Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 17 - Evidence - June 12, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 12, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day, at 11:05 a.m., to continue its study on the subject-matter of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I'm going to go back to our normal process, since you're here a bit earlier than we expected. I'm going to introduce my colleagues. I'm Kelvin Ogilvie from Nova Scotia, chair of the committee. I'm going to start on my right today.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Toronto.
Senator Lang: Senator Dan Lang, Yukon.
Senator Seth: Asha Seth, Toronto.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Nancy Ruth, Toronto.
Senator Chaput: Maria Chaput, Manitoba.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Minister, we are delighted to have you here, and I know you've made an effort, given the circumstances in the house. Could we just confirm if there are any limits on your time with regard to our meeting here?
Hon. Chris Alexander, P.C., M.P., Minister of Citizenship and Immigration: Not that we know of.
The Chair: Stand by for further updates, right?
Thank you very much, minister. The committee has been very much anticipating your appearance here, and we really do want to welcome you and your officials here today. Perhaps I'll immediately turn it over to you to introduce your officials and to give us a presentation. Then I'll open up the floor for questioning.
Mr. Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators, for the opportunity to appear before you. I'm delighted to be here with four of my colleagues who work on citizenship every day and who have been instrumental on the elaboration of these reforms and will be central to their delivery: Catrina Tapley on my left, Nicole Girard, Alexandra Hiles, and Mory Afshar.
This bill is historic because it addresses an asset that Canadians consider absolutely fundamental to their legal and juridical identity but also to their identity as human beings who identify with their country. We have renewed citizenship and reformed the law in almost every generation, but it has been a relatively long time — since 1977 — that there has been a thorough reform. I'm very pleased to be able to discuss this with you and look forward to our questions.
Let's just throw our minds back to Confederation. There was no such concept as Canadian citizenship. It was first talked about informally; certainly, in the 19th century, people called themselves "Canadians" and Canadian citizens, but it wasn't yet reflected in legislation until the Immigration Act of 1910. Then, we were all in this country, still British subjects resident in Canada, naturalized or born here.
The Naturalization Act of 1914, which passed exactly 100 years ago, was an important step forward in defining how citizenship would be awarded, and lost in certain conditions. The five-year residency requirement came into effect literally 100 years ago this month. Then the Canadian Citizenship Act came into place in 1947 after the war. The only major reform of that act was done in 1977, so this is historic in that sense.
[Translation]
The measures in Bill C-24 represent the first comprehensive reforms to this act in over a generation. What are their main goals? First, they would improve the efficiency of the process by which newcomers become Canadian citizens, as well as ensure that that process reflects the great importance Canadians place in their citizenship, and deter citizens of convenience.
[English]
We have to keep in mind that despite all the debate there is in the media and rightly in the public arena about this bill, it is a program delivered by a department that involves all Canadians. All of us have the right to have a passport, and the majority of Canadians now do have passports, and then among permanent residents and immigrants, a huge number do become citizens.
One of the most wide-ranging benefits of this bill is faster processing — a more efficient processing framework that will have a single decision point rather than a three-part process that we ourselves came to the conclusion was rather cumbersome.
In addition, it will allow us to move a backlog that is upwards of 350,000 at the moment downward swiftly in the balance of this year and over the course of 2015 to be under one year processing time for new citizens starting in early 2016.
Each year, we welcome an average of almost 260,000 newcomers who contribute to the economic, political and social fabric of this country as permanent residents. We remain the world leader in naturalization, with more than 85 per cent of eligible permanent residents becoming Canadian citizens. That is a much higher rate than the United States, than our other Commonwealth partners and certainly than any other nation in Europe.
This important legislation would deliver on our government's promise in the Speech from the Throne to strengthen and protect the value of Canadian citizenship. It would improve processing, reinforce the value principally by lengthening the residency requirement slightly and increasing the scope of the knowledge and language requirements slightly, not to include people who are not equipped to meet these requirements, to include high school students and working age, pre-retirement permanent resident who are seeking to become citizens, which seems an absolutely reasonable requirement to us.
It is actually striking that high school students tend to be those who most want to take the test and are actually the best at absorbing the information and succeeding at the test, because that's what high school students do, prepare for tests and take them.
We also want to strengthen integrity and combat fraud, as well as protect and promote Canadian interests and values.
[Translation]
In the past, processing was slowed down by situations such as the number of incomplete applications that the department received. From now on, it will no longer be possible for people to submit an incomplete application, which bogged us down with correspondence. Correspondence going back and forth took up a lot of our time. From now on, we will only accept complete applications.
[English]
We want new Canadians to show their connection to Canada by ensuring they have physical presence here. We did not explicitly say that it was physical presence in the country that was meant by residency in the previous versions of this law. There was abuse in recent decades with people paying unscrupulous consultants, lawyers, to pretend they were living in Canada, to set up an address and a mailbox without actually being here. We want that to end. It will end because of the new controls we have. We will be able to see how long permanent residents were actually here, and the scope for fraud will be much less.
We're also going to take a commitment from those seeking to become citizens. We're going to ask them to declare their intent to reside in Canada. If their intent changes and they decide to go live elsewhere or get married to someone who lives elsewhere, that's fine, and they won't qualify for Canadian citizenship, but we think it's absolutely reasonable for those intending to become citizens to have them declare that intent at the start of the process. Tax-paying Canadians should not be left on the hook for those who have no intention of becoming active members of our communities and living in Canada.
