Evidence of meeting #9 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was language.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Shimon Fogel  Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs
Elke Winter  Associate Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Peter Edelmann  Lawyer, As an Individual
Stephen Green  Lawyer, Partner, Green and Spiegel LLP, As an Individual
Avvy Go  Clinic Director, Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic
Vincent Wong  Staff Lawyer, Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic
Richard Kurland  Lawyer and Policy Analyst, As an Individual

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

I would like to call the meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference received by the committee on March 21, 2016, the committee will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

We have three witnesses before us. The witnesses will make opening remarks in the order in which they appear on the notice. The first witness is Mr. Shimon Fogel, chief executive officer of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

The second witness will be Ms. Elke Winter, associate professor of sociology, department of sociology and anthropology, University of Ottawa, as an individual.

The third witness will be Mr. Peter Edelmann, lawyer, Edelmann and Company Law Offices, and he is here as an individual as well.

Mr. Fogel, you have seven minutes, please.

11:05 a.m.

Shimon Fogel Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Thank you. I am grateful to be here representing the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the advocacy agent of the Jewish Federations of Canada, to discuss Bill C-6.

As I noted in my testimony before this committee regarding Bill C-24, Canadian citizenship is one of the most valuable and highly respected commodities in the world, but it is far from being just a prestigious status one acquires. Citizenship in this country is an unparalleled package of balanced rights and responsibilities based on a set of core values designed to ensure dignity, freedom, and equality for all. I am certain that everyone around this table agrees that immigrants are among the proudest patriots and shapers of this country, a source of cultural vitality and economic strength.

Despite the dark era of Canada's “none is too many” immigration and refugee policy for Jews, we have come here from all corners of the globe for more than 200 years. Our community has made a positive contribution to the Canadian story, like so many others whom we join in appreciating the extraordinary opportunity and privilege of being Canadian.

We are glad that Bill C-6 will once again allow time spent in Canada as a temporary resident to count towards the residency requirement for citizenship. This will be particularly beneficial with regard to retaining talented international students who come to this country to advance their education and skills while simultaneously integrating with Canadian peers. They would seem to be ideal candidates for citizenship, and there should be no unnecessary obstacles in their path.

As this committee considers the merits of repealing many of Bill C-24's other provisions, I would like to highlight some elements that Bill C-6 quite correctly will leave in place, the importance of which cannot be overstated.

Retaining a physical presence standard in determining residency requirements for citizenship is an important principle that can enhance integration and decrease marginalization of new immigrants and, as Minister McCallum has mentioned, can also help counteract the problem of citizens of convenience. Bill C-6 will also maintain basic language and knowledge testing requirements for citizenship applications. Coupled with physical presence, this can make a significant contribution towards counteracting the importation of anti-Semitic and other extremist views, which, though marginalized here in Canada, are unfortunately still prevalent in many parts of the world.

We are very pleased that Bill C-6 does not seek to repeal Bill C-24's streamlined provisions for revoking citizenship from those who obtained it through fraud or misrepresentation. These provisions consolidated a process that has been routinely abused by those who hid their Nazi past when coming to Canada. The ongoing case of Helmut Oberlander is a timely example. Oberlander was a decorated member of the savage Nazi mobile killing unit responsible for the murder of more than 90,000 Jewish men, women, and children. When he applied for entry into Canada in 1954, he misrepresented his wartime past and fraudulently obtained Canadian citizenship. Oberlander has avoided the final revocation of his citizenship and removal from Canada by exploiting a flawed system for more than 20 years.

This ongoing experience demonstrates the need for Bill C-24's revocation provisions to be retained, and the government's commitment in this regard should be universally supported.

In this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the government for seeking leave to appeal the latest Federal Court of Appeal's decision regarding the revocation of Oberlander's citizenship to the Supreme Court.

There are other components that Bill C-6 seeks to repeal that we believe merit further consideration. We supported the introduction of measures to ensure that those who apply for Canadian citizenship actually intend to maintain a meaningful connection to Canada. The intent-to-reside provisions that Bill C-6 will repeal are an important element in this regard and could continue to have an impact on reducing the problem of citizens of convenience.

That said, the current articulation of this provision does indeed create a potential for abuse. Safeguards are needed to preclude a minister from commencing a revocation proceeding for someone who declared intent to reside but then went abroad to study, work, or tend to an ill relative. People should not fear being penalized for such eminently reasonable actions, even if the chances of a minister actually doing this are remote.

In reference to this provision, Minister McCallum when he was a member of this committee in the previous Parliament noted, with regard to:

...the question of citizens of convenience. We want measures in place to deter that. I sympathize with that goal, in principle. We want measures in place to deter that. I sympathize with that goal in principle.

