Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 17 - Evidence - June 10, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 10, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day, at 2:14 p.m., to continue its study on the subject-matter of Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act and 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 Kelvin Ogilvie, senator from Nova Scotia and chair of the committee. I will start the meeting by asking my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, a senator from Toronto and deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Enverga: Senator Enverga from Ontario.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Salma Ataullahjan from Toronto.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Ontario.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues. We are beginning our study of the subject matter of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. We have two witnesses to start this first session. We have three sessions this afternoon, each an hour long. This session will end no later than 3:15. We have with us, from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Lorne Waldman, who will present first; and from Edelmann & Co. Law Offices we have Peter Edelmann, a lawyer in the firm, who will present second.
I will now invite Mr. Waldman to make his presentation.
Lorne Waldman, President, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers: It's an honour to be here this afternoon. I have the honour to represent the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. It's an organization nationwide of lawyers, academics and law students who work with refugees. We advocate on behalf of refugees and engage in litigation on issues related to the protection of refugees. We have over 300 members and have already intervened in cases before the Supreme Court of Canada involving refugee issues and have initiated litigation, which is pending before the Federal Court, on cuts to health care for refugees.
We prepared a brief, which was submitted to the House of Commons committee, and I'm sure it was translated into French and is available for the committee.
In terms of this proposed bill, I have had the honour of being invited to appear before the House of Commons or the Senate over the course of the last 20 years on many occasions to discuss reforms to immigration bills that have made their way through the House of Commons, and there have been a lot of them. In my respectful opinion, this has got to be the most unfortunate piece of legislation I've ever seen.
It's entitled the "Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act," but in my respectful opinion it does exactly the opposite of what the title proclaims. Instead of a permanent and secure status that belongs to every citizen, Canadian citizenship will be reduced to another form of permanent residence status, which is conditional on the minister's discretionary judgment about who deserves to get it and who deserves to keep it. It expands the requirements for citizenship in ways to make it inaccessible to many while dramatically reducing due process rights when the government seeks to take it away.
In not only my opinion but the opinion of most of the people who view the bill, it is certainly inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Already one lawyer has announced that there will be a challenge to the bill when it's passed, and I'm certain there will be many others as well. Under the proposed changes, the person will only be eligible for citizenship if they satisfy the minister that they intend to reside in Canada after they obtain citizenship. This applies only to naturalized citizens because the government does not presume to tell Canadians by birth whether they must live in Canada and how long they should reside here.
The government says it's trying to ensure that future Canadians intend to reside, but what the provision does is offer an official the opportunity to speculate on a citizen applicant's further intentions and then potentially deny them citizenship based on their belief that they don't intend to reside. But what's even more significant is the fact that if a naturalized citizen takes a job abroad after they receive citizenship, having said they intend to reside here, an official could conclude that they misled the government when they said they intended to reside here and revoke citizenship. I know the minister says that's not the intent of the law. He said that before the parliamentary committee. I appreciate the minister's opinion, but I'm a lawyer and my job as a lawyer is to look at the law and what it says. I can tell you in the form it's now written — and I note the minister chose not to offer any amendments to clarify this — it will be possible for a citizenship official to revoke the citizenship of a person if he or she discovers that shortly after they took up citizenship they took up a job in France or went to study at the Sorbonne because they can say, "You misled us when you said you intended to live in Canada."
If someone comes into my office now and says, after they've got citizenship under the new law, "Can I leave?" I would strongly suggest to them that they should wait at least a period of several years before they take up a position and go for an extended period abroad because they face the risk of revocation. So we create two classes of citizens, those who are born here, are free to travel and take jobs outside of the country and those who are not.
What is more offensive about the law is the lack of due process on the revocation proceedings. Under the current law, revocation can occur only if there's a judicial proceeding before a Federal Court judge.
As I have said, I've observed the history of citizenship changes and reforms, and what's completely clear is that citizenship was always respected in that citizens were always thought to be people who should have full due process rights. This bill allows for a revocation proceeding based on writing a letter to a person saying, "We believe you misrepresented. You have 30 days to respond." This isn't due process, and, in my respectful submission, it demeans citizenship and undermines its significance.
The last point I want to make, and given my short time, I can't really say anything more than to highlight that there are clear Charter concerns about this. Under section 6 of the Charter, citizens have a right to leave, enter and remain in Canada, and the notion that a naturalized citizen faces a risk of revocation for leaving Canada would violate section 6, in our view. Section 7 is certainly violated by the lack of any meaningful due process in revocation proceedings involving citizens, and section 15 also on the grounds of discrimination, because it will create different categories of persons who will be subject to revocation on different grounds; therefore it will create a situation where there will be inequality before the law.
I think it's extremely unfortunate that the government chose to introduce this legislation, with all its serious flaws. It's ironic they're suggesting it strengthens citizenship when, in fact, it does the opposite.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Waldman. Mr. Edelmann, please go ahead.
[Translation]
Peter Edelmann, Lawyer, Edelmann & Co. Law Offices: Mr. Chair, senators, I would like to tell you about my experience. I am not going to discuss every topic. I agree with many of the points raised by the CBA and by other organizations that testified before your committee and before the House of Commons committee.
I was born in Canada; my parents were Swiss immigrants. My father passed away when I was very young, and I inherited Swiss citizenship. I am proud of that link to the land of my ancestors, and I keep in touch with my extended family in Switzerland.
I was born in Canada, I studied here, my children were born here and my wife is Canadian. I have lived in Ontario and in Montreal, before building a life in Vancouver. I am Canadian.
[English]
Make no mistake that I, along with many other dual nationals, consider this bill a fundamental attack on our citizenship. In a world of nation states, citizenship is the very cornerstone upon which the rights of participation and membership in the nation are founded. Canada is a settler state, a nation made up in large part of immigrants and their descendants. This bill sends an unequivocal message that those of us who as a result of our immigrant past may have access to other nationalities — even if we have never done anything to acquire the other nationality — are somehow less deserving of our citizenship and less deserving of our membership in the community.
[Translation]
This bill creates four classes of citizens. First, those who were born in Canada and have no other citizenship; these are the real citizens, who have the safest status. None of the revocation provisions apply to them.
Naturalized citizens make up the second class; they have no other citizenship. They can lose their citizenship simply by making false declarations. None of the other revocation provisions apply to them, even if they obtained their citizenship six months ago.
The third category includes citizens born in Canada who have access to another citizenship. All of the grounds for revocation, with the exception of making false declarations, can apply to that group, of which I am a member.
The fourth category is made up of naturalized citizens who hold another citizenship. All of the revocation provisions apply to these citizens, who are members, really, of the third class. This is the first time in Canada that the creation of different classes of citizenship has been proposed.
[English]
I must emphasize that the onus in this bill is on the person concerned to prove that they do not have access to another citizenship — not only that they not have another citizenship, but the onus is on the person concerned to prove that they do not have dual nationality. In fact, the dispositions are set out much less clearly and refer simply to the onus to prove that revoking citizenship would be contrary to Canada's international obligations.
I don't know what my sons would have to do to protect themselves from this provision if they decided they wanted to be "true Canadians." In fact, I don't know if there's anything they could do. These provisions will affect different communities in radically different ways, because the laws of citizenship differ from one country to another.
There are essentially three new grounds of revocation. The first group has to do with offences like treason and espionage. These require a conviction and an imposition of a life sentence by a Canadian court before revocation is possible. These situations are extremely rare, and I'm not aware of anybody who would even qualify in this category today.
The second group is with respect to terrorism. Now, for some reason, the threshold there is five years. It includes foreign convictions. If you look at proposed paragraph 10(2)(b) of the legislation, in theory, someone who sent money to the African National Congress during the apartheid regime and was sentenced to five years by that regime for financing terrorism could be stripped of their citizenship today. A single officer would make the decision. The minister can delegate these decisions.
The third category is that you've served as a member of an armed force of a country or as a member of an organized armed group, and that country or group was engaged in an armed conflict with Canada. The only difference between this section and the terrorism section is at least for this, it has to go to the Federal Court. But the scope of this section is very difficult to understand, and neither I nor any of the colleagues I've seen write about this have given a clear definition of who is covered in this scope.
Professor Audrey Macklin has written and spoken eloquently about the use of banishment as a punishment and the medieval roots of that practice. The question that arises for you as legislators is that once you open the door to banishment as punishment, where do you set the limits of un-Canadian conduct?
A five-year sentence is at the low end for a terrorism-related offence, but the question arises as to why murder, sexual assault, kidnapping or organized criminality would not be added to the list, offences that carry penalties much more severe than five years. In fact, one might argue that fraud and betrayal of public trust could be added to a list of offences that fundamentally undermine the institutions upon which Canada is built. Someone in the future may even retroactively add such offences to the list, once the precedent for doing so is set.
That is the problem with opening the door to banishment as a punishment: Not only is it unequally applicable, there is no rational mechanism for setting a limit on its use.
I thank you for your time. I would have comments on other parts of the bill, but I'll leave that for answers to those questions, should you have them.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Edelmann. I will now open the floor to questions.
Senator Eggleton: I tend to agree with what both of you said. Another way of expressing it would be to say there may be some legitimate concerns that the government is trying to cover, but they've certainly gone overboard in attempting to do it.
I will start with Mr. Waldman. In terms of this length of residency and misrepresentation of intent to reside, if a person came to Canada with every intention of being here, but they suddenly got a job from a company that has international operations, and they were asked to go serve in this country and in that country — not uncommon — that person could be in trouble.
Mr. Waldman: The way it works is this: When you apply for citizenship, you have to have the intent to reside in Canada. So when you're examined by the citizenship officer who will decide whether or not you get citizenship, that will be a question: Do you intend to reside? You say, "Yes, I intend to reside in Canada."
So you get your citizenship based upon your undertaking that you intend to reside. Let's say two months after that, you're transferred for two years to London and you go away. Then, while you're in London, you go up with your Canadian passport and say you're registering in London. The official sees this and says, "Oh, you just got the passport a month ago." He writes to the citizenship people and says, "This person said he was planning to reside in Canada, but a month after he got his citizenship, he's now telling us he's going to spend three years in London. Obviously he wasn't being truthful."
All that would happen at that point is that there would be a letter to the person saying you misrepresented your intent; therefore, we're going to revoke your citizenship.
Senator Eggleton: What appeal would he have?
Mr. Waldman: He has 30 days to write. If the officer concludes that he misrepresented himself, he loses his citizenship. The only appeal he has is applying for leave to appeal to the Federal Court on judicial review, where the Federal Court will only intervene if there is an error of law or a serious misconstruing of the facts. There's no real appeal from that process.
It's a very limited judicial appeal.
Senator Eggleton: I suppose what the government is attempting to do here is for people that use Canada as a place of convenience. They want citizenship, but they really don't have the intent of residing. Maybe that's the kind of person they're trying to get, but you're saying they are casting the net too wide and they could catch well-intentioned people?
Mr. Waldman: What happened was there was a lot of abuse of the citizenship process before. We know of people who came, spent a short period of time here and left, and applied for citizenship. But the problem really was that the residency requirements weren't being enforced so people would say they were residents, they misrepresented and no one checked. That has all been corrected. Now over the last five years the government has instituted all sorts of policies to scrutinize and, in fact, if you can't prove that you've been living here, even if you have been, your application will be rejected. This provision is targeted to something that has already been fixed by the proper enforcement of the residency requirements, to be blunt.
So I understand why they put it in, because there was a perception that there were a lot of people who came and never really lived here and got citizenship, and they never intended to reside here. But the way they have implemented it, in any event, is very problematic and will create two categories of individuals, those who are naturalized and those who are not. People who are naturalized will have to be concerned about taking jobs out of the country or going to study out of the country for a significant period of time after they get their citizenship.