Unfortunately, there was a perception that this abuse was widespread. Indeed, there are thousands of cases still being investigated by the RCMP, hundreds of which have led to proposals for revocation. Even in my time as minister, unfortunately there have been dozens of revocations for residency fraud.
Citizenship applicants will also be required to file income taxes for four years out of the previous six, if they're required to do so under the Income Tax Act, and we are making efforts to ensure that it is in conformity with these changes. We want new citizens to earn their passport and stay to be part of our great Canadian society. Immigration lawyers like Raj Sharma have said:
. . . immigration fraud was rampant and you did see ghost consultants and unregulated consultants counsel individuals to embellish or exaggerate the time in Canada.
Raj Sharma, like most immigration lawyers, knows the Canadian passport is an incredibly valuable commodity, and individuals are willing to lie, cheat and deceive us to obtain that benefit. These are, compared to the great mass of immigrants to this country and new citizens, relatively small groups but large enough to be of concern and large enough to justify the integrity measures in this bill that reflect the need to crack down on abuse, to eliminate abuse from the system. That's what Canadians expect from us.
We will also designate a body to regulate citizenship consultants. We did this earlier for immigration consultants. It was a very successful experience. We haven't done it yet for this side of that profession.
The current penalty for citizenship fraud, such as misrepresentation, is a maximum fine of $1,000 or one year in prison or both. We take citizenship fraud very seriously. We want to deter it. Therefore, the measures in this bill will raise the penalty for fraud or misrepresentation to a maximum fine of $100,000 or five years in prison or both in the case of an indictable conviction.
[Translation]
In addition, we will streamline the revocation process and bar people whose citizenship was revoked because they obtained it fraudulently from reapplying for citizenship for 10 years.
[English]
It was incredible. We would revoke citizenship in the past and then have people reapplying for it relatively quickly. That will no longer be possible for at least 10 years.
[Translation]
Dual citizens and permanent residents convicted of serious offences such as terrorism, high treason, treason or spying offenses will be denied citizenship. These are serious crimes that will not be tolerated in Canada.
[English]
It is incredible to think, but we were able to revoke for residency fraud, for administrative misrepresentation, but we were not able to revoke if someone had concealed from us a crime, a war crime, a major human rights violation that they had committed beforehand. Now we will have that power if we can prove that it happened before the application was made and therefore constituted fraud.
[Translation]
Our message to foreign fraudsters and criminals is clear: Canadian citizenship is not for sale.
[English]
We will also, and this has perhaps been more recently the area of greatest debate, revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who were members of an armed force or an organized armed group engaged in armed conflict against Canada and deny citizenship to permanent residents involved in the same actions. Those who betray our country or take up arms against our Armed Forces will forfeit their right to hold Canadian citizenship.
It's quite striking to me, as someone who spent many years in Afghanistan and actually saw terrorists in action, that we were one of the only countries without the ability to revoke citizenship in cases of extreme acts of disloyalty. Under Conservative and Liberal governments in the past, before 1977, there was some power in this regard. After 1977, there was none. I think the only other NATO country not to have these powers in some form is Portugal.
These are normal provisions for democratic countries. They are used extremely rarely. Their deterrent power is clear and undeniable, but what does it really mean? Citizenship involves allegiance. New citizens — many of you I know have been involved in citizenship ceremonies recently — pledge allegiance to our monarch, to the Queen of Canada and to our laws and system of government. If you have taken up arms against Canadian forces or betrayed our national secrets to a foreign power or joined a terrorist group that we declare to be such, then you really have thrown over your allegiance to Canada. That's what these provisions say. That's the message we're trying to convey, but without creating any new class, small or large, of stateless persons. We will not revoke the citizenship of anyone who has only Canadian citizenship.
We will also try to reward those who serve Canada by allowing those who are in our missions abroad, in the RCMP or military uniform abroad, if they have children abroad, to pass on their citizenship beyond the first generation. That was not previously the case. Also, permanent residents who join the Canadian Forces will have a slightly faster track to citizenship — one year off of their four-year residency requirement, which is a small but tangible reward for their service in that particular field.
Mr. Chair, these are historic measures, moderate, in our view, and popular, in our experience. My colleague, Member of Parliament for Calgary Northeast Devinder Shory was instrumental in bringing the revocation provisions forward and did some polling on these fronts. Upward of 80 and 90 per cent of Canadians think we should be able to revoke in these extreme cases. We don't have more than a handful of espionage or treason cases in Canada every decade, but these measures will help us to ensure that will continue to be the case in the future.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. I will open up the floor immediately.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you, minister, for your presentation. I quite agree that it has been a long time since we've last had amendments to the Citizenship Act, and they're overdue. At the same time, we want to remember that it's been immigration and people who have become new citizens of this country who have really made this country what it is today. We've always had a welcoming kind of message for people coming to this country in the hope that they will become citizens.
I recognize you're saying there are some people who abuse the system. Yes, we should try to cut down on abuse; there's no doubt about that. But we also have to be concerned there isn't a bigger sweep that takes innocent or well- meaning people into it and makes it a condition that they're feeling more unwelcome in becoming citizens of our country. We've had a number of witnesses come before this committee that are concerned about that, and I'm concerned about it, too — namely, that what you're doing here is making it more difficult for people to become citizens.
