. Reis Pagtakhan, Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The first thing I would like to address today is not what is in Bill C-6, but the major item that is missing from Bill C-6. That is an amendment to the citizenship oath that was recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Late last year the commission released its report on Canada's residential schools and made 94 recommendations. Their very last recommendation was for the government to change the citizenship oath to include a commitment that new Canadians faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including treaties with indigenous peoples. Presumably, with the Prime Minister committing to implement all of the recommendations of the commission, the failure to include a provision in this bill was an oversight. This being said, the time for action, I would submit, is now.

Some of the proposed changes in this bill, such as the reduction of the residency requirement to apply for citizenship from four to three years and the reinstitution of half-time credit for certain temporary residents, will likely cause a spike in citizenship applications when the bill becomes law, and new Canadians should be able to look at this oath and take this oath.

As a Canadian born and raised on Treaty 1 land, I would recommend that the bill be amended to adopt recommendation 94 of the commission in its entirety before the influx of new citizenship applications.

With respect to what is in the bill, my first recommendation is that Canadian law should continue to allow citizenship to be taken away from terrorists, treasonists, and spies. However, I believe that amendments must be made to the existing law to ensure fairness in this process.

The reason I believe that citizenship revocation should remain for these very narrow circumstances is that Canadians convicted of these offences are convicted of offences designed to undercut our society or to overthrow our government. It should be kept in mind that before any individual is convicted of any of these offences they are, one, presumed innocent; two, guaranteed legal representation; three, afforded all of the rights under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms; four, afforded all protections of our common law and civil law systems; five, given the opportunity to offer a vigorous defence; and after all that they must, to be convicted, be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

After being convicted, these individuals then have the right to argue how their sentences should be mitigated. In pronouncing sentences, judges must under the Supreme Court's rulings take into account the immigration consequences of their sentences. Surely revoking citizenship for these types of offences after a citizen is afforded all of these protections is proper.

This being said, changes to the current law regarding citizenship revocation are needed.

First, the ability of the government to take away citizenship for non-Canadian convictions should be totally eliminated. One only has to look at the case of Mohamed Fahmy, the Egyptian-Canadian journalist initially jailed in Egypt on trumped-up terrorist charges, to see how problematic the existing law is with respect to foreign convictions. In Mr. Fahmy's case, the government chose not to take away his citizenship. Unfortunately, the process that led to this decision seemed to be political, and taking away citizenship is serious business that should not come from a political or an administrative decision. Because Canadians tried in foreign courts do not receive the protections of our charter, taking away citizenship in these situations is improper.

When the bill that enacted the current law was proposed in 2014, I indicated that revocation of citizenship for Canadians convicted abroad could be allowed if there is a workable equivalency assessment. After the situation of Mr. Fahmy, it is clear to me that Canadian citizenship should only be revoked for convictions in Canada.

Secondly, the existing punishment threshold to revoke citizenship for terrorist offences is too short. While any conviction for terrorism is serious, and I think we'll all agree with that, revocation should only occur for individuals sentenced to stiff penalties.

Thirdly, revocation should not be automatic. Canadians should be given an opportunity to appeal, to prove that they have changed their ways, before citizenship is revoked. While most terrorists will not walk the path of Nelson Mandela, Canada should certainly leave the door open for these types of individuals.

With respect to some of the other changes in the act, my comments are as follows.

The proposal to eliminate the intention to reside in Canada is a good idea. While there is nothing wrong with wanting Canadians to live in Canada, Canadians should not be discouraged from contributing but encouraged to contribute on the world stage.

Asking Canadians to reside in Canada while our government negotiates free trade agreements that allow Canadians to work abroad is hypocritical. We cannot promote trade agreements that allow Canadian-born citizens to work abroad while telling our naturalized Canadian citizens that they must live here.

Second, the proposal to allow certain temporary residents to count the days they live in Canada before becoming permanent residents toward a citizenship application is also good. Foreign students and temporary foreign workers should get some credit for their contributions to society before they became permanent residents. I don't believe, however, that this credit should be extended to tourists. While it's important to promote tourism, I don't believe foreigners here for a vacation should get any credit toward citizenship for the vacation days they spend here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Collacott, take seven minutes, please.

[Martin Collacott, As an Individual]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Collacott.

The first round of seven minutes will go to Ms. Zahid.

You have seven minutes, please.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and with your permission, I will take this opportunity to thank all our witnesses for their important input.

My first question is for Mr. Martin Collacott. I just wanted to clarify before I start the question. Are you still involved with the Fraser Institute?