Instead of repealing “intent to reside”, the existing law could be amended to more closely align this provision's substance with its principle. This could be achieved with a check on ministerial discretion, a requirement for the minister to seek a court declaration in cases of misrepresentation of intent to reside, similar to the requirement included for other cases of fraud.

When I last appeared before this committee to testify regarding Bill C-24, I articulated a position in support of the revocation of citizenship from dual national Canadians who commit certain offences, including terrorism offences. This position was a reflection of our belief that in the case of certain particularly heinous political crimes, the perpetrator is actually guilty of two distinct offences. First, they're guilty of the particular crime they have committed; but second, they're guilty of a fundamental betrayal of the core values on which Canadian citizenship is based.

Our support for this provision reflects the desire to address not just the crime but also the grievous insult to Canada and Canadian identity that has taken place. This is why we advocated for the revocation provisions to be expanded to include those convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Mr. Fogel, you have 20 seconds, please.

11:10 a.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Shimon Fogel

Okay. I have actually just one more paragraph.

The government has articulated a different position on this issue. We respect the mandate they received to do so and acknowledge the compelling arguments that have been made for why the law should not distinguish between dual nationals and other Canadians. But I encourage members, Mr. Chairman, to reflect on that second dimension, the insult to Canada, and consider ways in which they can reflect it in their approach to individuals who fit these circumstances.

Thank you.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Thank you, Mr. Fogel.

I would now like to call on Ms. Winter.

You have seven minutes, please.

11:10 a.m.

Professor Elke Winter Associate Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Thank you.

It is a great honour to be in this House again, so thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-6.

I am a sociologist who looks at citizenship legislation as a part of the government's effort of nation-building. My testimony is based on past and ongoing research, and today I would like to emphasize three points.

First, I commend the minister for proposing to repeal subsection 10(2) of the Citizenship Act, which provides the grounds for revoking citizenship related to national security. I would like to make three points to support this.

First, from a nation-building point of view, the revocation of citizenship is not a solution for a social problem, because it means exporting potential criminals to countries that cannot handle these individuals any better than Canada. Perpetrators may be either submitted to the death penalty, incarcerated in inhumane conditions, or most likely, the countries they are exported to may not be able to prevent them from committing terrorist acts from abroad. None of these are desirable, I believe, from a Canadian point of view.

Second, research suggests that perpetrators seldom refrain from heinous crimes due to drastic penalties. Not even the death penalty deters them, and potential terrorists rarely feel discouraged by the threat of citizenship revocation.

Third, and probably most important, our research has shown that past legislation, maybe unintentionally, contributed to the stereotyping of Canadian Muslims. Supported by a grant from Public Safety, researchers at the University of Ottawa have studied the media and social media coverage of the terms of revocation for Canadian dual nationals convicted for the threat of committing treason, espionage, and terrorism.

You will be interested to hear that the revocation measure was discussed skeptically by the media. Although the media was skeptical of it, their way of reporting also supported the idea that it is among Canadian Muslims, as well as dual Canadians more generally, that we are most likely to find terrorists. This, I would argue, is not conducive for multicultural nation-building.

I now come to my second substantial, larger point. In my reading of Bill C-6, as it's proposed, this legislation will bring Canadian law back in line with the idea that naturalization, becoming a citizen, is not an end point or reward of integration, but rather an important step toward immigrant integration.

Comparative research shows this approach is much more conducive to making immigrants not only part of the country's socio-economic fabric, but also to winning their hearts and minds, which is the ultimate goal when building a nation.

Once again, let me make three points to support this. Language skills are important to facilitate participation in society, but so is formal citizenship. Restoring the previous age limits for language and knowledge testing, and adjusting the language level in the application kit, will reduce barriers to the less educated, non-European-language speakers, and the economically vulnerable.

As we well know, at universities testing is a stressful undertaking, specifically for older persons and accompanying family members, often women.

As the previous speaker has already noted, restoring the pre-permanent resident 50% credit toward citizenship is an important incentive to those with Canadian experience: students, refugees, and former temporary workers. It highlights the interpretation of formal citizenship as a step within the longer journey to becoming fully integrated.

Third, changing the residence requirement to three out of five years, I believe, is conducive to retaining immigrants who are highly skilled, and highly mobile, the so-called best brains in the world that Canada and other countries want to attract. This measure enables these individuals to also become citizens, even though they may have to work outside of the country for some time and not be physically present. It gives them more flexibility.