First, let me point to something that's not in the bill, something you implemented earlier this year: doubling the fees. A lot of people will have a difficult time finding that affordable — low-income people, particularly if you have a five- member family. If you have a father, mother and three kids, you're talking over $1,000. For a lot of people in the low- income bracket, that's going to be difficult.
The language requirements — you mentioned the high school students. Okay. What about the people at the other end, the older people? A lot of people coming to this country as parents or grandparents late in life are not about to get into big careers here that are going to require a high command of either English or French. I've seen through the years I've been in public life people who have come from the old country and have brought their kids here, raised kids here but never tackled the language all that much. Yet, this is a test at a level that will involve both a written and an oral test.
Some of these people are also refugees, and there are some refugees who don't have literacy even in their own language. A lot of women have escaped their countries and the oppression of their countries without proper knowledge or education.
A third area that is making it more difficult is in regards to people who come here under the Canadian Experience Class, students, live-in caregivers or temporary workers. You're going to take away the credit they get. What kind of message is that? That doesn't strike me as a message that says "we really want you to become citizens," but "we're going to take something away from you," when they've already invested time and effort in this country.
Two more things I want to mention, because they are ones we've heard extensively about from witnesses. One is the intent to reside in Canada. This is an age of global careers. This is an age where people are mobile and get jobs around the world. Somebody comes here and says, "Yes, I want to become a citizen; I feel an attachment to Canada." They get on with an employer who has a global business — nothing unusual about that. That employer says, "I want you to go to this country or that country" or maybe sends them on a tour of a number of countries — whatever.
They then become concerned about this matter of misrepresentation. Who decides on the misrepresentation? It's a bureaucrat who decides on this. Perhaps ultimately you will have that decision, but there doesn't appear to be any court involvement in that kind of thing, certainly not on an appeal basis.
The original "four out of six years" or "183 days a year of physical presence" is a step up in itself, but this intent that goes with the citizenship beyond that point is of particular concern.
Finally, I'm concerned about the revocation process, which adds a lot of people into a criminalization category that hadn't been there before. Previously, they were just fraudulent cases; now these other cases come into it.
I'm concerned here about the process one goes through in terms of the lack of appeal; there's no appeal ability here. You can go to the Federal Court. There are a couple of issues that would take you to the Federal Court, but with a lot of these, you wouldn't get to the Federal Court except on being able to look at a very legalistic judicial review. That doesn't mean the person will appear before the court. In fact, they need to get leave before they even do that.
And ultimately, in many cases, this decision is yours. There's going to be written; they're going to be asked — I know all that routine. The problem is that there isn't going to be a proper appeal process.
On top of that, there is reverse onus if the person is or is suspected of being a dual citizen. They have to prove they're not. Again, there's a concern about treating people differently — a two-tiered system whereby people who are dual citizens are much more susceptible to having their citizenship revoked than people born in this country. But even people born in this country can end up being declared to be a dual citizen and could be deported to a country they've never been to.
I know, Mr. Chair, I've taken up a lot of time here. I could go into all that far more extensively, but I'd like your reaction to that, because that's what we've been hearing from our witnesses here.
Mr. Alexander: The only distinction here will be between citizens and non-citizens. Those who are dual nationals who commit an act of terrorism, treason or espionage will lose their citizenship.
I'm incredulous that Liberals and I guess less so for the NDP think that that should not be the case.
Senator Eggleton: There should be a proper appeal process.
Mr. Alexander: Everything is subject to judicial review.
Senator Eggleton: People are going to get punished to start with, and you want to do this —
The Chair: Senator Eggleton —
Mr. Alexander: Senator, I didn't interrupt you once, though I was tempted.
Senator Eggleton: You're making an attack on a political basis. I'm giving you the rationale we've heard from our witnesses.
Mr. Alexander: But no one else challenging these measures apart from Liberal and NDP members of the Senate and the House of Commons; and the BC Civil Liberties Association, which is a very small group — I think a fringe group — in the Canadian Bar Association.
I've had lawyers from across the board, Senator Nancy Ruth, saying how embarrassed they are by the position that these people have taken, because for common-sense Canadians, it is entirely reasonable to make the case that someone's membership in a terrorist group or selling state secrets to a foreign power is incompatible with citizenship in Canada. And we're going to protect people who have only one citizenship. These who are dual nationals and who want to do these things and keep their citizenship can renounce their foreign citizenship. There are a lot of options here that will prevent revocation.
But why do we spend so much time protecting the rights of those who are committing the most serious —
Senator Eggleton: It's the rule of law, minister.
Mr. Alexander: Do you know what, Senator Eggleton? These are the most serious violations of the rule of law that exist, and you are claiming that we are making it harder to become a citizen of Canada. That was your main contention.
Senator Eggleton: Well, yes, it is.
Mr. Alexander: In fact, we are making it easier by speeding processing, by clarifying the rules and by enforcing the rules.
What Liberals forget is that one of the main reasons —
Senator Cordy: Point of privilege.
The Chair: Minister, if you could refer in more general language, please. This is not an entirely political environment here, although it's within a political forum.
Mr. Alexander: What members of the previous government, prior to 2006, forget —
Senator Cordy: Point of privilege, chair, and I thank you very much for your intervention.
Minister, we have gone through several days of hearings, and we have listened to those who are in favour of the bill and those who oppose the bill. I think that as committee members, regardless of our political party, we have listened and taken notes on what people have said.
The Chair: Senator, your point?
Senator Cordy: I think that's democracy, and I find it offensive that you are being so political and partisan this morning.
