Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 21st, 2016

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

I want to follow up on Mr. Edelmann's comments around the language, vis-à-vis the knowledge test. Some would argue it's important for someone who is making Canada their new home, and making that choice to become a Canadian citizen, to have a certain level of knowledge about the country. You've talked about the problem with having a knowledge test that is in English or French. Some people might find that difficult to pass, not because they don't have the knowledge about the country, but because they don't have a sufficient level of proficiency, which is one that may exceed the requirements of the language test.

What is your solution, if you have one to propose, around ensuring new Canadians do have a sufficient, basic knowledge of the country?

[Peter Edelmann]

Sorry, just to be clear, my criticism is not around the knowledge test itself. My criticism is around the knowledge test being done in English or French.

To give you an example from my own schooling, I did school in French. I learned my math and science in French. It took me years before I could even say “Pythagorean theorem” in English, because it's a difficult thing to say. It's difficult for me, even now. I've learned over the years, but science and math don't make as much sense to me in English as they do in French. It's not that I don't understand the concepts, although my grasp of the concepts is not at a particularly high level. I understand the basic concepts, but I understand them better in French than I do in English, because I learned them in French.

It's more about doing the knowledge test. You might have the knowledge of Canadian history and understand the democratic principles, and the democratic rights, and all of those kinds of things, but the language used to describe those things is often higher than a CLB 4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Edelmann.

That concludes our round of questioning.

I'd like to put a quick question to the three witnesses. One of the fundamental principles of our justice system is that every citizen is treated equally before the law. The question is quite simple, and it can be answered yes or no. Do you subscribe to this principle?

Mr. Fogel.

[Shimon Fogel]

For me, it really reflects competing imperatives. I recognize the force of that argument, of the position the government has staked out. I still think there are circumstances in which the breach is so fundamental that it requires some other remedy that we have to put into place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Ms. Winter.

[Prof. Elke Winter]

I subscribe to that principle. I think that citizenship revocation is targeting dual nationals. Because they are the only ones who can be targeted by it, it does not treat them equally, although I do understand that philosophical kind of dilemma.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Mr. Edelmann.

[Peter Edelmann]

I would say yes. They should be treated equally before the law.

Just to come back to Mr. Fogel's example of a marriage, I would say that a more apt example is one of having a child. Renouncing a child is something that is very rare. Marriages break down a lot, unfortunately. The reality of—

[Shimon Fogel]

Mr. Chairman, he opened the door. Can I take 30 seconds to respond?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Mr. Fogel.

[Shimon Fogel]

The difference between the two is that the child is the product of the relationship. In the case we're talking about, it's the individual who is taking upon herself or himself independent actions that are an affront to the partnership they entered into.

[Prof. Elke Winter]

May I...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Yes.

[Prof. Elke Winter]

Since you opened the door, in speaking to a sociologist, we would also say that individuals do not only act on their own. I'm not condoning acts of violence or acts of terrorists, but we have to take into consideration the context, and I think in that case we all may be guilty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Professor Winter.

At this point—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you have done this before. You've just very conveniently taken the Conservative time to ask questions. You have a right to ask questions, but not at the prejudice of members of the committee. Your job is to make rulings. You can ask questions from time to time, but at almost every meeting you have done this, and I ask that you stop.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

To your point, “The Chair may, on occasion, participate in the questioning of witnesses.” That's in O'Brien and Bosc on page 1067.

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

I'm well aware of that, but this is not “on occasion”. You're doing it at every meeting. I just want to make a point. I resent your using up the Conservative time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

The round of questioning had concluded. It's not using up anyone's time.

Thank you.

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

We'll have this out again, Mr. Chairman, if you do it again, and I'll take longer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

I'd like to suspend for two to three minutes to allow witnesses on this panel to depart and the next group of witnesses to settle in.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

The meeting resumes.

I would like to welcome our second panel today, which consists of Mr. Richard Kurland, lawyer and policy analyst, who is here as an individual; Avvy Go, clinic director, and Vincent Wong, staff lawyer, of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic; and Mr. Stephen Green, lawyer and partner at Green and Spiegel LLP, also here as an individual.

Thank you.

Mr. Green, you may start, with seven minutes, please.

[Stephen Green, Lawyer, Partner, Green and Spiegel LLP, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for inviting me here today.

What I would like to discuss today is a very specific provision within the bill, and that deals with residence.

I certainly commend the government, with respect to this bill, for reducing the amount of time to three years within five. However, I would also ask you to look at the requirement of physical presence. For the past 30 years or so, physical presence has not been the test in Canada. We provided applicants with the ability to apply for citizenship when they hadn't lived here physically, based on certain types of circumstances. I think the introduction of the new act back in June of last year hurt a lot of people whom, as Canadians, we don't want to hurt.