My larger point is not part of Bill C-6 as it is presently proposed, but I urge the government to consider implementing a recommendation made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, namely to revise the citizenship oath to include the respect of treaties between the crown and indigenous people.

Interviews that I conducted with new Canadian citizens show for them the citizenship ceremony and the oath are very important and meaningful elements of the naturalization process. Since the current government has already pledged to value the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations, from the perspective of building a nation, this may be a good moment to strengthen the relations between our new Canadians and our oldest ones.

In summary, Canada has a long history of selecting immigrants who make an economic contribution to this country. For this it is envied in the world. This rationale, however, needs to be complemented by a warm welcome of new Canadians. I believe that this bill as it stands will move the legislation closer to that end.

Thank you.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Thank you, Ms. Winter.

Mr. Edelmann, you have seven minutes. Go ahead, please.

11:15 a.m.

Peter Edelmann Lawyer, As an Individual

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the members of the committee for inviting me to appear before you today.

I had the opportunity to have a discussion with your Senate colleagues about Bill C-24. At that time, I expressed serious reservations about the bill, which was subsequently passed by Parliament. So I am pleased to see that a lot of changes are proposed in the bill you are studying today.

I was born in Canada, but my parents were immigrants from Switzerland. I am eligible for Swiss citizenship, as are my two sons. Like many Canadians, we can claim another nationality. But under Bill C-24 and the legislation as it currently stands, we incur a risk that other Canadians do not, and that is not fair.

When I was before the Senate, Senator Eaton told me that all I had to do to keep my citizenship was to refrain from committing terrorism-related crimes. The issue is not whether or not I want to commit terrorism-related crimes. A person who commits a crime has only to give up his other citizenship in order to maintain the stability of his Canadian citizenship. That is not a solution.

So I am really happy that this legislative change is being dealt with today.

I'd like to speak to you in a bit more detail today with respect to some of the things I think would be helpful to see the bill go a little bit further either by going back to the system we had or by making some other changes that have been suggested by other witnesses before this committee. I'm going to focus my comments on revocation.

It's important to understand that in a world of nation-states, and as long as we live in a world of nation-states, citizenship is one of the most fundamental of statuses. It's the status upon which your ability to sit in this committee is predicated. It's the status upon which the ability to choose the people who sit around this table is predicated. It is the right to have rights. It's the right to have full rights as a participating member of Canadian society. It's a fundamental status and it's deeply important to the people who hold it. Many Canadians and many of your colleagues are naturalized citizens. For naturalized citizens to lose that status is one of the most fundamental losses they can have.

Under the current law, there is more procedural fairness built into our law around parking fines and traffic tickets than there is around loss of citizenship. The revocation of citizenship, under the current law, happens with a decision by a single officer. You get a letter in the mail that says, “Please tell us why we shouldn't take away your citizenship”. Then you send submissions to the officer, and the officer can decide whether or not they want to hold an interview. They may interview you or they may not. You may just get a letter in the mail saying that you're no longer a citizen. At that point, you are no longer a citizen. You can go to the Federal Court and you can ask the Federal Court to hear your case and to judicially review that decision from the officer, but you're doing that from the position of a non-citizen. At that point, you may well be in the removal stream. I'll talk about the situation of permanent residents at that point. That process is very fast and one with very few procedural safeguards and very little transparency.

Prior to Bill C-24, the process was very different. You would get the notice in the mail and you would have the opportunity to convince the minister why they should or should not seek the revocation of your citizenship. You could then ask to go to the Federal Court. Then the Federal Court would decide whether the misrepresentation or the fraud upon which you obtained your citizenship was in fact serious enough to warrant the loss of citizenship. Then the Governor in Council would ultimately decide whether to revoke the citizenship.

There are examples of cases that have taken a long time. In the Oberlander case or other cases, there are a number of reasons why there may have been some delays, but the process itself does not require those types of delays.

We have procedural safeguards for the loss of permanent residence that are much more rigorous. In the vast majority of cases, a permanent resident who's going to lose their status will get a notice and an opportunity to make submissions. They then get a hearing before the immigration appeal division, where they not only can present an argument as to why they shouldn't lose their status, but also get an opportunity to present humanitarian and compassionate or compelling reasons for why, despite the misrepresentation, they shouldn't lose their status.

Not all misrepresentations are equal. Some are very serious. Others are relatively trivial. The question is whether a single officer should be making a decision as fundamental as the one we're talking about.

In the law as it currently stands, there is a particular problem with respect to persons who are found to have misrepresented when they got their permanent residence.