The Chair: Minister, we will continue, and if you could resume your response to Senator Eggleton's fundamental questions.
Mr. Alexander: I will, but I will beg leave, chair, to note that Mr. Eggleton was a Privy Councillor and a minister in a Liberal government prior to 2006.
The Chair: Again, minister, if we could go back to the issues, that doesn't deny him the right to question nor give him extra special rights to question. As chair of the committee, I'd like to bring us back to the substance of this very important bill, which we are hoping to hear from you on with regard to these issues. We have heard these questions during the course of hearings and we are looking for you to clarify the issues for us.
Mr. Alexander: My point is that in contrast to what Mr. Eggleton was arguing, people come to this country because of economic opportunity, because of the vast natural endowment that we have, because of strong communities that people want to live in, but also because of the rule of law. This is an ordered society where the crime rate is low, where gross acts of disloyalty are almost unknown, where conflict does not happen. When we somehow try to pretend that those kinds of acts of disloyalty are compatible with Canadian citizenship, we don't attract more people to come to Canada; we lead them to ask various questions.
It is newcomers to Canada that complain to me, and I think to our department, most vociferously about the abuses that existed in the citizenship program and the immigration program. Someone who has followed the rules, resided in Canada, truly, physically, met the language and knowledge requirements, is infuriated when they see another person, or a group of people, led in the wrong direction sometimes by a consultant or an immigration lawyer, not necessarily a Canadian, and they want to see that abuse addressed. That's what this bill does.
Moreover, older Canadians will have trouble with the listening and speaking test for language. These are people 64 years and under. That's a middle-aged Canadian these days.
We have a statutory responsibility to recover the cost of the service. We were not doing that. Even with the new fee, which will be $300 — $100 for a minor — a single parent with three children will be paying much less than $1,000, senator. We will be less than half of the U.S. fee, less than one quarter, a fifth of the U.K. fee. The New Zealand fee is 50 per cent higher than ours. Canadian citizenship in those financial terms is a bargain at that rate, even after we fully cost recover.
Intent to reside: Many of my colleagues in the House of Commons seemed to have complained about this as well, that somehow we should measure whether someone was here, the number of months they were here, but it doesn't matter whether they intended to be here or not, as if people actually resided in Canada by accident. It is a requirement to become a citizen to reside for three years now. It will be a requirement to reside for four out of six years. If someone breaks that off and starts another life in another country, they will not qualify to be a Canadian citizen, but it is fair and reasonable to ask whether they intend to fulfill that requirement by physically residing in Canada, particularly because there was a misapprehension after 1977, with a large number of people in many countries of the world saying, "Oh, you can meet that requirement without actually being in Canada." We have to cut through that misunderstanding, not just here but around the world, and say we mean physical presence. That's why we're also making sure that time as a permanent resident is uniformly applied. A student who is here as a student is not yet a permanent resident, and their time, we think, as a temporary worker, as a student, shouldn't count. Their time, to be fair to everyone else, as a permanent resident should count.
Moreover, once someone becomes a citizen of Canada, the day after the ceremony, their intent can change, their plans can change, they can go off and live wherever they want, and they can do that even before qualifying to be a citizen. They just won't have the benefit and privilege of being a Canadian citizen, which requires physical presence for four out of six years under these new provisions.
Everything in this bill is subject to judicial review, especially the revocation provisions, but also citizenship awards or denials of citizenship. I think you all know that these are not sideline issues for the Federal Court. They are central to what the Federal Court does. It's a huge share of the workload of our court system at the federal level, and they do an excellent job in making sure that there is fairness in the system.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. I will now turn to Senator Eaton.
Senator Eaton: Thank you, minister. To make it very simple for people like me, could you take us through the steps of revocation? I get notice from you that my citizenship is going to be revoked because perhaps I've been in Syria fighting with Hezbollah. What are the next steps?
Mr. Alexander: There are two models. There's an administrative model and a judicial model. I would have to ask you whether the case you're giving us is membership in a terrorist group or membership in a terrorist group that happens to be fighting the Canadian Armed Forces, to decide which model would be used.
Senator Eaton: For the benefit of the record, why don't we say membership in Hezbollah that is fighting Canadian Forces.
Mr. Alexander: Right.
Senator Eaton: Perhaps you could give me the two — if I'm just a member of Hezbollah and I've got dual citizenship and I'm fighting somewhere with them, but not against Canadian Forces, and if I was fighting Canadian Forces.
Mr. Alexander: Let's take the case where someone is a member of a terrorist group that is recognized as such by Canada. A file would be prepared for review by a delegated officer under my authority. The minister would have to provide that person with notice specifying an intention to revoke, the opportunity to make written submissions, and the period, form and manner in which the representations must be made. There could be a hearing on the basis of the factors set out in the regulations. There would be a review of submissions and evidence submitted from the person concerned, but all of this would be after a conviction had taken place for one of the following acts: membership in a terrorist group —
Senator Eaton: And that's by a court?
Mr. Alexander: By a court. Departure from Canada to commit a terrorist act — we haven't convicted anyone for that, but that is a crime now in Canada — or commission of a terrorist act inside Canada. I think the case you're talking about is abroad, so it would be the first two indictable offences that would have to have yielded convictions.
Senator Eaton: So the person has to have been convicted in a court of law and then it goes to you?
Mr. Alexander: I will pass the floor to Nicole Girard, to make sure I have not got this wrong.