Senator Eggleton: Two classes of citizenship. Mr. Edelmann, you indicated some concern about dual citizenship and you also talked about the onus being on the person to prove that they're not a citizen of another country. Now, I understand some countries will determine that for a person who is a son, daughter, grandson or granddaughter of somebody who was born in their country — Egypt, for example — they would consider them a dual citizen, even though that person may have been born in Canada and has never been to that other country. Egypt is the example I'm using, and yet that person — if they get five years for terrorism, for example — could find their citizenship revoked and they could ultimately find themselves deported to that country even though they had never been there and were born in Canada. Is that right?
Mr. Edelmann: That's correct; that is my understanding about certain countries. In fact, the problem is even worse than that. My understanding is that with respect to certain countries there is no mechanism to renounce one's citizenship. What happens with certain countries, upon acquiring Canadian citizenship, is that one must renounce because certain countries don't recognize dual citizenship.
Certain communities are not affected at all by these provisions because you cannot be a dual national of certain countries and of Canada at the same time. Other communities are inevitably affected as there is no way for them to avoid being affected because their countries don't provide any mechanism for renouncing citizenship. It's not citizenship per se, it's the right to citizenship, and that's what's unclear about the way the bill is drafted right now. It doesn't say someone who is a dual national. It says the onus is on the person to show that the renunciation or the revocation of citizenship would be in breach of Canada's international obligations, in particular the treaty against statelessness, but how that actually plays out and gets interpreted at this point is unclear.
We don't know the scope of that because we don't have jurisprudence that interprets those sections in any kind of meaningful way. In fact, we do not know the exact scope of what the person would have to prove to show that they don't have access to another nationality or would be affected by a breach of the statelessness treaty, for example.
Senator Eggleton: As I understand it, up until now the only basis for revocation has been fraudulent application, but now all these other things are added, and again, it is on the question of residency that I asked Mr. Waldman, and it is very limited. You can go to the Federal Court but only on review of the law, and you can't have testimony before the court.
Mr. Edelmann: It depends on the section, so some sections are decisions by the minister and the minister's delegates. Those are subject to judicial review upon applying for leave to the Federal Court, but in recent years, as a result of directions from the Supreme Court, the Federal Court has become more and more deferential to administrative decisions. So the appeals, in the sense of a true appeal, don't exist under the act. There are certain limited revocation mechanisms that have to do with certain types of inadmissibility and with, for example, the foreign combat provision I read before where the initial process is done in a hearing in the Federal Court. But the vast majority of decisions under these revocation provisions will be decided without a hearing at all. There won't be a hearing before the officer or before the Federal Court. What there will be is a paper process in front of a minister's delegate.
Mr. Waldman: Just to be clear on that, the way the process will work is the minister will write a letter saying we think your citizenship should be revoked for this or that reason. You have 30 days to respond. You write a submission and then an officer will review it and render a decision saying your citizenship is hereby revoked immediately because I found A, B or C. The revocation will take effect at that point, so you will no longer be a citizen and could be subject to deportation, subject to a leave to appeal to the Federal Court on questions of law with very limited capacity for review.
Senator Eggleton: Questions of law are very limited. Thank you.
Senator Eaton: I'm humbled before two such fine legal minds. You can educate me now. Mr. Edelmann, you're a Swiss and Canadian citizen born in Canada but you have a dual citizenship with Switzerland, am I correct?
Mr. Edelmann: Correct.
Senator Eaton: If you were found by a Federal Court to have taken up arms against the Canadian Army if we were fighting a war somewhere, you don't think we should revoke your citizenship?
Mr. Edelmann: Just to be clear, the question is why —
Senator Eaton: Please answer my question.
Mr. Edelmann: What I'm suggesting is if the punishment of banishment is to be applied, why does it apply differently? My "Canadianness" is somehow different than somebody who is not a dual national in the sense that, for example, if I made the ill-advised decision to send money to a movement in a foreign country that was defined —
Senator Eaton: I don't think they're talking about that and you know that. They're talking about treason, high treason, or terrorism.
Mr. Edelmann: With respect to treason and high treason, I would have to be sentenced to life by a Canadian court.
Senator Eaton: That's right.
Mr. Edelmann: I don't know the last time that has been done.
Senator White: That's not the point. Do you not think it's fair to revoke citizenship from someone who takes up arms against their own country, spies against their country, or goes somewhere else to commit acts of terrorism? Do you think we should welcome you home, especially as you've chosen to be a dual citizen? As you said, you were born in Canada, you're a Canadian. You do not have to be a dual citizen.
Mr. Edelmann: In my personal situation, if I were to commit an act of terrorism in a foreign country, I expect that if Switzerland took the same view that Canada is taking in this current piece of legislation, it would be a race to see who could banish me first, so the other country would be stuck with me.
Now, the question is, which country, or once we start stripping citizenship, in what circumstances is one un- Canadian enough?
Senator Eaton: You realize of course that if Switzerland got to you first, we would not render you stateless?
Mr. Edelmann: Correct. I would be well-advised —
Senator Eaton: You realize that Canada and Portugal are the only countries in NATO who don't have a revocation process for terrorism, treason or high treason?
Mr. Edelmann: My understanding is different. In fact, it is my understanding that the United States Supreme Court has specifically said that revoking citizenship from U.S.-born citizens is unconstitutional. In my submission, doing the same in Canada is unconstitutional.
Now, the question is, is something about the nature of citizenship different for a dual national than it is for other Canadians? That's ultimately the question that will be answered with respect to this, because these are provisions that apply only to dual nationals. They don't apply to other Canadians.
Senator Eaton: That's right, but dual nationals have a choice.
Mr. Waldman: With respect, a lot of dual nationals don't have a choice; there are a lot of countries that don't have any renunciation provisions in them. I have been consulted by people now who are —
Senator Eaton: Then may I suggest that you don't commit acts of treason, high treason or terrorism?
Mr. Waldman: Look, the fundamental issue here is —
Senator Eaton: We have to agree to disagree.
Mr. Waldman: I think banishment has been —
Senator Eaton: I would like to ask you something about your statement, because I profoundly disagree with both of your premises.
Mr. Waldman: Well, I would like to say on the record that I profoundly disagree with the notion that in addition to due process with the Criminal Code we should engage in the banishment of people. That was rejected since the Magna Carta.
If someone is convicted, they should serve their sentence in Canada and go through all the processes. I don't see why, in addition to the due process of being convicted and sentenced for high treason, we have to then banish them to a country where they've never lived.
Senator Eaton: Or perhaps have lived and come to Canada.
Mr. Waldman: I think that's cruel and inhumane, and I don't agree with it.
People make erroneous choices and deserve to be punished. I fully support giving them the full punishment under the law, but I don't think that after they've served their sentence, in addition to that, they should be subjected to banishment. I don't agree with that.
Senator Eaton: I would like to get to your statement "inaccessible to many." My understanding of the bill is that if you do your four out of six years, live in Canada, pay income tax for the four years that you're fully here, and you receive your Canadian citizenship, you are then a Canadian citizen the same as any naturalized Canadian citizen. If you want to take up your post in London or Pakistan or Barcelona, you are free to do so.
Mr. Waldman: That's not what the bill says, with all due respect.
Senator Eaton: I'm sure that's exactly what the bill says.
Mr. Waldman: No, that's not what it says.
Senator Eaton: They are saying that you must live here the four complete years out of the six to show that you have every word of becoming a Canadian citizen. After that, you are free to go and work abroad or study abroad, but you must first spend four years out of six.
Mr. Waldman: Well, you asked my opinion. You have invited me; obviously you want to hear my opinion, I assume, or else you wouldn't have invited me.
There's a provision in the bill that says that at the time you obtain citizenship, you must have the intent to reside in Canada. That provision is new; it was added.
So you are free to make changes in terms of the residency requirements, and some people take issue with them. That's not at the top of my list in terms of my concerns. The idea that we have clarity in terms of what the residency requirements are, and that it's physical residency as opposed to the way it is now, aren't bad changes.
But the way the bill was written, with all due respect to the minister and to anyone else who says the contrary, the clear wording of the bill says you must swear at the time you get your citizenship that you intend to reside in Canada. So if after you get your citizenship you leave the country, it would be open to an official to challenge your intent. Given the lack of any due process on the revocation proceeding, as I said, the scenario of some Canadian citizen who got his citizenship, gets a job in London two months later and then goes into the high commission is not one that's far-fetched; it's completely realistic.
As a lawyer, I would be under an obligation to advise naturalized citizens that leaving the country after they get citizenship puts at risk their status as citizens in the country. That's what the bill says. It may not be what the minister wants to say —
The Chair: I think both points have been clearly made. Move on.
Senator Eaton: That's it. Put me on round two, please.
Senator Enverga: I am a naturalized citizen, and you can see it. My concern is with regards to intent to reside in Canada. If you are a permanent resident here, and you applied for Canadian citizenship, then the thing is you should want to remain in Canada. I mean, what's so wrong about that? I can't see any reason why it should be one of the issues in this bill.
Mr. Waldman: People want to remain in Canada. That's why they come here and that's why they immigrate here. But we live in a world where opportunities often present themselves outside of the country for people who want to get ahead or people who want to study.
My son wants to live in Canada, but right now, he's doing his masters in Europe because he had a good opportunity to study in Europe. He's been in Europe for two years. Are we going to say to people who are naturalized that you can't take up an opportunity to study outside of the country because some official might decide, after you left, that you didn't have the intent to reside in Canada?
I agree with you. There are strict requirements now: four out of six years, you have to satisfy an official. That should be an indication of your intent. But the way the bill is worded, if you leave afterwards, you're certainly at risk of some official taking action against you. Given the lack of due process, it's very problematic.
Senator Enverga: But that's the reason why you have an appeal. You can always make exceptions to the rules, especially when you're studying, right? Those are the things that could be considered with this bill.
Mr. Waldman: With respect, if a citizenship official decides you misrepresented your intent and revokes your citizenship, the only appeal you get is to apply for leave in the Federal Court. The Federal Court judge would have to decide whether the decision of the officer that you misrepresented your intent was a reasonable one to make. The judge could say, "Even though I might have come to a different conclusion, it is not one that was unreasonable, and therefore I'm not going to grant the appeal."
So the scope of any appeal is extremely limited. That's why this is so problematic. The way the bill is worded, it exposes all naturalized citizens to the risk of revocation if they leave the country.
Senator Enverga: Your examples are more an exception. The vast majority of those who want to be citizens of the country would be able to stay in Canada.
Mr. Waldman: I don't know. I see a lot of young people these days who get job opportunities outside of the country who want to take them up. I would hate to think that a naturalized Canadian won't be able to take advantage of an opportunity to study, travel or work because he's afraid of losing his citizenship.
Senator Enverga: In that case, then, sometimes when you have to go out there — getting your citizenship — it's one reason why you shouldn't be applying for citizenship.
The Chair: That's a comment. That's not a question. Mr. Waldman has given his opinion. Do you have another question, senator?
Senator Enverga: No.
Senator Seidman: I would ask about international comparisons, specifically with regard to the issues that you're bringing forward. Regarding the intent to reside question, are there other countries we might compare this to? What about the U.K., the U.S., the European Union, Germany, France? Are there other countries that you could put forward that have the same requirement or perhaps that don't?
Mr. Waldman: I'm not familiar with the citizenship requirements in other countries. What concerns me is the combination of the intent to reside and the revocation process that doesn't allow for due process. I think the two of them together are an extremely dangerous combination. I don't believe there are other countries that have such a simplified revocation process. I would be extremely surprised. I mean, the European Union is subject to the European Convention on Human Rights, and I would be very surprised if such a process could withstand scrutiny by that court.