I propose this to you. Should a journalist from CBC who is posted abroad have to decide between becoming a citizen or taking that posting? Should a permanent resident who has been accepted to MIT or Harvard—who can get a wonderful education and bring that back to Canada to help us—have to choose between taking that education and becoming a citizen? One question that I think will hit home with a lot of you is this. Members of this House are no less residents, I submit, because they are here in Ottawa. Think of the time you spend here in Ottawa, but where is your centralized mode of living? I would suggest it is back in your home ridings. Why? It is because you have a home. You may have a family. You have social connections, bank accounts. Because members of Parliament spend time in Ottawa, are they any less residents of Manitoba or Quebec?

I suggest to you that the current bill is asking you to do that, and I don't think you want to. We need exceptions to that physical presence. As many of you may know, prior to June of last year we basically had three tests in Canada to determine whether you met the old residency requirements.

One was a purely physical test. Another one was referred to as the Papadogiorgakis case, which is the story of a gentleman in Nova Scotia who was a student. He lived in a bus in Massachusetts and went to school. The court said that if you centralized your ordinary mode of living in Canada, that would be counted as residence time.

The last test, which was called the Koo test, was a test where Madam Justice Reed had set out six questions, some of them being, “Do you spend more time outside of Canada than inside? Was it a voluntary reason you went abroad? Did you return home after you were abroad?”

Those three tests were used and available. The problem was that the courts have held that as long as a citizenship judge chooses one of the three, that judge has not made a mistake, so, quite candidly, it was like going to a casino where you knew you were going to get your citizenship or you weren't, depending on whatever judge you got.

We have to have a system that will get rid of that lack of transparency, but one that will go ahead and at least provide the opportunity for students and workers to go abroad.

This is common in other countries. I will give you just two examples, one being the United States of America. In the United States, we are told that you must be a physical resident of the U.S. for 30 months within five years. We reduce it—it's interesting.... If you are married to an American citizen, you must show that you have resided for 18 months in a period of three years, but then they go on to exceptions. What are some of these exceptions in America? Well, if you work for an American company abroad, you can count that time toward your physical requirement. Do you work for a media organization? Do you work for a religious organization? In the United States, they have exceptions and we must look at them.

In the United Kingdom, there is the same type of test, where they go ahead and say that you must be a resident in the United Kingdom for three out of five years, but again they give exceptions. What are some of these exceptions? Ask the applicants where their family is. Where is their main business? Where are their social connections? You see that the U.K. and the United States provide this exception, and I submit that we should.

So what do I recommend?

I recommend that with respect to the current bill, if we keep the physical requirement in, we go ahead and we provide exceptions. Some of these exceptions, I would submit to you, are working abroad for a Canadian company, studying as a full-time student abroad, or perhaps working as a missionary abroad. We have to look at some of the exceptions because I think at the end of the day we as Canadians are going to lose some great people who should be part of our Canadian community.

You could even look at our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Section 28 of that act talks about who can renew their permanent residence. One of the exceptions about physical presence in two out of the five years is that you're working for a Canadian company on a temporary basis abroad. Again, we recognize that for permanent residents. I believe that we should recognize it for our citizens.

Finally, if this committee decides not to look at the recommendation of removing physical presence, then, yes, we have subsection 5(4), which is a provision that says that, if the person doesn't necessarily meet the residence, then the minister can look at various reasons. But the problem with that is that it's not transparent enough for us. We must have transparency in such an important type of thing that we provide to our people.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

We now move to Ms. Go and Mr. Wong for a combined seven minutes. Thank you.

[Avvy Go, Clinic Director, Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic]

Thank you.

My name is Avvy Go. I'm the clinic director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, which is a not-for-profit, community-based organization providing free legal services to low-income people in the greater Toronto area. With me is Vince Wong, who is a staff lawyer at our clinic. We're very pleased to be here and we thank you for the opportunity to comment on the bill.

For us, the Citizenship Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation in our country. Citizenship defines who we are as a people and therefore what Canada is as a nation. Being able to become a Canadian citizen is important, particularly for many immigrants, because our legal system reserves certain benefits, rights, and privileges to those with citizenship status, and of course, the most important, which is the right to vote.

Citizenship also gives immigrants to Canada a sense of belonging and it reaffirms their place in the country they call home. It's important for many of our clients at the clinic—many of them are racialized, many are non-citizens—to be reassured that our Citizenship Act does not promote injustice and exclusion. In fact, I will argue it's in the interests of all of us in our country that our citizenship law signals to all of our immigrants that Canadian society is a welcoming place for all people, regardless of their race, gender, socio-economic status, and so on.

We are pleased to see that Bill C-6 repeals many of the provisions that previous Bill C-24 had put in, for example, resetting the language and knowledge requirement so that they only apply to applicants aged 18 to 54, repealing the intent-to-reside provision, and reinstating a half-day credit for time spent prior to acquiring permanent resident status. These and others are positive changes, but many serious problems still exist with the current framework, and I'm going to turn to my colleague to address some of those problems.