Nicole Girard, Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: The minister is correct. If an individual, a dual citizen, has been convicted in Canada of a terrorism offence or abroad of an equivalent terrorism offence to what exists in the Criminal Code, the steps that the minister has outlined would be undertaken, and ultimately, after the notice has been given to the individual about the allegations, all the evidence that is the basis of the allegations has been shared with the individual and the individual has had the opportunity to make submissions on all aspects of their case, whether they are a dual citizen and what response they may have to the allegations, all that evidence would be put forward before the decision maker. In the case of a conviction, as the minister has outlined, that would be the minister. A decision would be made. Under the bill, that decision is rendered in writing, and then the person has the opportunity, as the minister has outlined, to challenge that decision, if they wish, in Federal Court.
Senator Eaton: So they have been convicted, but they don't like the minister's next step; if the minister makes a decision and they don't like his decision, they can take it to Federal Court?
Ms. Girard: Correct.
Mr. Alexander: The person has 30 days to apply for leave after being notified or otherwise becoming aware of the revocation. In the case of revocation for these serious acts of disloyalty, and in all cases where leave is sought to the Federal Court, the bar is actually quite low, so chances are it would be given.
Senator Eaton: I think the case that my colleagues opposite were bringing up was the Canadian journalist with dual citizenship with Egypt, who is presently being tried for terrorism in Egypt. If he is convicted of terrorism in Egypt, is that counted as a conviction in court here? How would that work?
Ms. Girard: In a circumstance like that, the first question is whether the individual is now a dual citizen. If they are not, then the provisions don't apply. Then, if the person has been convicted abroad of a terrorism offence, the first question is, is it equivalent to a terrorism offence under the Criminal Code of Canada? If it's not, then we don't proceed. If it is, we have to also ensure that a sentence of five years or more was imposed. If it wasn't, we don't proceed.
If all of those conditions apply, then we have to look at the second part of the equivalence, which has also been mentioned in the House of Commons, which is that if all of those conditions are met, we also have to check whether there are any concerns with the process by which the conviction was achieved. Are there any concerns about the independence of the judiciary or other concerns about the fairness of the process? If there are, then the decision maker has the opportunity to consider those issues and to decide not to proceed if that's the case.
Senator Eaton: Thank you.
Mr. Alexander: In other words, it would have to be a conviction for an equivalent crime in a democratic society with the rule of law.
Senator Eaton: And a recognition by Canada of their court system, of the fairness of the court system?
Mr. Alexander: Exactly. And we would, not in Citizenship and Immigration but in the Government of Canada, review those issues, together with all of those who make assessments of other countries' legal and political systems, and that decision itself could be subject to judicial review.
Senator Eaton: Minister, one last question. Several people have been very concerned because they say that, for instance, if you're Iranian or Egyptian — and I know Iran is this way — if you're born in Iran, you're always Iranian; you are always a citizen. So if I am Iranian or Persian, get Canadian citizenship, go back to Iran, am taken prisoner, they would consider I'm a dual citizen; or is there a way of renouncing that?
Mr. Alexander: There is a way of renouncing every citizenship. No one in our country can be forced to be a citizen of any country. Under the laws of Canada, citizenship can be renounced, either ours or those of other countries.
Senator Eaton: In our eyes, they have renounced it.
Mr. Alexander: Correct. That might not resolve the difference of opinion with Tehran or other capitals that consider someone to be a citizen, but in our eyes —
Senator Eaton: They would only be a citizen of Canada?
Mr. Alexander: Correct.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, minister. It was really helpful to have that going through a step-by-step process for revocation when you responded to Senator Eaton, because that's been quite a subject of discussion here. I think you've clarified what's been a certain amount of confusion around that, so I do thank you for that.
Another point on that had to do with oral hearings. There was, I think, some additional confusion around whether, in the revocation process, the person involved, the citizen, would have the opportunity for an oral hearing. If you say that this is the result, first there's a conviction in court, I'm presuming that person has an oral hearing in the court. So, in fact, they do have the opportunity for an oral hearing; is that correct?
Mr. Alexander: Absolutely. The conviction in a Canadian court would require an oral hearing, a public trial. For us to accept a foreign conviction as equivalent, we would have to be satisfied that it met those standards as well. In some of the cases of revocation we're talking about, citizenship obtained by fraud for concealing links to organized crime, serious human rights violations, international rights violations, or membership in an armed force or organized armed group, we would commence the action in the Federal Court. The minister would commence the action in the Federal Court. The Federal Court would consider the facts in evidence in open court proceedings and make a determination. Obviously, that decision could be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, with leave to the Supreme Court of Canada if leave were given and if the circumstances allowed.
On the cases that Nicole and I were talking about earlier for terrorism, high treason, treason, espionage, there would have been a conviction with a very elaborate public dimension to it — and we're all familiar with the relatively few such cases in Canada in recent years — but then the minister would have the authority to hold a hearing on the basis of prescribed factors set out in the regulations if that additional public hearing is required.
But in any case, the person against whom revocation is being sought would have full notice, would have the opportunity to make full written submissions and, if circumstances warranted, have this additional hearing as well.
Senator Seidman: Thank you. That's very helpful.
I have one other question, if I might, around the intent to continue to reside in Canada, which is the language in the bill. Again, there was some confusion about a particular circumstance, if you might help us clarify that.