I don't have the answer to the question of whether other countries have similar intent to provide provisions.
However, you have to look at the whole scope of the provisions. We now have a new bill that's going to require people to prove on a balance of probabilities to a judge that they've already lived in Canada for four out of six years. That seems to me to be a pretty clear indication of intent. You're adding to that an additional requirement that they swear at the time they get their citizenship that they intend to reside here in the future, and I don't see why that's necessary. I also think it's extremely dangerous.
Senator Seidman: I might just tell you that, indeed, the U.K. does have similar provisions both for intent to reside as well as their revocation. In fact, as recently as a couple of months ago, they actually agreed to revocation without a dual nationality qualifier. So it's a most unusual situation where a citizen could become stateless.
Mr. Waldman: I am not familiar with the provisions and if it's true, it disappoints me very profoundly, but I also know that some of the revocation provisions are already on their way up to the European Court of Human Rights. My expectation is that those provisions will be struck down by the European Court of Human Rights because I think they are inconsistent with the notions of fairness and inconsistent with the Magna Carta, which ironically was created in England and abolished the notion of banishment hundreds of years ago.
Senator Seidman: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for being here today. I'd like to take a look at the intent to reside clause, and I think everybody around the table would hope that somebody who wants to be a Canadian citizen does so with the intent of living in the country.
However, I've gotten some emails from people who are greatly concerned about this particular clause. I happen to have one of the letters with me, but I have certainly gotten a number of them. This is somebody who is in the process of getting citizenship, who works as a scientist and engineer in Canada but has to travel abroad for standard development meetings. So for this person, it's going to make the citizenship process even longer than it is, and again, what does he do with his job? Does he say "I can't"? He's a scientist, an engineer. Does he say, "I'm sorry, I can't go to Europe for these meetings because I have to be in the country for a certain period of time"?
I understand the idea, the intent that you should want to live in Canada, but sometimes such provisions have unintended consequences. My daughter, for example, worked in Bermuda for four years. Yet if somebody had dual citizenship or was a new Canadian and had chosen to become a Canadian, they could not do what my daughter did and go to Bermuda to work for any period of time. I wonder if you could just expand on concerns that you have regarding this.
Mr. Edelmann: I can clarify that with respect to both Senator Eaton and the minister: When he appeared before the committee at the House of Commons, he focused on this provision as requiring intent to reside prior to making the application and prior to the grant of citizenship.
That's not what the section says, and if we read the section, it's in clause 9 of the bill. It's an amendment to subsection 11(1) of the act, and so it adds a section (e). It says:
. . . intends, if granted citizenship.
(i) to continue to reside in Canada.
There are two concerns I have with that. First, what is the person asserting? What is it that they are promising to do? And when they say "intend to reside in Canada," for how long, in what circumstances? What does "reside" mean? The second concern is what are the consequences? And if there are no consequences, why is it in the bill? If there are going to be consequences, when and how are they going to be applied?
This is of deep concern to us as lawyers, and the applicants have a very genuine reason to be concerned because we cannot advise them about how they should conduct themselves.
I don't know how to advise the person who wrote the letter. If they show up in my office under this new legislation, I will tell them we'll have to wait a few years and see how it plays out in the Federal Court. That's what I'm going to tell them. That's the only advice I can give them. The safest route is don't take the job. Don't leave Canada. The reality is that your citizenship is of a different nature than everybody else's.
From my perspective, that's a very profound concern, and I would refer the senator to the CBA's submissions on this point that there are some serious concerns with respect to that issue of expressing the intention to reside and how that intention to reside can be defined. Ultimately, this is going to come down to the misrepresentation or the application of the misrepresentation provisions, which has a much broader scope, and there are other concerns that arise with respect to those.
An example is the requirement to file taxes for four years prior to making the citizenship application. If there are any misrepresentations whatsoever in those taxes, and I would submit that a large number of Canadians would have very good reasons to be concerned that there might be a misrepresentation somewhere in their taxes — a waitress didn't declare her tips, for example — is that going to be a basis for a finding of misrepresentation by an officer and then a revocation of citizenship?
The question is, what is the scope of misrepresentation that's going to be applied by the officers after going to be? We're talking about a single officer making this decision. So what is that officer going to consider as misrepresentation, and what is going to happen when somebody does take the job? For this person who has written to you, when they take that job, is there going to be an allegation that they misrepresented their intention to reside?
Mr. Waldman: If I could, the important thing, and what I want to emphasize, is that it's not what people say their intent is when they draft the legislation; it's what the legislation says. The legislation says that when you apply for citizenship, having already established on a balance of probabilities that you live in Canada for four out of six years, in addition to that you're going to have to swear that you intend to reside in the future. That's what the bill says, so an officer's going to have to make a finding that you intended to reside to give you citizenship. And then if afterwards you're not residing, it's open to some other officer to say you misrepresented. It's as simple as that, and the process for revocation is a letter.
Senator Cordy: So we've almost got Canadians who are Canadian citizens, but not really Canadian citizens. It appears we're coming up with a new class of Canadian citizen with this bill.
Mr. Waldman: Yes, and I hope that people respond when they understand what the government is doing. It's profoundly disturbing that we're going to create a class of naturalized citizens who are not free to go on extended trips for business, for travel or for study because they're going to be worried.
As Mr. Edelmann said, maybe in five years the jurisprudence will develop to a point where we can tell with a certain degree of certainty that that's not the case, although I think the bill is clear. When it goes to the court, that's how it's going to be interpreted because that's the way it's written. Maybe the courts will interpret it differently, but for the first five years until that happens and we get all the way through the appellate process, people are going to be told don't leave the country for two or three years if you're not a citizen just to be safe because you don't want to run the risk of having your citizenship revoked.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. I would like to go to revocation now, and Mr. Edelmann, you spoke about terrorism charges in a foreign country. So somebody who sent money to Nelson Mandela's party, for example, could be accused of fighting against Canada. In fact, Nelson Mandela would not be eligible to become a citizen of Canada under this legislation because he was, in fact, put in jail in his country.
You also said banishment as a punishment has no limits; I think that was the word that you used. I wonder if you could just expand on that a little bit. Certainly with treason, we don't know of any cases, but if there happens to be a case, people could get that. Terrorism charges in Canada that we know of have been done fairly in the court, but when you talk about charges in a foreign country, that makes me particularly nervous.
Mr. Edelmann: Well, there are two issues that I would address there. First of all, the thresholds with respect to the sentences. It's important to note that with regard to treason and espionage, not only does a Canadian court have to convict the person, but they have to impose a life sentence. In other words, the person actually gets a sentence of life in prison. Anything less than life in prison, they are not subject to revocation, even for high treason or treason.
When we talk about those cases, I'm not aware of any where those sentences have been imposed in recent times, or not to any dual nationals that I'm aware of.
Now with respect to the terrorism offences, that's where things are very different, because terrorism is a very amorphous concept, and it's very politically defined. One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist, and so when we talk about what terrorism is, we end up asking questions: Were Nagasaki and Hiroshima or some of the acts committed in Vietnam terrorism? When do the acts committed by other organizations that we may support — or not — cross the line into terrorism?
It's an amorphous concept, but it's also a broad scope of conduct. When we talk about a five-year sentence for terrorism, five years has been imposed for financing terrorism. In other words, when you send money to an organization in Sri Lanka or Africa that is fighting a civil war there but is defined as a terrorist organization, you may well be convicted in Canada and get a five-year sentence for what is — no question — an ill-advised action. But the threshold for that is quite low in the broader scheme of things.
When we talk about applying the punishment of banishment, the question arises as to why it would not be applied to someone like Paul Bernardo, Robert Pickton or people who've committed heinous acts against Canadian society or against Canadians and been convicted in Canadian courts but somehow still remain Canadian enough not to be banished. When we start opening the door to banishment and say that certain acts make someone "un-Canadian" — murder, sexual assaults, organized crime, drug trafficking — where does one set the limits?
More important, these are retroactive provisions. When I question my own conduct as a dual national, what could be added to the list in the future? What could put me at risk of losing my citizenship in the future? I don't know, because these are retroactive provisions.
Ultimately, the terrorism definitions are not only amorphous but are based on foreign convictions. I work with a lot of organizations that are not liked by their governments in other countries. Greenpeace recently had a number of people arrested and charged with piracy in Russia. If they had been convicted and gotten five years — or more important, if I were accused, charged, convicted and sentenced even in absentia in Russia, would I be subject to losing my citizenship for my assistance to Greenpeace? That issue will be up to a single officer; one officer will decide whether I get to keep my citizenship in those circumstances.
In my submission, that's a very problematic and, quite frankly, flagrantly unconstitutional scheme.
The Chair: I would like to give Senator Eggleton and the sponsor of the bill a chance to get in their questions.
Senator Eggleton: Let me explore this issue of armed conflict with Canada. Is that a retroactive provision as well? It is, isn't it?
Mr. Edelmann: I believe the armed conflict provision is not.
Senator Eggleton: How is that defined? What are the parameters of it? There are some cases that are perhaps obviously armed conflicts, but there's no definition of this in there, so I don't know how far and wide it goes. If we sent a single adviser to a NATO mission, and he's killed in action because of a military conflict in the area, is that an armed conflict with Canada? What is an "armed conflict"? One could understand the Afghanistan situation, but there's no definition here.
Mr. Edelmann: The short answer is "we don't know." Even when we talk about the Afghanistan situation, it may not require conflict with Canada, per se, in terms of engagement with Canadian troops. It could be engagement with other troops or other organizations that are allied or otherwise connected to Canada. It's an unclear situation.
I apologize; I did look at the section. It is retroactive, but it requires the person to have been a citizen at the time. In other words, they engaged in the conduct but were a citizen at the time.
It's unclear as to whether someone who was a conscript in an army that then engaged with Canadian troops in some way or another would be subject to these provisions. It's unclear as to what kind of conduct these provisions would encompass. Presumably, it's broader than simply direct combat with Canada in a nation state that has openly declared war with Canada; the wording is much broader than that. It wouldn't be a situation where I was a dual national and my other nation was at war with Canada, and I chose the other side. That's not the scope; the scope of this is much broader than that.
Senator Eggleton: In the 1947 act, they put in "armed forces of a country at war with Canada," but then they took that out in 1977. There were all sorts of people who came here after the Second World War who fought in the armies of Germany, Japan or whatever. They obviously were in armed conflict with Canada. You're saying this is retroactive, but surely we're not going that deep?
Mr. Edelmann: If they were Canadian citizens at the time.
Senator Eggleton: Canadian citizens at the time. You have to be a Canadian citizen; you'd have to be a dual citizen.
Mr. Waldman: It only applies to people who, when they were Canadian citizens, engaged in armed conflict against Canada.
Mr. Edelmann: Just to be clear, it's much broader than that. It's if they were a member of an organization that engaged in armed conflict. If we look at the definition of "membership" in section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, it has been given a very broad and unrestricted definition.
The Chair: But the key is that they were a citizen at the time.
Senator Eaton: If somebody is going to do the four years out of six in this country, and they go to the trouble of paying income tax for four years and they go to the trouble of filling out an application, why would you assume that even if they take a job abroad they don't eventually intend to reside in Canada? Why would you go to the trouble of becoming a Canadian citizen if you did not intend to reside in Canada?
Mr. Waldman: I agree with you. It seems to me we already have an onerous requirement. You need four years. Remember, on top of that now, we have people coming into the office complaining about how carefully the citizenship officials scrutinize the applications and the proof, and if you don't have documentation to show you've been residing here, they don't believe you. You have to prove you've been living in Canada for four out of six years.
Given that, you add this requirement that when you apply for citizenship and you take the oath, you intend to reside here afterward. That creates an additional requirement. Why do we need it if someone has already spent four out of six years? But the effect of having that requirement is that it leaves open the possibility that some official will determine that a person who left the country after they obtained their citizenship lied when they said they were intending.