Before you get your citizenship, if you are found to have misrepresented when you got your permanent residence, you get access to the immigration appeal division. You get an opportunity to present humanitarian and compassionate factors and to say that despite the fact you misrepresented 20 years ago, you now have children and a family here. Under the law as it currently stands, once you become a citizen, you go straight back to being a foreign national if you are found to have misrepresented when you got your permanent residence. You don't go back to being a permanent resident; you go straight back to being a foreign national. Therefore, your status is more precarious once you become a citizen than it was when you were still a permanent resident.

I would urge this committee to make some amendments with respect to those two aspects.

I thank you for your time.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Thank you, Mr. Edelmann.

We now move to the first round of questions for our witnesses.

Ms. Zahid, you have seven minutes.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all our witnesses for providing their valuable input.

My first question is for you, Ms. Winter. In your testimony before this committee on Bill C-24, you referenced research you were conducting regarding the raising of suspicion against dual nationals and the detrimental impact legislation, such as Bill C-24 and others, has had on some communities, particularly Muslim and Arab Canadians. You mentioned numerous rants against Muslims in print media, online fora, and social media, with negative stereotypes being extended and amplified by Bill C-24.

As a Muslim Canadian, I have seen these stereotypes first-hand. Could you update us on this research and on any conclusions your team has reached?

11:25 a.m.

Prof. Elke Winter

Yes. Actually, I reviewed that statement, and we have just completed the study, so I can.

The task we were given by Public Safety was to see to what extent government policy would lead to the stereotyping of Muslims. We looked at the law as it was written. We looked at your discussions in Parliament and in the House of Commons. We then looked at the mainstream media newspapers. My students told me to look at social media.

What you can actually see is that while the law obviously applies the same way to everyone alike, and the discussions in the House of Commons and in Parliament were fairly balanced, you can see more of those stereotypes coming out in the newspapers and even more in social media.

However, on this one, I have to kind of credit the Canadian media, and it's not often the case that I do that. They were very concerned about the fact that this law would target Muslims. They spoke critically about this, for the most part. However, at the same time, by always assuming that this law was there because there were Muslims, and while not all of them would be terrorists, that it would be among them, most likely, that you would find terrorists, in that sense they contributed to the stereotyping of a vulnerable group.

I think what it shows is that a law that may not intentionally target a particular group may ultimately lead to this. Once that genie is out of the bottle—revocation as a legitimate means to penalize someone and to punish someone—it is very difficult to contain.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Thank you, Ms. Winter.

My next question is for Mr. Fogel. I am confused by your support of the intent-to-reside provision of Bill C-24, which is being proposed to be repealed in Bill C-6.

I think we all dislike the concept of the so-called citizens of convenience. As you know, the Charter of Rights grants all Canadians mobility rights. That is part of the Charter of Rights. The intent-to-reside provision would seem to be unenforceable symbolism.

How do you reconcile it with the charter?

11:25 a.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Shimon Fogel

I think none of the issues that are being raised are very simple or lend themselves to easy kinds of solutions. What you are implying is correct insofar as we do want a balance between benefiting from a degree of confidence that those who express an interest in securing Canadian citizenship have the intent of participating fully in the Canadian experience, and recognizing that there are a whole set of other considerations that could preclude somebody from physical presence in Canada at all times.

By way of an example, I will cite the Lebanon-Israel crisis in 2006 or 2007, where some 15,000 Canadians were airlifted from Lebanon and brought to Canada, having not lived here for many years. They stayed in Canada for a very short period of time before returning back to Lebanon.

When we are confronted with that kind of reality, we have to ask ourselves an important question. How does an individual Canadian enrich the Canadian experience? Typically, it is done by participating in and being part of the fabric of Canadian society over here.

I don't know that there is such a black and white solution. I simply think that it is important to integrate the intent to reside, mindful of the citizenship of convenience challenge that I think we are faced with as a country.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Thank you.

You have supported the revocation provisions of Bill C-24. How can you justify supporting a provision that seems to target particular minority groups and has been shown to generate suspicion and mistrust of many minority groups by the broader population?

11:30 a.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Shimon Fogel

I am not insensitive to that particular challenge and the exchange you had with Prof. Winter. I recognize that this, too, is a difficult issue. I also recognize the mandate of the current government and its expressed intent with respect to this issue.

For us, it is almost a philosophical problem. By way of analogy, I will talk about a marriage, if I can.

One goes into a marriage, into that kind of partnership, with an expression of a commitment to a set of values. If those values are breached, then the solution that occurs, more often than not, is a divorce, because the individuals, through their actions, have repudiated the essential values that caused them to go into that union.