We heard that a naturalized citizen can be stripped of their citizenship if they take a job abroad for a length of time. For example, if when they apply for citizenship they have that period of four out of six years that they have to be physically present in Canada, and they have to declare that their intent is to reside in Canada — and "to continue to reside in Canada" is the language — we were told that once the person acquires citizenship, if they work outside the country and suddenly leave the country and go to work somewhere —
Mr. Alexander: No problem.
Senator Seidman: — that they would be revoked, that they were in a situation where their citizenship could be revoked because they were now going back on their intent to reside in Canada.
Mr. Alexander: No, absolutely not. The intent to reside relates only to the requirement to be resident in Canada for four out of six years to meet the requirements of citizenship. We want people to intend to meet those requirements so that they actually do meet those requirements. I'm not taking issue with your argument in any sense. I know that you are trying to clarify this issue. But I have trouble understanding how anyone could argue that a person, a permanent resident, would fulfill those four years out of six without intending to — as it were, by accident.
So it's a common-sense measure. It's something that clarifies an issue where, because of abuse, there had been a lack of clarity in the past, and no one at any stage is barred from changing their intention. If you change it before you've met the four years requirement, you won't become a citizen, or at least not at this stage in your life. If you change it the day after the ceremony, off you go.
Senator Seidman: I think that's the issue of clarification. That was the confusion that we heard here, because the language says "intends, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada."
Certainly a person would intend to reside in Canada, intend to continue to reside in Canada, if they want to be a citizen. We understand that.
It was the issue after they became a citizen, because we were told by some witnesses that this was creating a double standard, one for citizens and one for naturalized citizens. I think you've clarified that very directly by saying that once you're a citizen, you're a citizen like everyone else and, if you take a job overseas, nobody's going to revoke your citizenship.
Mr. Alexander: We all have the same rights.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
The Chair: This has been an issue for several witnesses who have made very clear statements. The senator has asked a question that is important to us to have answered, which is why we're delighted to have you here today, minister, and that is a very direct clarification. I thank you for that as well.
Senator Cordy: Minister, I take you at your word with what you're saying, that if you become a citizen of Canada, then you can in fact take a job overseas, you can take a fellowship in the United States, and it will not affect your citizenship, but when I look at the bill, clause 3(1)(c.1), it says, "intends, if granted citizenship, (i) to continue to reside in Canada." I know how you would interpret it, but how will the next minister interpret it? To me, that clearly says that if you're granted citizenship, then you are going to stay in the country. I have had a number of emails from people who are greatly concerned. One was a scientist-engineer who had to do a lot of work in London, England, who was greatly concerned that with the passage of this bill he would not be able to take contracts outside the country. Now if I listen to what you're saying, he can do that. Would that not be correct?
Mr. Alexander: Absolutely.
Senator Cordy: What's the intent of this particular clause in the bill, "to continue to reside in Canada?" Why is that placed in there if, in fact, the intent of it is just as you say?
Mr. Alexander: Because to fulfill the residency requirement, four years out of six, to receive a grant of citizenship, one requires the intent to be physically present here.
Senator Cordy: But that isn't what this says. What it says is "if granted citizenship," so the person is already a citizen, and then "to continue to reside in Canada."
Mr. Alexander: There's no requirement for a citizen of Canada to remain physically in Canada once granted citizenship, so there is no question of interpretation here.
Senator Cordy: In my mind, that isn't what the bill says, but I clearly hope that you are correct and that the next minister follows what you are saying.
Mr. Alexander: I'm not sure what could be interpreted differently.
Senator Cordy: Well, to continue to reside in Canada after receiving citizenship. So you are a Canadian citizen —
Mr. Alexander: The words "after receiving citizenship" are not there.
Senator Cordy: It says, "intends, if granted citizenship," so that's past tense.
Mr. Alexander: If granted citizenship, the person will be in Canada or have been in Canada for four years out of six, so that's the intention that is being referred to.
The mobility rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to all of us. There has always been a residency requirement to receive citizenship, and what we are doing is asking people to confirm their intent to reside in order to meet those requirements. Maybe I could ask Nicole to clarify, because I'm not a lawyer.
Ms. Girard: The only thing I would add to what the minister has already said, and I think he's been very clear on this point, is that the language that you're reading in the drafting of the bill has to be read in the larger context of what these requirements are. These are requirements to become a citizen of Canada. They are requirements that can apply only up until the point that you are found to have met them and become a citizen of Canada. All of the changes to the requirements in the bill and the requirements in the current legislation cannot be applied once someone obtains that grant of citizenship, and I think the minister's been quite clear on that score.
I take your point and your questioning about the language, but the language is only relevant to the issue being discussed, which is a grant of citizenship. Once that grant takes place, as the minister has said, the person's intentions can change. The person's plans can change. The person is free to travel and to work. I hope that's helpful.
Senator Cordy: Well, I will take you at your word, but I still find it pretty vague. I'm not a lawyer either. It says "granted," which is past tense. Thank you.
Senator Seth: Thank you, minister. I commend you for presenting this bill so clearly. I see here, minister, that you have stated in your opening remarks that Bill C-24 aims to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. Can you explain exactly how it does this?