That's what this new requirement adds to the mix. I don't know if you have anything to say on top of that?
Mr. Edelmann: No.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Eggleton, we do have time to squeeze in one more question.
Senator Eggleton: A question in three parts here —
The Chair: I will be gaveling this to an end. That is just to give you a sense of time.
Senator Eggleton: There are three other provisions in here that I want your quick comments on. One doubles the fees from $200 to $400, which may not be a problem for some, but for some low-income people, it could be a problem. It also ups the level of language testing for people, for example, in their sixties. It's not too easy to learn a new language in your sixties as a parent or grandparent. Finally, it's going to revoke the possibility of students who come over here. We are, after all, trying to attract students to come and be educated here and stay in our communities and contribute to the country. It's going to revoke the use of that time as part of the time building up towards the citizenship qualifications.
It sounds like we're just making it tougher for people to become citizens for no apparent, good reason. Do you have any comments on any of those provisions?
Mr. Waldman: The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers is extremely concerned about the combination of the increase in fees and the requirements for language testing because they will have an adverse impact on the accessibility to citizenship for low-income people. For a family of five right now it would be $400 times five for the application. Then, they have to pay for the language tests, which are usually around $200 per application. You'd be making a family of five come up with $3,000 to apply for citizenship, which makes it inaccessible for a lot of low-income people. You're creating another barrier to citizenship.
In terms of language testing, we all agree that people should have basic comprehension of English, but it strikes me that they've made the bar too high, which will be another barrier for people obtaining citizenship.
The third, of course, is students and people here temporarily. Students are often here three or four years as students before they qualify for permanent residence. Until now, they could take two of those years to count as one. That's eliminated here, and there doesn't seem to be any reason. If the concern is that people should be integrated to Canada, why would we not at least give some credit for the time people spend before they become permanent residents? I've never seen any explanation as to why that provision was enacted.
The Chair: Do you have any further comment?
Mr. Edelmann: No, I would share the same concerns.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I think you've been clear in your answers today. The questions have brought out some important issues. On behalf of the committee, I thank you very much for your appearance here and the clarity of your explanations.
In this next session, which will end no later than 4:15 p.m., we have appearing as individuals Mr. Richard Kurland, Lawyer and Policy Analyst; and Ms. Julie Taub, Immigration and Refugee Lawyer and former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Thank you both very much for appearing. I invite Ms. Taub to present first.
Julie Taub, Immigration and Refugee Lawyer, former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, as an individual: First, I would like to thank the chair and members of the committee for inviting me to speak before you this afternoon. As an immigration and refugee lawyer I do not have the same concerns as were presented before. In fact, I applaud the minister and the government's major overhaul of the Citizenship Act — the first in four decades, I believe — tightening the requirements for citizenship, providing for tougher penalties for misrepresentation and fraud and simplifying and increasing the scope for the revocation of citizenship.
In addition to the widely publicized examples of citizenship fraud and citizens of convenience, because they're not the same, I have also seen through personal examples in my practice that this reform is actually long overdue. Let's look at the citizens of convenience. They have not committed fraud. They've put in their three years, get their citizenship, and bye-bye — they're off to live in their home countries and come back when there is civil strife or war, as Hezbollah against Israel in 2006. At that time, we saw 26,000 Lebanese Canadians, whom I refer to as citizens as convenience, come back to Canada. When the war was over, most of them returned to Lebanon.
There are Canadian passport holders in the Gulf States and in Hong Kong who have frankly never lived in Canada. That is fraud and they don't hide. They brag about this. How do I know this? I had a former client, a triple citizen of Italy, the United States, and South Africa. He was a very successful businessman in Africa. I can't identify more because his identity might be disclosed. Now he's headquartered in Qatar, and the last few times I saw him several years ago, he spoke to me about his hundreds of business acquaintances in the Gulf States who would come with their Canadian passports and say, "I've never lived in Canada. Isn't this hilarious?" They bragged about never living in Canada. They may have come back for the citizenship oath.
I have a current client who is a permanent resident of Canada. I did the sponsorship of his son for him from a Middle East country. He worked extensively in the Gulf States. He's now returned to live here because his son finally joined him; and he's not going to leave Canada again. He told me the same story about these Canadian passport holders in the Gulf States who have never lived in Canada. He asks, "How is this possible?" Actually, he was very angry about it. He told me stories of fraud that he knew about. I said, "Don't tell me; go tell the powers that be. I can't do anything about it. I don't want to know the details, but feel free to report it to whomever you wish."
I get weekly calls from prospective clients that I don't end up taking on but I speak to them for five minutes on the phone. Those are mostly people who have already submitted their applications for citizenship or who have lengthy, complicated citizenship residency questionnaires to complete. "How long is it going to take? I put in my time. I want to get my citizenship so I can work in the Gulf States or go back to Hong Kong. It's easier to travel with a Canadian passport."
One gentleman, Ali, which is a very common name, has called me several times. I finally told him to stop calling me. He said, "If they don't given me my passport, I'm leaving." Okay, leave. He said, "I need to travel." I asked if he had a PR card. He said he did. I asked if he'd been travelling. He said, "Yes, but with a Canadian passport, I don't need visas to go to all countries I want to go to." I asked if it was for work. He said no. I didn't want to know any more so I said that I was sorry I couldn't help him, and I asked him not to call me again, please. These are some of the reasons that I believe that this overhaul is long overdue.
Residency requirements, four out of six years. I wholeheartedly support the extension of the residency requirements for citizenship applications, from three out of four to four out of six. Actually, I think it should be extended to five years, like it used to be when our family immigrated to Canada in 1949. I was six months old, my late parents were in their early forties, and my sister was 15 years old. I have to add that we became citizens in 1956. My father knew, as he told me when I was a married adult, that he knew he had to work during the five years. He knew that he had to obey the law, and they all learned English. To add to it, they were survivors of the Holocaust. They complied and we all became citizens. Of course, I didn't have to pass any language test that I know of, but who knows, it was 1956 and I was eight years old.
I believe right now Canada is the only immigrant-receiving country that has this short a residency requirement. No other country has as short a residency requirement as Canada does at the present. For example, the U.K. needs five years of residency, and they must remain in the U.K. nine months per year during that five-year period to become a citizen. In the U.S. you have to spend five years in the United States at least 50 per cent of the time. Germany is eight years and you have to have a very good command of the German language. Switzerland is twelve years or eight years, I have seen both. Australia is four years; Norway is seven years; New Zealand is five years. I'm just making a point. It's not exceptional that we have increased the residency requirement from three out of four years to four out of six years.
It has been argued that the sooner a permanent resident becomes Canadian the more attached he will be to Canada. Well, maybe this is true in some cases, but in too many cases they become citizens of convenience and live and work elsewhere, enjoying the convenience of a Canadian passport and the insurance. Basically a Canadian passport is an insurance policy that they can come to Canada if there is strife in their country.
I also support the provisions to enforce the residency requirements with the increased penalties for fraud and misrepresentation, mandatory filing of income tax returns in Canada and a commitment to live here thereafter. However, we don't have exit controls, and it becomes very complicated trying to prove that you've lived here, so I recommend that simply increasing the required residency period without ensuring effective monitoring of the residency obligations will not greatly reduce fraud or decrease the number of Canadians of convenience. I note that Bill C-24 does not deal with exit controls, so rather than relying on a mostly honour system of reported travels, income tax returns, photocopies of passport pages, I recommend again — and I recommended this in the past — the introduction of a permanent resident smart card that permanent residents would be required to swipe upon exit and entry into Canada. This would be the most effective means to determine whether residency requirements have been met for the purpose of attaining citizenship and retaining PR status in Canada. Currently it's not uncommon for permanent residents to have two passports, one for travelling and one for the purpose of maintaining their PR status or applying for Canadian citizenship.
Expanded language requirements, I agree with those. I support them wholeheartedly, but I would note that the language benchmark of Level 4 is still quite elementary, and for permanent residents who seek employment in certain professions and in managerial positions, significantly higher levels of competency are required in English or in French.
Revocation of citizenship, I will just tell you that I support the new measures that have been introduced for the revocation of citizenship, and I have provided you with recent articles, and these articles seem to be increasing with frequency of examples of Canadian terrorists.
One quick note, birthright citizenship, again not mentioned, it's called jus soli. I think at one point the government must address this issue of banning birthright citizenship.
Since I don't have time to finish it, I will leave it at that and hope I can address the other issues I wanted to during the question period.
Richard Kurland, Lawyer and Policy Analyst, as an individual: Honourable senators, it's a deep privilege to be here before you. What I see here in the bill is a solution that has long plagued the citizenship system operationally on the acquisition of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in over a quarter century intention is stripped out of the qualification process. Brilliant, because now the rules are clear, transparent, and families can proactively, strategically plan their futures along the temporary status to permanent resident to citizenship continuum. That's never been available before in Canadian citizenship history.
For the taxpayer, it means that more citizenship applications can be processed faster at lower cost than ever before. It is highly unlikely that Canada will ever see again bloated inventories of citizenship applications warehoused for years and years and years. People don't realize that, in terms of numbers of people affected by Bill C-24, by and large this is the number one beneficial component to the proposed law.
So I ask myself, having taken out intention, now it's a certain period of time, tax returns, certain number of days, stripping out intention on the qualification side, why is it returning somewhere else in the law? We know from experience that the intention label is expensive; it's case-by-case adjudication. The word "intention" brings forward uncertainty. Intention, let's be clear, it's not about whether the person concerned is going to tell the state they have the intention to remain in Canada or not. This is for the purpose of allowing the state to tell the individual what the individual's intention really was or is. Caution.
And here is the problem I have with that, a design flaw that can be fixed. How is it that if you want to take away rights of refugees there's an oral hearing; if you want to take away the rights of permanent residents of this country there is an oral hearing; but to take away the rights of a Canadian citizen, there's no oral hearing? I think the courts are going to look at that. What's going on? The same jurisprudence that gives rise to the right to the oral hearing for the immigrant and the refugee necessarily will apply to the citizen. So it's a design flaw that deserves a second look.
In addition, and I'll conclude because five minutes are up, the idea is to historically treat an inventory of thousands of cases that legitimately are and ought to have been under investigation, citizenship cases where the person may not have entirely been accurate and forthcoming on dates of residence in and out of Canada. I understand the administrative pressures for finding a legislative mechanism, for lack of a better term, for pushing the flush pedal, for quick, efficient disposition of thousands of cases cost-effectively.
But the core problem of misrepresentation on physical presence is fixed by this law, forward looking. By filing income tax returns, four of them, the same profile of an individual that had in the past successfully misrepresented or has misrepresented and is awaiting final determination of that case won't go near that game anymore because they're not just dealing with CIC. They're dealing with Canada Revenue Agency. Don't forget — and I'll conclude here — the key policy device accessible is the matrix of taxation treaties between Canada and other countries. Don't believe for a second that what the person declares on the Canadian income tax return cannot be shared with the home jurisdiction in virtue of one of these treaties, so you're not going to see a repeat of the conditions that gave rise to the residency of fraud or misrepresentation, and I will conclude there.
The Chair: Thank you. Just before I turn to Senator Eggleton, Ms. Taub, you referred to articles that you said had been sent to us to. I believe you did.
Ms. Taub: Yes, I did. Did they not distribute them?
The Chair: They haven't been received.
Ms. Taub: Okay.
The Chair: I'm just letting you know that so that the record is clear with regard to what we have and what we don't have. I will leave that with you. I'm simply stating that we have not as individuals nor has the clerk received them.
