I have two points. The proposed amendment to section 5 of the act has a titanic-sized loophole. The second point is the strategic design flaw in the proposed bill.
First, before I begin, I express deep pleasure at the honour and privilege of again being before this standing committee. Thank you for having me here.
The goal of including references to Income Tax Act filings was to resolve the irony that one could be a resident in Canada for immigration purposes but not for tax purposes. If you're going to live here and obtain our Canadian benefits systemically, pay for them.
I'm pleased to see that this component of the current law survived the electoral transition, but there's a gaping loophole. The proposed amendment in its current form fails to include four tiny words. I'll read the sentence. The relevant part is:
met any applicable requirement under the Income Tax Act to file a return of income in respect of three taxation years
It must continue, “as a resident of Canada”. Otherwise, a person can file an income tax return as a non-resident, thus defeating the core intent of Parliament that if you wish to be a citizen you must be resident in Canada, not just for immigration purposes but taxation purposes as well.
The second point relates to our citizenship revocation process. Simply put, in its present form there are fewer procedural safeguards for citizens than permanent residents enjoy. It needs a rethink. Structurally, it's possible to engage a new division at the immigration, refugee and citizenship board, possibly. That could structurally channel citizenship issues for adjudication in a quasi-judicial forum. The alternative, structurally, is to substantively downgrade the person concerned from citizenship to permanent resident in order that they can attain access to a modicum of justice.
Those are the two points. I owed the chair two minutes from last year for going over time. I restore what I owed.