Mr. Alexander: Citizenship involves everything that we value. It's obviously our legal status in Canada. It's our right to vote and our right to have a passport, but it's much more than that. It is our participation in a community, a society, an economy, our ability to raise a family, our ability to have careers, to start businesses and also to do things for one another. Citizenship, I think for most people, speaks to the unbelievable intensity of the volunteer spirit in Canada, of our civil society, of all the groups from Rotary Club to groups of new Canadians, clubs for sports, for every conceivable purpose to which Canadians belong. All of that is our citizenship. When people think of being a Canadian, they think of all of the opportunities we have in all of those respects in this country, and we have them because Canadians have worked hard — new Canadians, naturalized Canadians, people who were born here — over generations to build these institutions, to secure the peace, to build up the rule of law and to build up our prosperity. We want to protect them. We are one of the most welcoming, perhaps the most welcoming, country in the world to immigrants, to new citizens, but we expect newcomers in this country and new citizens to protect that legacy and to build on that legacy as well. They can't do it if they don't know what it is, hence the need for physical presence.
I think most Canadians find that if they knew the full scale of the abuse, the residency fraud we had, they would be sick to their stomachs to think that there were thousands of people who acquired Canadian citizenship by fraudulent means without actually living here at all, because that doesn't —
Senator Seth: It's too easy.
Mr. Alexander: That doesn't give you the experience, the direct contact with Canada, on which citizenship is based. That's one way we're reinforcing the value.
The other is by ensuring that the rules are followed. This is a country where the rule of law is central and institutions of justice are highly developed. The last thing we want is our immigration programs or citizenship programs subject to abuse, any abuse, hence the need to regulate citizenship consultants, hence the need to have these integrity measures, hence the need to revoke those who have cheated or have misled us in serious ways, and all of that is here.
All of it elevates, strengthens and reinforces the value of Canadian citizenship. To be honest, senator, I think Canadians take particular pride in their citizenship because we've done well since the financial crisis. We've done well at Winter Olympics. There are some specific reasons recently why we take particular pride. Our country is particularly stable and peaceful compared to others, even some that used to be.
That's why I think Canadian citizenship is particularly precious right now, and that's why it's popular and indeed almost a matter of consensus that we reinforce the value. We protect the value of Canadian citizenship and, where possible, enhance it.
Senator Seth: Thank you very much. That was very good.
The Chair: Minister, there is one thing that has come up, which frankly I can't comprehend in terms of the questioners that have brought the issue forward. We have heard, even from the people who have brought forward this question, that Canadian citizenship is a highly valued commodity in the world of citizenship, for various reasons that have been explained during our meetings — the value of our open society, our laws, our legal system, and so on, the status of being a Canadian in the world.
However, some who have said some of those same things have said that moving to this four years out of six somehow will diminish the desire of a person to seek our citizenship. Yet, from the evidence that we have been provided, four out of six is, at best, in the middle of the pack — actually towards the lower end of the pack — in citizenship around the world.
Can you help me understand why that would diminish? Indeed, the objective is to gain citizenship to be a Canadian within Canada. How could that be the basis? I simply don't understand it.
Mr. Alexander: Well, I cannot predict the future, but the best indicator of what the future holds is past experience. In that respect, everything we have done to increase the integrity of our immigration system, reduce backlogs and cut down on abuse and, so far, to enhance the value of Canadian citizenship with the knowledge and language tests, which were strengthened earlier under this government, with the Discover Canada guide, with revocation measures to ascertain who had been truly resident here and who hadn't been and measures to crack down on abuse — every one of these measures has only led to a higher rate of application. And it is not just numbers of applications — because we're getting more immigrants than ever before — but a higher rate of application for citizenship and a higher rate of naturalization.
You could argue that the higher we put the bar — and we're putting it moderately higher for language, residency, one more year — the more popular and attractive it becomes. People see it having value, and if it has increased value, it becomes even more of a magnet.
You're right: In comparison to other countries that take large numbers of immigrants, it's still a relatively low residency bar. It is the same as Australia, which is one year lower than the United States and the U.K. Many other countries in Asia and Europe have much longer residency periods and much tougher language requirements, too.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Mr. Minister, Bill C-24 will make major changes to the role of citizenship judges. Among their responsibilities was that of assessing and recommending exemptions. How will the transition in the role of citizenship judges be done? Will there still be citizenship judges and what will they do?
Mr. Alexander: Yes, the judges are still there and, at the moment, they are the only ones who can make a number of decisions about citizenship. Under the new system that this bill proposes, there will be a more important group of officials who will be able to make decisions about citizenship. We have a limited number of judges; I think we have 31.5 of them, because some are part-time. We are not able to handle the number of applications we receive. So the judges' role will continue, but the officials will be able to give them a hand in this respect.
In the future, we foresee a much more important role for judges in terms of promoting citizenship. We want them to promote the rules, the responsibilities and the linguistic knowledge that Canadian citizenship requires. As it stands, they simply do not have the time to do that in schools, in universities, and for other audiences.
Of course, they will continue to preside over the ceremonies. They will continue to decide on difficult cases where, for example, there is some doubt about the residency period. But we will encourage them to reshape our global network in order to promote Canada and Canadian citizenship.
Senator Chaput: Who will they report to? The bill mentions ministers and officials, but also judges.
Mr. Alexander: The department is responsible for the citizenship program, through the deputy minister and minister. But the judges report to a chief judge.
Senator Chaput: Will that still be the case?
Mr. Alexander: The chief judge reports to me.
[English]
Senator Lang: I'd like to go back to the question of the revocation of Canadian citizenship for dual nationals — the one you spoke of earlier. At the outset, I really believe this portion is long overdue. I'm a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, and we are presently examining the question of the inadmissibility of individuals coming into this country. Terrorism is of some concern — whether or not we are importing that to some degree.