[Martin Collacott]

I am still a senior fellow, but I'm not speaking on their behalf, because I'm not a staff member. I can speak more freely without having to clear everything.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Okay.

With regard to changes to language and knowledge testing in Bill C-6, you were quoted in the Vancouver Sun on February 10 as saying that this change was designed to increase the pool of Liberal voters, adding, “They’re more concerned with getting votes and not so concerned that they (new Canadians) will integrate socially and economically”.

Can you share with this committee what if any evidence and research you have to support this theory? It seems unlikely, given that Bill C-6 returns to the previous system under which the previous government won a majority government.

Also, is there any evidence you can cite to support the idea that fourteen-year-olds have integrated more successfully into Canadian society since Bill C-24 came into force?

[Martin Collacott]

First, may I say that's a good question. Thank you.

I'm more concerned about those between 55 and 64. I think the younger ones will probably learn enough English, so I concentrated on the older ones.

It is very clear that if you don't speak enough English, you're going to have trouble fitting well into the economy and getting a good job. There's abundant research on that, and that's what my comments are based on.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

My next question is for Mr. Pagtakhan.

In a March 4 article for CBC.ca, you wrote that for family-class immigrants and refugees, “language abilities and education levels are not relevant”, as the “intention of these immigration categories is to reunite families or protect people from persecution”. Given that the people at the upper and lower ends of the age ranges for language- and knowledge-testing who would be excluded from testing under the changes being brought by Bill C-6 largely fall into this category, do you see the changes to the age range having any negative effect on the ability of the new citizens to integrate into Canadian society?

[R. Reis Pagtakhan]

I agree that changing back to the age range that is proposed in the bill.... Frankly, if we have a concern about individuals being employable here, then let's deal with it at the immigration process. These people have already lived here for four years under the current law, three years under the old law, maybe longer.

Sometimes I question why there's a language test at all for citizenship. If we have a concern about bringing in people to work and study and live here, we should address it at the immigration point of entry. If we've decided that family-class immigrants don't need language requirements, which I think is the correct thing to do, then why do we make them write the test and spend the money? It makes no sense to me.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

With these new changes, the age for the testing is being brought from 18 to 54.

[R. Reis Pagtakhan]

I don't think there should be any language test, frankly, but if you're going to do something like18 to 54, go ahead. Make it easier for some people.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

My next question is for the Canadian Council for Refugees.

I would like to follow up on your recommendation that the Citizenship Act be amended to create a right to apply for citizenship for youth under 18 who do not have a parent or a legal guardian in Canada.

In what sorts of scenarios would you see this provision applying? Would there not need to be some substantial tie to the country, if we were to grant citizenship to a minor with no parent or legal guardian here?

[Janet Dench]

Thank you for the question.

To give an example, suppose you have a couple of siblings who have fled to Canada as refugees, and one of them is slightly older than the other. They are unaccompanied minors. They are recognized as refugees in Canada. They apply for permanent residence as they are able to.

The older one who is over 18, after they meet all of the requirements in the law, can apply for citizenship, but the one that is younger is barred from applying for citizenship because the laws for a grant of citizenship requires that you be over 18, or that you are accompanying your parent who is a citizen or applying for citizenship.

The minor who may have lived.... In some cases you have people who have lived pretty much all of their childhood in Canada, but they don't have that parent under whose umbrella they can apply for citizenship. At present the only option is to ask for a humanitarian exemption, but how you do that, and whether somebody will do that on their behalf, or they themselves will find out how to do it, is not at all clear. We feel there's a fairly serious discrimination against youth.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

You touched on another issue in regard to appeal. With regard to providing better procedure rights for loss of citizenship based on fraud or misrepresentation, could you expand on the elements you would like to see included in the decision and appeal process in this area in this proposed Bill C-6?

[Jennifer Stone]

The current regime allows that the minister, who has reasonable grounds to believe that somebody has for instance committed fraud or misrepresentation in applying for citizenship, will inform the citizen they may face a revocation of their citizenship as a result. The citizen is only allowed to make written submissions. It's up to the minister's discretion whether to hold a hearing.

Upon receipt of the written submissions the minister decides whether or not to revoke the citizenship. The citizen, now a foreign national in Canada, has only the right to request leave of the Federal Court to have a judicial review of that decision. There can be no new evidence submitted at the Federal Court.

In that way, loss of citizenship for misrepresentation or fraud attracts fewer procedural fairness guarantees than, for instance, loss of permanent residence for misrepresentation where a permanent resident would have access to the appeal tribunal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Stone.

Ms. Wong, you have seven minutes, please.