Senator Eggleton: Ms. Taub, I understand what you're saying about people who come here out of convenience and then leave and have really no intention of staying, and you cited a couple of cases.
I'm concerned about the unintended consequences of the legislation overreaching in this area. If a person has to meet not only the requirements to become a citizen in the years here but also the intent to carry on doing that, in this era of globalization where people get jobs here, there and everywhere, he or she could work for an international company that is here in Canada but also has offices in other parts of the world. That person could be sent out for some period of time.
Most people would say, "Oh, well, that's not the intention of the bill," but it's how the bill is written that counts. It's the rule of law as opposed to what the intent was on the minister's part at the time. Some lawyers may advise that you had better be very careful accepting something that takes you out of the country for a couple of years.
Does that concern you at all, or do you think it's not an issue?
Ms. Taub: Again, this intent to live in Canada is rather vague. Nobody knows how it will play out. However, let's look at the 26,000 Lebanese-Canadians living in Lebanon. They're not there to work overseas or get a better position. They are definitely, in my opinion, Canadian citizens of convenience.
If you are looking at a Canadian citizen who is sent abroad for a couple of years to represent or work for a Canadian company, that is totally a different situation than somebody who becomes a Canadian citizen. It is like this other gentleman, an Indian national who was a permanent resident in Canada. He moved to the United States after he fulfilled his three-year residency requirement in Canada, submitted his application and asked me to be his representative for the citizenship application process, and he had no intention of returning to Canada.
There's a difference. I believe there is a real difference, and I think the intent to live in Canada refers to Canadians of convenience, and you can differentiate this.
For example, I have another client. His family lives in Canada. He's a permanent resident. He works abroad five weeks in one of the Gulf States, comes home for five weeks, works abroad, and it's rotational like that. He does this because he can earn better money to support his family, who have all become Canadians. He knows he cannot become a Canadian citizen, but he has no argument with the issue.
Let us say that eventually he does stay here, becomes a Canadian citizen and then gets an employment like that. There is a difference. He has his family here. He does reside at least half the time in Canada.
Senator Eggleton: There's very little appeal process involved in these kinds of things, and it could be an official's interpretation, so you could cast the net too wide and get more than just citizens of convenience. That's part of the concern.
Ms. Taub: Well, it's really hard to predict how that clause will turn out, and perhaps that could be clarified and fine- tuned.
Senator Eggleton: Yes, that's the problem.
Ms. Taub: Because as my friend said, when you bring in the word "intention," maybe in the criminal sense with intent to murder it has one definition, but that's not the definition that can be used in Citizenship Act.
Senator Eggleton: You mentioned the language tests and thought they were generally good. But if somebody is in their sixties, for example, a parent or a grandparent being brought here on family reunification, there is probably not much intent at that age of being involved in the economy. I can think of the many origins of people in this country whose parents have never really mastered the language. But for somebody coming over here in their sixties, it is a little more difficult to start learning a new language at that point. Really, what is the point? If they are here for family reunification but they are not here to be part of the economy, sure we want them to learn the language, but just why would we up the bar?
The Chair: Before you answer, it would be helpful to us in answering this question, because it's an important one. You referred to Level 4, and that is out of 12 stages; is it not?
Ms. Taub: I just know that it is not a very high requirement. It's considered elementary.
The Chair: So you're not knowledgeable about the ladder?
Ms. Taub: It's more or less elementary or intermediate, so it is not very demanding. Frankly, I'm 66, and if I moved to Germany and was required to learn some basic German, I don't think I'm too old to learn a new language and be able to say a few words in German to get by. I don't think that's too old. That's in my opinion, but I speak for myself.
Senator Eggleton: This test level is a little more than just a few words.
Ms. Taub: Well, it's elementary.
Senator Eggleton: The fees are doubling from $200 to $400. If you have a family of five, that's an awful lot of money, and some of them are low-income.
Ms. Taub: Are there still immigration loans available?
Mr. Kurland: Not for this.
Senator Eggleton: This is citizenship.
Ms. Taub: I understand, but that could be extended to citizenship fees.
Senator Eggleton: So there should be some provision to help people?
Ms. Taub: I think there should be some provision to help low-income families, absolutely, but I don't think it will deter people who are middle class, definitely not upper class, but for low-income, there should be a provision made for them. If they can establish a need, why not? Interest-free loans, payable over 10 years.
Senator Eggleton: Mr. Kurland, do you agree with helping low-income people?
Mr. Kurland: Any creative measure to deliver social justice that is not overly burdensome for the treasury, yes. And on this one, if there's a means test — and the only bar to an application for citizenship is the wallet — fairness requires some case-specific relief.
Senator Eggleton: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: With regard to the Level 4, we've just confirmed that it is 4 out of 12 stages, and apparently somewhere around 8 or 9 you begin to get into advanced knowledge. The issue was for clarification, Ms. Taub, but you very clearly indicated you're not knowledgeable about that particular interpretation.
Senator Eggleton: What is it now? If it's Level 4 proposed here, what is it now?
The Chair: Do we know that in terms of language requirement for immigration?
Mr. Kurland: No.
The Chair: The answer to that question?
Mr. Kurland: There's nothing.
The Chair: Okay, we are moving on from that. I'm sorry I interjected, but you mentioned the Level 4. I thought it would be helpful in the answer to the question.
Senator Eggleton: It would be helpful to know where we are now.
The Chair: Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Kurland, we heard your concerns with regard to the bill, and you mentioned an aspect that I think you thought was a significant improvement at the outset.
Are there other areas of this legislation that you would comment on with regard to your concerns?
Mr. Kurland: Somewhere someone has to add a fresh division to the Immigration and Refugee Board. You're going to need a citizenship division to deal with these revocations. There's got to be an adjudication of these cases, so that's a heads up.
The other thing is, again, if someone is granted citizenship to continue to reside in Canada, what's the time frame? I agree that the period of time required to obtain Canadian citizenship is crystal clear. After that, I have some concerns because there's one province in particular that is going to be affected more than any other — British Columbia. This is Canada's number one proportionate foreign-born province in the country.
I also have concerns about a specific ethnic group that may be, essentially, born with one foot in the departure lounge, and that's the Jewish community of Canada. Under the law of Israel, the Law of Return, generally speaking, entitles any Jewish person to go to Israel, and you become a citizen. So what are we saying? Some citizens will always have the fear of the state until they die or procreate to yield a safe baby, and others who are born here live without this fear. Until you go into the refugee and immigrant community in this country, you really don't know — other than the various members here — what it means to have that full sense of freedom from state intrusion. This is individual liberties, and that's what this bill may be changing. That's why I suspect that the judiciary will look very, very carefully here at the outcome.
The good thing is that we've sent a clear signal internationally that Canada is no longer open to abuse, and, if you want to know the real solution to citizenship of convenience, it is elementary. You do what our neighbours to the south have successfully done, taxation based on citizenship and not residency. That cures this ailment.
Senator Eaton: I completely agree with you, Mr. Kurland. I think worldwide taxes would solve a lot of these problems. I just wanted to bring up, when you were talking about Israel, your right of return to Israel. That's fine. I can see you going back to Israel two or three times a year. Do your children's bar mitzvahs or bat mitzvahs. Go and see your mother, whatever, but you're not going back to Israel to reside, are you?
Mr. Kurland: Not at all. I'm talking about the Jewish criminals in Canada.
Senator Eaton: Oh. Should we harbour them?
Mr. Kurland: That's the core question behind the legislation.
Senator Eaton: Yes, but it's not just any criminality, is it?
Mr. Kurland: Correct, and I'm saying, in response to an earlier brilliant question, should we welcome the terrorist into Lester B. Pearson with open arms? Should we welcome the murderer, the child molester, the serious criminal back into Canada with open arms? Right now, it's terrorism.
Senator Eaton: And treason and spying.
Mr. Kurland: And treason and spies, all Criminal Code offences.
Senator Eaton: Yes, but you know that those criminal offences have to be decided by the Federal Court. So it's not just anybody. They do get a court hearing.
Mr. Kurland: That's why I'm in favour of another division of the IRB. It's a legitimate concern. We're going to watch to see how the judiciary handles it, but something must be done. The question is, is this the right way? Right now, it's the only way.
Senator Eaton: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Could I have some kind of attempt at clarification about the procedures for revocation? I'm not absolutely clear. So it would be helpful, Mr. Kurland, if you could give me some clarity on this.
Mr. Kurland: I will try to mirror what Mr. Waldman stated earlier. He had it bang on. There may be two classes for revocation — the terrorist, treason, that ilk, and then the revocation of individuals who are among the thousands and thousands of case inventories currently under investigation for misrepresentation, fraud, what have you.
For those cases, my understanding is that the case officer would review the contents of the file, make a determination, allow the person to know the case they have to meet and provide a window of opportunity within which to respond to meet those concerns. Then the case officer would say no and write a report, and there's revocation. The person has an option. There's no appeal; there's judicial review. The onus, the burden, is on the individual who lost their right of citizenship to do something about it. That's about it.
Senator Seidman: Okay. I'm trying to understand very clearly now, very simply. The point that you made, which was the essence of your presentation to us, is that the citizen should have a right to an oral hearing at that point?
Mr. Kurland: Yes.
Senator Seidman: There's no appeal, you say, but they should have a right to an oral hearing?
Mr. Kurland: Going this route, addressing the concerns that gave rise to this bill, would require an oral hearing somewhere.
Senator Seidman: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Eggleton: On this question of dual citizenship, the dual citizen is going to be treated differently from the person that's born here and doesn't have dual citizenship. In fact, there's some onus on the dual citizen, some onus on citizens who might be convicted of some of these new activities that could result in revocation. The onus seems to be on them to prove that they're not. But, if they are a dual citizen, then their citizenship can be removed, and they can be subsequently deported. Why are we creating two classes of citizens?
Mr. Kurland: I'm trying to get around the "why are we creating two class of citizens," and I'm having a hard time getting around that point in terms of the results. The idea is one of primary loyalty, I think, and safeguarding the Canadian population against an ill doer. I think that's the basic premise.
The difficulty is that Canada has signed on to an international obligation to prevent statelessness. So the sub- problem is what do you do with countries that have no process for revocation. So you will always be in that subclass. There's no safety exit window. In other countries, you appear before the consular officials or embassy officials and sign the paper saying, "I give you back citizenship."
The other practical difficulty is for individuals who do not do that and fail to meet the burden to show that they are not eligible for that other citizenship. It's complicated. I'm just thinking, practically speaking, of the headache of these families. This isn't done in a day or a week or a year. A single bureaucrat, with no oral hearing, can sentence a family to uncertainty that can last half a decade, if not longer, until the final determination by the courts. Meanwhile, with no citizenship, how are they accessing medicare? How are they going to school? The only obligation is the obligation to file an income tax return. Nice deal.
Senator Eggleton: The other aspect of dual citizenship is that some countries consider sons, daughters, grandsons, et cetera, to be dual citizens, even if that person has never set foot in that country or has never asked for dual citizenship. It seems like another level of unfairness. Either one of you can comment on either of these.
Ms. Taub: You had asked the question: Why differentiate between dual citizens and citizens who are born in Canada? As stated, a dual citizen who loses their Canadian citizenship will not be a stateless person, whereas, for a person born in Canada who has single citizenship only, how can you revoke his citizenship? He will become stateless, and Canada cannot render a person stateless. If, for example, Canada decided that, for these Canadians of convenience living in Lebanon, these 26,000 who have only spent three or four years in Canada and three decades outside of Canada, we will now revoke their citizenship — that's just theoretical — they will not be stateless. They would still have Lebanese citizenship.
Senator Eggleton: What about the case I gave earlier of Egypt? I gave the case earlier of Egypt where they consider sons, daughters, grandsons, et cetera, and if a person had never been to that country, doesn't speak the language, what's the fairness of having a person's citizenship removed and then deported to a country they've never been to and don't speak the language of?