I want to go back to this particular section. You said earlier that there have been very few cases — and we are very fortunate — in the past where this kind of situation has developed and other laws have had to come into account. Presently, it's my understanding that it's estimated there could well be 30 — and some knowledgeable observers say there could be well over 100 — Canadians, some with dual citizenship, who are presently fighting over in places such as Syria.
I'd just like to hear what your observations are, looking forward, in view of this type of occurrence now happening in our society. Do you see this section becoming that much more important in view of what we may be facing with what is basically the importation of terrorists?
Mr. Alexander: It is a concern, Senator Lang. Thank you for raising it.
My remark about convictions for these crimes was that we have relatively few convictions for terrorism, treason and espionage in Canada even across an entire decade. But you're right: According to our security agency's best recent information, there are thought to be about 100 Canadians who have left Canada to join terrorist groups in one part of the world or another. There are also some 30 — it could be a bit higher or a bit lower — who are thought to be in Syria. Some of those people may be dual nationals. I have to say, I'm not aware one way or the other of a single case. That issue will have to be looked at when the time comes.
Clearly, terrorism continues to be a major threat to order in the world, international peace and security, and the existence of certain states. Look at Iraq today. The situation has probably deteriorated further while we've been in this meeting, with large cities coming under the control of a serious al Qaeda-linked terrorist group. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and many countries in the Maghreb and in the northern half of Africa are facing terrorist threats. We have to take them seriously.
We have to continue to protect Canada, and we have to deter Canadians from the misguided notion that there is anything to be gained from taking part in these struggles, which not only have led to the deaths of Canadians — we've seen several in recent years — and the deaths of the civilians who are victims of the fighting, but are also overturning the institutional order in whole regions of the world. The Middle East is a very different place from what it was in 2011 when the Arab Spring began.
Senator Lang: Could I just follow up on that? It's safe to say Canada has changed as well in respect to the idea that we're even having this public conversation.
You touched on it briefly, but perhaps you could expound on this particular section again, the revocation of a dual national of their Canadian citizenship, how this, as you see it going into the future, can be seen as a deterrent for individuals to perhaps become involved in these types of activities.
Mr. Alexander: This comes back to the issue of the value of citizenship. If we are able to say to a young person who happens to be a dual national — it doesn't have to be a young person, but some are — and we're not just worried about naturalized Canadians. There is a phenomenon of homegrown terrorism where people can become conditioned to buy into the message of an extremist group, just by being on the Internet.
If we're able to say that your citizenship may be in jeopardy if you continue down this perilous path, I think that's a powerful deterrent. I don't think there's room for ambiguity on this front, and that's why we're prepared to put terrorism alongside treason, fighting the Canadian Forces, the most serious crimes related to espionage and to say these are acts that are incompatible with Canadian citizenship. No, we're not going to revoke it for those who have only one citizenship because we have an obligation not to make people stateless, but the penalties are very high for these things, and we put in place new penalties for terrorism, even to leave the country to commit an act of terrorism, which we're prepared to act on when the evidence warrants.
Canadians are very concerned about this. I think they're very clear-eyed about terrorism. They don't want us to exaggerate or fear-monger. They want us to be reasonable and clear-eyed in looking at what is happening in the world. I think they understand that it's a real threat and that our laws should reflect the seriousness of that threat and do everything in their power to prevent Canadians from becoming part of the problem with respect to terrorism.
The Chair: Thank you. Minister, your appearance here today clearly exemplifies the importance and value of the minister being before a Senate committee with regard to any piece of legislation. It's something this committee takes very seriously. You have noted that, in this case, as we do now, based on our experience, we tend to invite the minister to appear last as opposed to first, which is the traditional approach. I think today's meeting gives a very clear example of the value of that, because questions arise during our hearings that can only be answered with credibility from those who have a direct involvement with the bill itself.
That is the case here in this particular bill, where almost every witness that has appeared before us has agreed that it's long overdue to make changes, but they have had serious issues that you've seen brought forward here today. One of the ones that was expounded on most, with the greatest degree of emotion, was the idea that the minute you get citizenship and you take a fellowship at Harvard, you're going to lose your Canadian citizenship. It was difficult for me in a modern world to comprehend how any society of our democratic nature could do that. Nevertheless, before the bill is interpreted in the clear meaning and intent, we have to rely on what we hear overall. We have now those who have been intimately involved in crafting the bill and understand its detail.
Hopefully, your answers have helped committee members with regard to these important issues in reaching their final decision. From my perspective, you have been extremely helpful to us today with regard to all of these issues. I appreciate very much the officials you have with you at the table, and I know that there are other officials in the room who would have been available had the questions broadened out into those areas. I want to acknowledge their presence as well.
Do you have any final comments to us, minister, before I declare the meeting adjourned?
Mr. Alexander: Just to say that we should all be grateful to those who toil in the garden of citizenship in CIC. They are already achieving great results this year, 100,000 new citizenship grants in the first five months of this year, thanks to investments made and preparations for the provisions in this bill.
Thank you to you, chair, and other honourable senators. The quality of discussion in your committee and other Senate committees speak for itself. It is a pleasure to be here and certainly a valuable experience to have this exchange. We wish you well with the balance of your work both here and in the chamber.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. I want to thank my colleagues for these sessions. We are anxious to see the bill arise when we will have our final opportunity in clause by clause. With that, minister, I thank you again.
(The committee adjourned.)