Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 19th, 2016

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

By your own admission, you've just stated that the Conservative Party was also courting votes.

However, with respect to this piece of legislation, we heard from a University of Ottawa professor earlier today who stated that it's quite convenient when the law is made to ensure that perceived criminals are punished.

Don't you agree, then, that Bill C-6 in particular is more about doing what's right rather than what's convenient, and would you then withdraw or reconsider your previous claim that this is about getting votes?

[Martin Collacott]

I wouldn't say all of it's about getting votes. It certainly makes it much easier to get citizenship then at present, and I think unduly so.

I think a fairly strong case can be made that's it's related to getting political support. I don't think there's time to do it here, but I would be delighted to get into a full-fledged debate on that sometime in the future. I think I have evidence that this is the case.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

I'll let Mr. Tabbara—

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

Thank you.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

My question is for you, Mr. Pagtakhan.

When you last appeared before the committee on Bill C-24, you were generally in support of that bill. However, you disagreed with the failure to allow certain parts of that time outside of Canada to count as time inside Canada for the purpose of residency calculation. You said you believed that time spent outside of Canada by a permanent resident employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business should be counted as time in Canada.

I know that you're an immigration lawyer, and some of your experience is with issues you've had with business individuals who came as a permanent resident and established themselves here. Their families might have received citizenship, but due to their working overseas, they're unable to then obtain citizenship.

Could you share some of your experiences and maybe give us some examples, and can you share with us some of your suggestions on how to deal with that issue?

[R. Reis Pagtakhan]

My suggestion would be that any day that you can count towards the residency retention requirements for permanent residency, you should be able to count towards citizenship.

We have seen the situations of our clients whose whole family lives here while the clients are working abroad for a Canadian company that creates Canadian jobs and makes Canadian sales to people abroad, which repatriates the money here, and they're not eligible for citizenship because they have to be abroad as part of their work. Those people, arguably, may be contributing more to Canada than some people who are in Canada or some people who were born in this country. I believe that those individuals should be able to count those days towards Canadian citizenship.

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

You mentioned a Canadian company. There are also individuals who perhaps have a position in an institution such as a post-secondary institution or a university, or individuals who are not in a Canadian job. Can you describe, then, whether there would there be a leniency towards them? You mentioned just a Canadian company.

[R. Reis Pagtakhan]

That would be more of a difficulty. If they're accompanying a Canadian spouse abroad, that would fall within what I think should count for citizenship, because that's within the permanent residency rules.

Mr. Tabbara, what you're suggesting is that if someone is a Canadian permanent resident, goes abroad, works at a foreign university for a number of years, and then applies for citizenship, that person is actually at risk of losing their permanent residency because they're working abroad, but not for a Canadian company. We'd be in a situation where they wouldn't even be eligible, and they would be at risk of losing their permanent residency. Forget about citizenship. They can't even keep their permanent residency.

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

Then you still feel that if it is a Canadian job their time should be counted towards getting their citizenship?

[R. Reis Pagtakhan]

Yes, and there is some jurisprudence as to what exactly is a Canadian job abroad, so it's not some sort of scam where someone creates a holding company and then moves abroad to live in Barbados or somewhere like that. If you follow the jurisprudence through the immigration residency retention requirements, I think that's the appropriate one to use for this as well.

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

Do you have a specific case that you may have encountered?

[R. Reis Pagtakhan]

Well, I can't give you the names of my clients—

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

No, of course.

[R. Reis Pagtakhan]

—but I do have a specific case where I just received an inquiry with respect to a salesperson abroad for a major Canadian manufacturer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Mr. Tilson, please, you have five minutes.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Collacott, you've talked about the age issue, the 55-to-65 and 14-to-18 groups. I'm having a lot of trouble with the rationale.

For the 14-to-18 group, the rationale seems to be “oh well, they'll learn language in school”, although most of our schools—not all, but most—are French or English. If you can't speak French or English, there's an issue.

The same goes for the 55-to-65 group. There are more people who are working beyond 65, let alone 55 to 65, and for most jobs in this country you have to speak French or English—not all, but most. Not only that, but for both those groups, you need to know English or French to understand our laws. Another example given here for the 55-to-65 group is that some of these people are traumatized, and I expect some of them are.