Ms. Taub: If they don't acquire the right of citizenship of that country, they couldn't be deported to that country.
Mr. Kurland: The purpose of the oral hearing is to get to the bottom of cases like that.
Ms. Taub: To determine.
Mr. Kurland: There's another method inspired by Senator Eaton, I might add.
The Chair: Just to be sure, Ms. Taub, were you finished your response?
Mr. Kurland: Oh, sorry.
The Chair: Mr. Kurland is very enthusiastic, and I want to make sure you have a chance to fully respond.
Ms. Taub: Yes, he's always enthusiastic.
Again, we are referring to "they." I had one case of revocation of citizenship of a certain gentleman from Africa for misrepresentation and fraud. His citizenship was eventually revoked, not his family's. So I'm not quite sure why we would be referring to children's rights to go to school or university. They became citizens. Their father, the husband, lost the citizenship. It did not impact upon the family. So I don't quite understand why there is this worry about the family. The rest of the family does not become implicated, is not found guilty of fraud or having misrepresented if it's only the father, once they have attained their citizenship in their own right.
Senator Cordy: It would certainly impact the family, I think.
Ms. Taub: Well, it does impact the family, but they will not lose their citizenship. They will not be deported. They will not be prevented from attending school, continuing on with university, as this family I was involved with.
The Chair: Now Mr. Kurland?
Mr. Kurland: Thank you. The legislator has other choices to deal with the core issues of citizenship of convenience. I looked at the example of the incident in Lebanon giving rise to a mass exodus to Canada for a short duration. If people who are not going to reside in Canada want the benefit of citizenship without the burden of citizenship, they are using their passports as passports of convenience, insurance passports; so if an individual has failed to file four Canadian income tax returns in the five years prior to a passport application, there is an insurance premium available in the form of an enhanced passport fee. You want the insurance policy, pay the insurance premium, and I've road tested this to the external stakeholder communities suggesting $5,000 for a Canadian passport if you're not filing your taxes. Their uniform and consistent reply over time across the cultural community divide: "That's it?"
The Chair: Okay. Senator Eaton?
Senator Eaton: Yes, I guess I have trouble wondering why we are all feeling so sympathetic with people who misrepresent or commit fraud in their citizenship applications and we dare to take it away. Do you think the revocation for terrorism or treason was put there because we have quite a few young men going abroad and using their Canadian passport and fighting in local fights, whether it be Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Rwanda, and we want to discourage them from doing that?
Ms. Taub: Who are you addressing this to?
Senator Eaton: Either one of you might have interesting thoughts.
The Chair: Ms. Taub?
Ms. Taub: Well, that was why I had — I guess you will get them later. I sent them to Jessica Richardson, these three articles that have appeared in the National Post.
The Chair: No, none of us have received them.
Ms. Taub: You will get them. They keep talking about the issues of jihadists and terrorists who go abroad who are naturalized Canadians and then the issue of what happens once they become even further radicalized when they are abroad and they come back to Canada, how they will be instrumental in radicalizing other young Canadians here, how they will be instrumental in organizing terrorist acts within Canada. So I believe that's why it was brought into this new legislation.
There really is no choice because the Charter of Rights section 7, the right to liberty and security, I think trumps all other rights, even those of Canadian passport holders, because it's very difficult to benefit from your rights and freedoms in the Charter if you die in a terrorist attack or are seriously injured.
I believe that is one of the principal reasons we are all afraid and Canadians support the revocation, because I think an Ipsos Reid poll several years ago indicated that, what, 74 or 75 per cent of Canadians support the revocation of citizenship for naturalized Canadians who participate in terrorism.
Senator Eaton: Or dual Canadians.
Ms. Taub: For dual Canadians, yes. Well, naturalized Canadians tend to be dual — not always. That's true.
Senator Eaton: Not always.
Ms. Taub: I'm naturalized and I don't have any other citizenship, dual citizenship.
Mr. Kurland: I think we have it backwards, absolutely backwards. The fellow is Canadian; it's our responsibility. It's our responsibility to prevent that individual from leaving Canada to do mischief internationally. Why do they have a Canadian passport?
The other aspect is revocation of the Canadian passport and a one-way laissez-passer to Canada. That's our international obligation.
The Chair: I thought in other areas, Mr. Kurland, you were saying we can't predict what's in the minds of people, so I'm a little surprised at your thinking that Canada could filter all of that in advance.
Mr. Kurland: That's after.
The Chair: Okay, I think we've had a pretty good discussion here, and Ms. Taub, thank you for your patience and also your thoroughness of response. Mr. Kurland, it's always a pleasure to have you here. Your enthusiasm abounds with these issues, but also you're very clear with regard to the points you want to make, and it's that that we very much appreciate.
Colleagues, this next session will end at 5:05. We have, from the Canadian Council for Refugees, Loly Rico, President; and Janet Dench, Executive Director. From the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, we have Debbie Douglas, Executive Director. Miss Douglas, I invite you to present first.
Debbie Douglas, Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants: Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you on this very important issue. As you've heard, my name is Debbie Douglas from the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, fondly known as OCASI. We're the umbrella organization in Ontario for agencies working with immigrants and refugees. We have over 230 agencies across the province of Ontario.
I want to start off by reminding us that this year marks the one hundredth anniversary of Komagata Maru and the seventy-fifth anniversary of the SS St. Louis. I wanted to foreground that because they are reminders of Canada's immigration history, of which we are not very proud. In fact, we have apologized to the communities that were affected. Keeping that in mind, we need to ensure that any changes to our Citizenship Act must not promote any sort of racist exclusive policies, bearing in mind that the majority of immigrants now coming into Canada very much resemble the folks who were turned away 100 years ago and 75 years ago.
I want to speak specifically about three issues, beginning with the longer periods of residence before applying and more importantly the fact that this new bill will no longer recognize or give credit for time spent living and working in Canada before permanent residency is obtained. Right now, those who came into Canada through two-step immigration, whether as high skilled, temporary foreign workers who then transitioned through the Canada experience class to permanent residency, are able to count some of that time toward time spent in Canada for citizenship purposes. The live-in caregivers, in particular, must work up to two years before they transition to permanent residence. The fact that this bill will not allow any counting of the time spent in Canada we believe is unfair and unnecessarily keeps mothers, in particular, and families apart.
We know that it takes two years to apply for PR, and then with the extension of four out of six years from three out of five years, it's an even longer period before folks can be reunited with their families, particularly their children. Research and practice have shown that immigrants being separated from their families for very long periods of time often leads to family breakdown once the children are here because of the distance and many years spent away from their parents.
We're asking two things: Keep the residence requirement to three years out of four; and keep the rule allowing applicants to count at least one year in Canada before becoming a permanent resident. As our immigration system becomes more and more of a two-stage process, this is particularly important; so I certainly hope you listen to this.
I also wanted to speak to the issue of the intention to reside. Basically this clause says to citizens, "We want you to vow that you are saying that you will live in Canada." But we know that in a globalized world, folks go where the jobs are. People may need to leave Canada to take care of extended families in their country of origin for a number of years. It doesn't mean that when getting citizenship they didn't mean to continue living in Canada. It means that circumstances have taken them away from Canada. What does that open up? Does that then mean that their citizenship can be revoked because of changing life circumstances?
While I've heard the minister say that it's very unlikely that anyone's citizenship will be revoked because they have vowed to reside in Canada but for whatever reason had to leave, it will happen in rare circumstances; but there is no guarantee. We know that once things are written into law, they become that. While we may have good faith in the current government, we do not know what other governments or ministers will come along who may apply what we believe to be an unnecessary change to our Citizenship Act in terms of having people vow to remain in Canada knowing that folks live in and out of Canada. In fact, those who are born in Canada do not have that kind of restriction. Folks born in Canada do not have to say they will reside in Canada or have revocation of their citizenship threatened. We are asking that this provision be deleted from the bill.
Last, I want to speak about the fact that the bill extends the age when people need to meet the language requirement of English and French to Canadian Language Benchmarks Level 4 as well as to write the citizenship test from age 14 to 64. We cannot stress enough that regardless of the time spent in Canada, particularly refugees and women who have spent often a generation in a refugee camp and may not have had access to formal education, they may very well not learn either official language up to CLB 4. To have someone age 54, 55 or 60 be expected to write the citizenship test, I don't think any of us — I haven't heard anything to convince me why that is necessary.
I believe that people choose Canada to make Canada their home. They choose Canada because of the values that we hold. They choose Canada because they are committed to our democracy. Therefore, expecting those who are over 55 — I'm not sure what purpose it serves. In fact, it presents a barrier for those who have experienced torture, for those without formal education and for those who are not able to acquire either of our official languages up to the expected level.
Yes, I am sure that, as we move along, there may be regulations to have exceptions, but why have exceptions? Why not keep the age limit to what it is now, which is 18 to 54? Our recommendation is that we keep the language and all the test requirements to the existing ages?
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Dench and Ms. Rico, I understand you are splitting your five minutes.
Loly Rico, President, Canadian Council for Refugees: Thank you for this opportunity to speak about Bill C-24. Citizenship issues have become a significant concern for all of our members at the Canadian Council for Refugees. We have 170 members nationally. It is a concern because of all the implications of Bill C-24 and because in recent years we have been seeing increased barriers to citizenship.
We want to start with some principles. We had a discussion in our last consultation a week ago in Halifax. Citizenship is fundamental to who we are as a country. We believe that citizenship laws and policies must respect the principle that all citizens are equal; embrace newcomers and encourage them to quickly become full participating members of our society; recognize the barriers that some newcomers face to full participation, including the particular barriers faced by refugees who have suffered persecution and long years of deprivation; respect the principle that citizenship is a status from which rights derive, and is thus similar to our status as human beings — it is not something that can be lost through behaviour; have clear and transparent criteria about acquisition and loss of citizenship; and ensure that individuals have access to a fair hearing before an independent decision maker, with the right of appeal — decisions should not be made on a discretionary basis by the minister.
Based on these principles, we are concerned that Bill C-24 will increase barriers to citizenship, especially for refugees.
Under Bill C-24, applicants will have to spend longer periods in Canada before they can apply for citizenship. Currently, they must be in Canada three years. That will increase to four years. In addition, applicants will no longer be able to count time spent in Canada before becoming a permanent resident. This sometimes happens with refugee claimants — that they wait longer and that was counted. This particularly affects refugees as well as live-in caregivers, which Debbie Douglas was talking about, as well as foreign students.
The consequence of these changes is that some refugees currently in Canada could easily have to wait nine years before becoming citizens: three years in the refugee claim process, one year to get permanent residence after being accepted as a refugee, four years as a permanent resident, and one year for the processing of their citizenship application.
Becoming a citizen is particularly important for refugees who have no other country they can turn to. Until they are citizens, they have a sense of insecurity and face practical problems, such as difficulty travelling without a passport.
I can tell you, because I came as a refugee to Canada. From the minute I could apply, I did and I proudly became a citizen. We are fleeing from countries where they destroy our rights, and we come to a country where we feel that it is our place to live, and they respect our rights. That's why it's so in my heart regarding these changes in the bill; Bill C-24 is unfair for refugees.
Canada also has a legal obligation under the refugee convention to speed up access to citizenship. The proposed increase in the waiting period would contradict this obligation.
Another barrier to citizenship is the wider age range for tests. Debbie was talking about that, but with the language test requirement being aged 14 to 64, whereas currently it is only 18 to 54. We note that following a recent change, the burden is on the applicant to show they know English or French. Extending language requirements to older and younger applicants therefore means not just that they must be able to speak English or French, but also that they must provide the proof that CIC now requires.