For a particular set of crimes—and we listed what we thought they were—we felt that somebody has been guilty not just of the objective crime but also of a crime against Canada.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Mr. Fogel, your time is up, unfortunately. Thank you.

Mr. Saroya, you have seven minutes, please.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Saroya Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with Michelle.

Thank you to the panel. We hear from both sides. My question is for Mr. Fogel.

It seems totally different from Mr. Edelmann. You are suggesting that people who are committing heinous crimes against the country or the Canadian citizens, innocent people, commanded by other people who commit crimes in other countries, should be deported back to save Canadians.

Can you elaborate more on that?

11:30 a.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Shimon Fogel

I listened very carefully to what Mr. Edelmann said. I'm actually not sanguine or insensitive to the points he raises. I don't propose that these are easy issues with easy solutions.

I'm also mindful of something Professor Winter said, which frankly I'd not fully considered, about what the consequences of deportation can be not just for the individual but also for the environment or the locale they go to. It's why I think, as I acknowledged in my comments, the government's position offers some compelling arguments in its favour, including, as Mr. Edelmann said, not differentiating between different Canadians: those who were born here or those who were naturalized as Canadians.

But I still can't escape the fundamental philosophical problem I have that when we talk about a convert to a particular religion as opposed to somebody who was born into that faith, they're making an active choice. They're making a declaration that for whatever reasons, that faith resonates with them. It's something they want to embrace.

When they do something to so fundamentally offend the values of that particular faith community, or in our case the values of Canada as a society and a country, then there has to be some kind of response. There has to be some kind of consequence. It may not be revocation. There may be other remedies that could be contemplated. But surely the insult to Canada requires some kind of recognition and redress.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Saroya Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON

Okay.

Professor Winter, can you tell us about the impact of language skills on successful integration in the case of Canada, especially a knowledge of English and French?

11:35 a.m.

Prof. Elke Winter

I think research has clearly shown that language is important. I don't have to tell Canadians that language is a means of both civic and economic integration and cultural integration. We live close to Quebec, so we know this. In that sense, I think it is an important fact.

However, I also think that language testing in itself doesn't do it all. The idea that just being here, that just residence time for someone means they will learn the language, can only be a proxy. Language skills require involvement with other people.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Thank you.

Ms. Rempel.

April 21st, 2016 / 11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Thank you.

If we have time, I'd like to go back to that.

I guess for both Mr. Fogel and Mr. Edelmann, we've had witnesses come before committee on this bill to talk about perhaps going farther than what's in the bill in terms of the revocation of citizenship, particularly in terms of being able to revoke citizenship based on citizenship being obtained by fraudulent methods.

I'm just wondering, Mr. Fogel, if you think this is necessary—and if so, what you would suggest in terms of an amendment—or if you don't think it's necessary, especially in light of the Oberlander case.

Mr. Edelmann, I'm just curious, based on what you said, as to how we can safeguard the perception that if you do present fraudulent information and somehow you slip through the cracks of our review system, which sometimes happens.... That's why this provision exists. How can we safeguard the obtainment of Canadian citizenship from someone who would be trying to achieve Canadian citizenship through fraudulent means?

11:35 a.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Shimon Fogel

I think the case for action against those who wilfully commit fraud in the application process is more straightforward and an easier case to make. I think the ability to consolidate the process in terms of appeals that can be presented by the defendant would be helpful in ensuring that justice is done in a timely kind of way.

But I do think there is indeed not just value but also a legal and moral imperative to maintain those kinds of provisions, which I think in every respect are different from the debate about revocation after the fact. Somebody who is intending to misrepresent or to commit fraud can't benefit from the results of that fraud having been perpetrated.

11:35 a.m.

Lawyer, As an Individual

Peter Edelmann

I don't disagree with the proposition that there is revocation based on misrepresentation. It's built into the treaty on statelessness as well.

My suggestion—and perhaps the example of permanent residence is a good one—is that historically we have removed the status from many more permanent residents than citizens. The process is relatively straightforward. There is an allegation made by the minister. You go to the immigration division. If the immigration division finds that you misrepresented, an order is issued and you get a chance to go to the immigration appeal division.

But not all misrepresentations are the same. If, let's say, 25 years ago you came here as an engineer and your engineering diploma was not in fact genuine, and you were from more of a technical trade, in those 25 years, you've had children, grandchildren, and whatever; you're established here. There may be reasons for not taking away someone's permanent residence in those circumstances today.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Thank you, Mr. Edelmann. Your time is up.

Ms. Kwan, go ahead for seven minutes, please.