Essentially, the way I look at it is that it's a watering down of our requirements to become Canadian citizens, which is very precious to us. We welcome new Canadian citizens, but they must abide by our rules. Could you comment on that, sir?

[Martin Collacott]

Well, I am very concerned about the language issue, Mr. Tilson, particularly at the 55-to-64 level.

I mentioned that I was citizenship adviser to the Ontario government for a while. I was in charge of services to English teachers for immigrants, and then spent five years on the island of Borneo with the Canadian International Development Agency setting up an English program for Chinese schools. Really, I've had eight years' experience in this area.

We do know that learning English and having competency in English is critical to how well someone does in the workforce. That's one of the main reasons that it costs us $30 billion a year, because immigrants are not doing as well and are not earning as much as they did in the past.

I think the erosion of the English-language requirement is a very bad move, frankly. I think we could have a much longer discussion. As I've spent eight years in an English-language training career, I have a lot to say on it, frankly.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I haven't heard any rationale, other than what I've just said, for the changing of this to eliminating the groups, the 14 to 18 and the 55 to 65. Have you heard of any studies or rationale from the government? The government certainly, to my knowledge, hasn't said why they're doing it. They're just doing it because we did it. They want to undo what we did as Conservatives.

To do that, presumably they have a rationale. They have studies done that justify this change. Have you heard of any of that rationale?

[Martin Collacott]

No, I haven't. The government said, when it took office, that it wanted evidence-based policies. I think this is a good example of where I can't find any evidence on which this policy is based. I think it's a mistake.

Someone asked me what evidence there was that the government is appealing to ethnic votes. I think this is a good example. More people look at citizenship who aren't prepared for it, because they don't speak enough English. I think it's wrong on several grounds. I don't see the evidence.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Obviously if people can't speak French or English, whether as refugees or as citizens, they can't work. That's not true. There could be some jobs that wouldn't require those languages. Then one asks the question, what would become of them? I'm asking a question to which I expect I know the answer, but perhaps you could, Mr. Collacott.

[Martin Collacott]

They're basically locked into jobs in their ethnic communities, where you don't need anything but your existing language, and you don't get involved in the broader economy. You are limited, and probably fairly impoverished for the most part, for the rest of your life in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Mr. Ehsassi, you have five minutes.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank all the witnesses. All the testimonies have been very helpful.

I was wondering if I could ask Ms. Dench about her comments on counting time in Canada before becoming a permanent resident. First of all, it's incredible how lengthy your submissions are. They're very helpful.

I note in the recommendations you make here, first of all, you state, “We support the proposed residency eligibility period of three out of five”, which is great, as it's reflected in Bill C-6. There's also another recommendation, which in principle you're saying you agree with providing credit for people who've been here previously. You say, “We support allowing applicants to count at least one year in Canada before becoming a permanent resident.”

In your opinion, would it make any sense to provide more credit than a year? Would there be any advantages to doing so?

[Janet Dench]

We haven't considered that particular question. Previously the rule was that you could get half-time for time in Canada, for up to one year. The reality is unfortunately that a lot of refugees, live-in caregivers, and other people waiting for permanent residence, spend too long in the process before they become permanent residents. Our priority is more to make sure that people get permanent status as soon as possible, because it's difficult for people to be in that limbo state.

Part of that, for refugees and live-in caregivers, is that there's implied family separation. In that time, while they're still waiting to have their permanent residence come through, they are separated in many cases from spouses and children. We would urge you to give priority to expediting that. The government has said they want to expedite family class, but we would note that there are other categories, refugees and live-in caregivers, where it is not family class, and they have even longer processing times than family class.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I think we can take away from this that you do agree with the credit that's being provided, but you don't think it would help if the individuals you just spoke of received more of a credit toward permanent residency.

[Janet Dench]

I speak on the basis of the positions that our organization has taken. We haven't particularly taken that as a position, but we are constantly hearing from our members how important it is, to refugees and other vulnerable migrants, to get to citizenship as soon as possible. It is a major issue for them in practical terms, but also in terms of feeling secure in Canada.