We are concerned about older refugees who may be able to learn enough English or French to function in Canadian society but have difficulty passing the test, which in some cases they have to pay for. The test is particularly difficult for people with little formal education and limited literacy.
As for applicants aged 14 to 18, we are not clear why the requirements are being imposed on them. Youth at this age will be in high school, and must have been in Canadian schools for the past several years. If they don't speak English or French, or know about Canada, the fault surely lies with our schools, because that's where they study.
What proofs of language competence will be accepted for youth? The proofs currently accepted do not work for high school students. We are afraid that it will be difficult for adolescents to prove their language ability, and this will result in youth being denied citizenship and thus the possibility of participating fully in society.
I will pass to Janet.
Janet Dench, Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees: We are also concerned that Bill C-24 creates two classes of citizens and makes citizenship something that must be continually earned.
We oppose the proposed new powers to strip citizenship from dual citizens in cases of treason or terrorism. We understand that few people will be directly affected, but all Canadian citizens will be affected because of the principles it violates. First, treating dual citizens differently is discriminatory and violates the fundamental principle that all citizens are equal. Second, it is wrong to use citizenship rules to punish people for wrongdoing. The criminal system is the proper way to deal with crimes.
In concluding, we would like to draw your attention to something that is not in the bill: access to citizenship for youth under 18 without parents in Canada. Currently, youth under 18 can only apply for citizenship if their parent is a citizen or is applying for citizenship along with them. This leaves some youth without access to citizenship, apart from on an exceptional discretionary basis. Among those affected are some youth in care, for whom the state has a particular responsibility to provide secure status. We regret that there is nothing in the bill to address this issue.
We direct you to our written submission for our full comments and concerns. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you all very much. I'm going to open the floor up to questions from my colleagues.
Senator Eggleton: On this question of two classes of citizenship, I'm sure Senator Eaton will say we don't want to keep those terrorists and traitors here and all that sort of stuff. Right, she agrees with me; she's going to say that. You didn't specifically address those particular things, but you're saying that it creates an atmosphere of feeling second class for the person who is subject to a different kind of penalty possibility. Even though they have no intention of doing any of these things, and in most cases never do any of these things, it's this sense of being treated differently, as a second-class citizen; is that what you're talking about?
Ms. Rico: Yes, and I can speak personally. I have dual citizenship, because I came from El Salvador. I'm a citizen, and you have that insecurity and that feeling that you don't start feeling that they are taking away that I belong to this country. I believe, and that's why I'm still living here in Canada, that we have an excellent criminal justice system. But if there is terrorism or a crime, they should pay, and we have a good criminal justice system.
Based on that, why are you going to punish to take away citizenship? Also, because the perception that you have, if you have dual citizenship. People will even start telling you that you have to behave. You can be deported. That's no fair. That's what I'm saying.
We know with terrorists not to remove; they need to pay if they commit a crime, and we have a good criminal justice system.
Senator Eggleton: The penalty in terms of citizenship for anybody committing these crimes is different. If the person is born here they can't revoke the citizenship, but on a person not born here — the dual citizen — they could.
Ms. Dench: To clarify, the rule is whether you're a dual citizen or not, so you could be born in Canada and be a dual citizen and, in fact, there are many who have citizenship through parentage. But what you're saying and what Ms. Rico is saying is it's perceived by immigrants as being something that's directed towards them, and I've seen in it in meetings where we say it affects many Canadians who also have American citizenship or whatever. However, the way it is being perceived, the way it's being felt, is as if it is targeted at newcomers. I think it's sending a negative message that really undermines the efforts Canada has made to make newcomers feel that when they become citizens they become full, equal members of Canadian society.
Ms. Douglas: Leaving issues of criminality aside, the intention to reside clause speaks specifically to naturalized citizens, and you may very well intend to reside in Canada, as I said, but we know that systemic barriers exist so increasingly folks are having a more difficult time finding employment, for example, and are looking to work outside of the country.
We hear of folks who need to go and live overseas for a number of years to take care of parents and grandparents, and basically what we are saying to those people is you obtained your citizenship fraudulently, when in fact there was no intent to defraud. What we're basically doing with this bill is taking away mobility rights from naturalized Canadians that we don't do with those born in Canada.
Senator Eggleton: Those born in Canada would not face those concerns for taking a job abroad or visiting parents.
Ms. Douglas: Or choosing to study abroad.
Senator Eggleton: Good point. On the question of the language test, there's no test for people above 54. Now there would be that language test, which has been described as a Level 4 test, for people in that age group. What is the profile, the characteristic of people in that age group? I would think they're largely parents or grandparents. If they're coming in their sixties, I wouldn't think they were coming here specifically to look for a job. Do you know many cases where this test would be particularly burdensome on people coming in that age group?
Ms. Douglas: I think both Loly Rico and I talked about the fact that we have many women coming out of vulnerable situations, whether they're coming out of a refugee camp, whether they've experienced torture, so Canada has offered protection. To then expect those folks, who may not even be literate in their first language, to then learn an official language and have to sit for a test, we believe it's unnecessary and unfair. I think we boast all the time about the fact that we have such uptake on citizenship, over 85 per cent of permanent residents apply for citizenship. I do not understand, and everyone I have spoken to has asked me the same question: What is the rationale for increasing the age of those having to write the test up to age 64?
I have yet to figure out what that rationale is, other than making it more difficult for folks to become Canadians, while at the same time we want people who come into Canada to have a sense of belonging and pride as Canadians. Yet we're putting these unnecessary barriers in place.
The Chair: Just before you go there, Ms. Douglas, on that last point, wouldn't having knowledge of either one of the official languages greatly facilitate the opportunity for the person, regardless of age, to fully become part of the Canadian fabric?
Ms. Douglas: Absolutely, and you will find that folks are able to communicate in one of the official languages without being able to write a formal test, that they have enough language so they're able to get along in their neighbourhood, their faith community, are able to shop and integrate with their neighbours. If you look at our citizenship test, that is basically a Grade 12 civics course program. Even if we're looking at CLB Level 4, I think it's unrealistic for many people who have come out of traumatic life experiences.
Senator Eaton: That is very interesting. I've always thought of Canadian citizenship — and Senator Eggleton might disagree with me — as a privilege, and not something that should be taken for granted. I'm not sure how much it says about our civics program in Grade 12 if a potential immigrant couldn't pass it.
In the past, we've done studies on this, and your study — the last study we did — was about people who are kept out of the community, they tend to end up living in a ghetto because there's no incentive for them to learn either official language. I agree that for some people who have been terribly tortured or cannot write or read this might be a huge struggle, but I think for the most part to encourage people to learn either language. It's just the age that has moved, but the language requirements are still the same, so I guess I have trouble understanding.
Ms. Douglas: I think that's what we're saying. We are not arguing about having to write the test. We're not saying remove the test; we are saying why extend the age beyond 54 in terms of who writes the test? There is always the option, if it's about knowledge, to have a conversation with a citizenship judge and the person wanting citizenship, and even then I'm thinking why beyond age 54?
Senator Eaton: Are you incapacitated? I'm not sure how old you are. I'm almost 70, and I don't feel incapacitated.
Ms. Douglas: Not at all.
Senator Eaton: I'm putting it on the record that I think 61, we're patronizing people by saying women cannot —
Ms. Douglas: We're not saying that at all, Senator Eaton. To be fair, we are saying we have folks who come into Canada that we have given protection to, whose life circumstances do not allow them to learn the language and to write the kind of test that we're now asking folks to write to become Canadian citizens. We're saying that yes, for 18 to 54, go ahead and write the test, but why extend it? Why create an unnecessary barrier to citizenship for folks, especially those who may remain stateless because of how they came into the country?
Senator Eaton: I'm sorry, I think that's patronizing.
Ms. Rico, about refugees and your nine years, I sympathize with you. But if you come to this country as a refugee, and you know that far better than I, you're accepted as a refugee in this country because you're fleeing from a dangerous situation, are you not?
Ms. Rico: Yes.
Senator Eaton: So why would you find it difficult to stay in the country for four years as a refugee and then to fulfill your four out of six years as a citizen?
Ms. Rico: I find it difficult because one of the things is — I can bring you myself — I came from a country where all these rights for human beings were violated, and I came to Canada. One of the things I started learning is that I can speak up about my opinions freely, and I won't be killed. That's one.
I am a person that likes to participate, civic engagement, and one of the things is that to make my maximum, when you feel that you are a proud Canadian, you can vote and elect democratically, which in my country I couldn't do, and I wanted to do that. That's how, in 1998, I became a citizen. There were elections and I was saying "Well, I want to bring my opinion because I feel that I'm Canadian and I can give something to Canada."
Why I'm saying I cannot wait the four years is because for the people who are waiting to become refugees and being accepted as a refugee, it is not their fault. It's in the process that they go through. When they become refugees — because I keep working with them — the next step is when we can apply for our citizenship. I don't have numbers, but if you see the number of refugees that come to Canada, there are a high number of people becoming citizens. You feel that you can express yourself because you couldn't do it in the country where you were born, and you adopt this country as your own country.
I feel that it's not fair that because of the processing system they have to wait. It's that way for the refugees. People who come and study here, international students, can apply with the Canadian experience class. They could be taking into consideration the time that they are providing here. At the same time, there are people who say we are working, we are taxpayers, and I believe that it's a right, and I want to clarify that.
I'm not a lawyer. I'm an activist, and I'm a woman that works with women, but I believe that to be a citizen is not a privilege; it's a right when you feel that the place where you live is your own. It's not because I was born in that place; it's because this is my country. El Salvador right now is a democratic country, and I choose to stay in Canada. I choose to raise my children here, and I choose to stay with my grandchildren because I already have roots here, and that is what the rights are of a citizen.
Senator Eaton: Should all immigrants be as good as you.
Ms. Rico: Yes, and I believe all immigrants are good like me.
Senator Eaton: And I mean that. You're a wonderful example.
Ms. Dench, what do you think about dual citizenship in the case of someone who is an American and a Canadian — American mother, Canadian father — and all of a sudden the Americans are insisting that such people file an IRS document every year? How do you think that makes dual American citizens living in Canada?
When we talk about being shaky because you're a dual citizen, my goodness, most dual citizens don't have the intention of going out and spying on their country, fighting against Canada, or committing high treason, do they? Why do they even think about it because they have privileges in other countries that I, as a Canadian citizen only, don't have?
Ms. Dench: I guess because we're the Canadian Council for Refugees, we're thinking particularly of people who have come to Canada as refugees, so there is a lot of concern for people about false convictions that can take place in other countries. As you know, under the proposed bill, it would affect not just convictions here in Canada for treason or terrorism, which you might not have the same concerns about, but if you're from Iran, Syria, Egypt or any other number of countries, you can have a legitimate fear that you could end up with a conviction that could potentially lead to you losing your Canadian citizenship.
We think, for example, of Maher Arar who, thankfully, was able to come back to Canada, but it was only after he was able to come back to Canada and get an inquiry that he was able to clear his name. So we could ask ourselves what would happen if somebody in a similar situation was to find themselves in their country of origin, and the process goes through that they are actually convicted. Of course, while Maher Arar was in a Syrian jail, there were many allegations that were going on. So for somebody in that situation, one could imagine that that could lead to their having their citizenship stripped.
I don't think it's too farfetched to think that somebody who has, in fact, committed no crime and has no intention of committing crimes could, nevertheless, fear that the situation might arise where they would end up losing their Canadian citizenship.
The Chair: Before I move to Senator Seidman, Ms. Douglas, you made yourself very clear, but I want to make sure we understand exactly.
If I understood you with regard to the language issue, it is more the idea of taking a written test as opposed to being able to communicate in one of the languages, or did I misunderstand you?
Ms. Douglas: I think it's both, and I'm particularly concerned about the extension of the age.
I think both Loly and Janet spoke eloquently about the difficulties of 14- to 18-year-olds proving language skill unless they go out and do a test and pay for it, but for the older age, I'm particularly concerned for those who are coming out of circumstances of torture.
The Chair: Right. I think you made it clear who you're concerned about. I just wanted to make sure it was clear that you are concerned about having to deal with it at a certain level either orally or in writing.
Ms. Douglas: That's right.
The Chair: Thank you. That helps very much.
Senator Seidman: The committee has heard a lot about the importance of integration for new Canadians. In your experience, and you surely have a lot of it, how does time spent in Canada affect integration and a true connection to the country?
Ms. Douglas: There is a study, and I don't remember off the top of my head, that was released a few weeks ago that showed that folks who were able to become citizens within a shorter period of time did better on the test than those who stayed longer and longer.
It's the same argument we make. If you were to give the citizenship test to a regular Canadian, Nancy Simmons down the street most likely won't pass the test. As Canadians, we don't necessarily pay attention to the various pieces that make up our country and the things we think are important to know as Canadians.
By lengthening the time, I don't think it adds anything. I'm not sure what the rationale is in terms of three out of four. All I've heard is that Canada is probably the most generous in terms of a time period. Yes, because we promote citizenship. We want those who come in as permanent residents or come through a refugee determination system to pledge allegiance to Canada. That's why we make our citizenship process open, fair and transparent, and putting barriers in place is not going to make people any more loyal or committed to Canada.
Senator Seidman: My sense is that we have not increased the time. We've made it four out of six years instead of three out of four, so that allows people to be out of the country if they need to be out of the country during, say, a six- year period as you've put forward; they need to attend to a sick relative, or whatever. They have two years out of six, so in that sense it makes it more flexible.
But I'm actually talking about the integration piece here. I'm not talking about passing an exam for citizenship. I'm talking about the importance of integration for new Canadians, and we've heard an awful lot about that, feeling comfortable in the society, feeling a part of the society. How does time spent in Canada affect integration?
Ms. Douglas: I would argue, Senator Seidman, that the opportunities for inclusion, the removal of barriers to participation go a longer way to people having a sense of belonging and to feeling Canadian than length of time spent in Canada. We know for many communities, for example the African-Canadian community, who, second, third and fourth generation, still get asked where they are from.
Integration is also about how we are and how it is we set up our society. So we pay attention to issues of inclusion if we want to see people being integrated, so it's not necessarily a period of time. It is the kinds of opportunities that we ensure people have equal opportunity to.
Senator Seidman: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you for being here. If we could ask for three people who would know what it's like to work with immigrants and refugees in their efforts to become citizens, you are all doing an excellent job.
I think most of us around the table would say that it's time for the citizenship bill to be looked at because it's been a long time. But my fear in listening to you and in reading about the bill is that certain parts of the bill seem to be overreaching, going above and beyond what it should be doing, and harming some people.
Ms. Rico, I thought you said in your principles of becoming a citizen that all citizens are equal, and that would include new citizens and dual citizens. Yet, we've heard others testify, and in listening to you and to others, I get the sense that this bill is going to make two classes of Canadian citizens. I wonder if you could expand on that or if you believe that will be the case with this bill.
Ms. Rico: Well, since the moment that you put it with the conditions, especially with the situation that if you commit a crime with a crime, as I said at the beginning, you make us feel immediately like a dual citizen because you feel that for any reason or a behaviour is like telling you that citizenship is a privilege and not a right and you are going to be treated different.
Also, one of the things that Debbie just said is that you need to see how the society will start seeing you. Because when we talk about the dual citizen, I say we are equal because I feel like I'm Canadian like all of you around the table. Many of you, I believe you were born here in Canada, but if you start putting that difference, it's very targeting to the ones who came to Canada, especially in the last 30 years, and many of us, we came as refugees looking for protection. And 24 years ago Canada welcomed us and said "Welcome to Canada; this is your country," and we want everybody to feel that way. The moment you put these conditions, you immediately are putting and targeting the people who are coming to Canada and the people who are applying for citizenship; immediately you are putting them as a dual citizen.
One of the beauties that Canada has — and I believe we are a leading country because it is an example of a country about integration with all these settlement programs — is we are a country that tries to be inclusive. Very proudly we have been saying in the last 20 years we are a multicultural country, we are a country of immigrants, and now we are changing that at the minute that you do these changes in the citizenship bill. That's the challenge, the concern that we have.
Ms. Dench: I would just add this principle for us is also offended by the current Citizenship Act with the changes that came into force in 2009 which are of concern to us in terms of citizenship by birth outside Canada, and that was a change which meant that somebody who was born outside Canada, you're not an equal citizen if you acquire your citizenship by birth from a parent when you're born outside Canada, because you cannot pass that citizenship on to your offspring if they are born outside Canada. So somebody who has lived maybe all of their life, except for the first few weeks if they were born outside Canada, is somehow a different type of Canadian citizen, and again, that's something of concern to us in terms of the principle, also of concern because the children can be born stateless as a result.
Senator Cordy: So it's a "you're a Canadian but" sort of scenario.
I would like to speak about the intent to reside. We heard previous witnesses talking about Canadians of convenience, and certainly we want to eliminate that type of citizen who has no intention of living in the country. We saw this a few years ago when there was fighting in a country and they all came back to Canada and a few months later all left. But that's not the norm, I don't think.
Ms. Rico: No.
Senator Cordy: I think that most people have every intention to reside in Canada, and I thought, Ms. Douglas, that you spoke very clearly about the fact that circumstances may change. So if somebody was born in Canada — and I'm going back to the dual or two types of Canadians, so somebody who was born here is Canadian — they can travel to New York or London to go to school or to work with their job, but somebody who is a dual citizen can't foresee that their job is going to send them elsewhere, that they're going to get a promotion and move to New York.
Ms. Douglas: Or have the option to choose to live elsewhere for whatever reason, and that's the concern, this creation of difference between a naturalized Canadian and a Canadian-born Canadian in terms of the intention to reside. If this bill passes the way it's written, that may lead inadvertently to folks having attained their citizenship fraudulently because they had said they had an intent to reside and now are living outside of the country. And so I think it's unnecessary for us to create unwilling fraudsters, right? I don't think anyone applies for citizenship — I shouldn't say anyone. I do not think it's the norm that folks apply for citizenship not intending to want to be Canadians to the fullest extent of what it means to be Canadian.
Senator Cordy: I wonder also if you could talk about the provision in this bill where citizenship can be revoked because of terrorism charges. Ms. Rico, I think you spoke about it saying the justice system in Canada should deal with it the same as they deal with any other citizen.
I wonder if any of you have any comments on this aspect of the bill.
Ms. Dench: It is a concern for us in terms of the two-tier citizenship, but also in terms of double punishment in the sense that everybody who commits the same act should be subject to the same penalty for it, and so if you've got two citizens who commit the same crime, they are both convicted together, they are sentenced to the same sentence, and one of them also ends up losing their citizenship, whereas the other one gets to keep it, then it's an unequal treatment, and that I think offends a sense of fairness too.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for the presentation. First of all, let me thank you and congratulate you for working with refugees and immigrants, because they are one of the most vulnerable parts of our society, so thank you for that.
I recently heard that there's an issue with regards to intention to reside among refugees and live-in caregivers. Can you possibly expand more on that? Somehow I don't understand, because as long as they have a PR, I think they will be in a good situation already by that time.
Ms. Douglas: Well, live-in caregivers go through a two-stage permanent residence process. They come into the country, work for two years and are able to apply for a permanent residence status and then go through the regular process, right? You become a permanent resident, you stay in the country three years out of four, and you apply for citizenship. I'm not sure it's tied to the intent to reside. The time that they spent in Canada, none of it with this new bill will be counted towards citizenship, and that's unfair.
Senator Enverga: But before you go for a citizenship, you have to be a permanent resident.
Ms. Douglas: That's correct.
Senator Enverga: That's the main goal of every refugee and live-in caregiver, right?
Ms. Douglas: Absolutely, it is to be legally residing in Canada. And the fact that we have worked together between the NGO sector and the government to ensure that we have processes in place to recognize the commitment that people have made to Canada to be able to process themselves — and two-step immigration is not the way I think we should be going in the country, but it is what it is at present — that time spent working and paying taxes in Canada should be counted towards residency, towards citizenship.
Senator Enverga: Well, they are already a PR; they already have permanent resident status, so why will it be a problem if they put an intention to reside? Chances are they will be residing here anyway, right?
Ms. Douglas: Absolutely, but what happens if they for some reason have to live elsewhere?
Senator Enverga: Why would they do that?
Ms. Douglas: Family circumstances, an opportunity for a new job, the decision to study abroad. Why wouldn't they? If I'm born in Canada, I have the option to travel the world. Why shouldn't naturalized citizens also have that right?
Ms. Dench: A scenario that I've heard and that I think would be a practical problem for some applicants is you come to Canada, you get your permanent residence, you apply for citizenship, you are married to somebody who is a Canadian-born Canadian, and you're waiting for your citizenship to come. Now your spouse has got a nice fellowship in the United States, so the spouse wants to take up the fellowship. Of course you want to go with your spouse to the U.S. However, with the intent to reside in Canada thing, you are forced to say, "Sorry, I can't follow you because I have to sign this thing saying that I'm going to reside in Canada, whereas, in fact, I'm hoping, as soon as I get my citizenship, that we can go to take up the fellowship for a few years in the U.S."
So I think people are going to be faced with practical dilemmas, and I don't know how we would advise somebody in that situation what to do. Do you say, "Just cancel the fellowship," or let your husband or wife go without you, or do you say that you intend to reside, even though you know that, as soon as you get your citizenship, you're going to go to the U.S.? It's a practical problem.
Senator Enverga: I know it could happen maybe very rarely, but, for refugees, when you say "refuge," you look for a place where you can stay. You can stay there for as long as you want, but, suddenly, you will decide, "Hey, I don't want to stay here." Isn't it unfair for the country to say that?
Ms. Rico: That's when you see that citizenship is not a right. You put it as a privilege, and, no, it's a right.
Senator Enverga: No.
Ms. Rico: Yes, it is. I'm not a lawyer, but, if you see the definition, a citizen is someone who resides in the place. Also, it's a right so that I can go with my husband, if he gets a better job, and raise my children in another place. That's what I see — and I apologize — but we are removing a right that everybody has. You had it 50 years ago or 60 years ago when you became a citizen.
Senator Enverga: I am a naturalized citizen. I definitely think that citizenship is a privilege. It's not a right. You have to be a citizen because you deserve it, not because you want it. You have to be able to tell them that, "Yes, I deserve to be a citizen." So it has to be a privilege. It cannot be a right.
Ms. Rico: Can I clarify when I say it's a right? It's because I live in this country. I pay my taxes. I go with all the rules and procedures of the country. I have the possibility of voting in a democratic country because I was coming from a dictatorship, and, in that case, I start feeling that this is my country. I feel that because I do these things I have a right to be a citizen and be treated the same way as someone who came a hundred years ago. That's when I say it's my right; it's not a privilege. Because, 80 years ago, there were refugees coming too, and they had the right and became citizens. Now, they won't have these old regulations in place. They don't become another class, and that's what I'm trying to say. It's not a privilege. I gained this right, and I don't want anyone to take it away from me.
Senator Enverga: Do you want to say something?
Ms. Douglas: For me, it comes down to mobility rights. As Canadians, we have mobility rights. Whether or not I'm naturalized or born in Canada, I should be able to have the option to live abroad, and my living abroad, whether to take up an opportunity for study or work or to take care of family, should in no way question my patriotism to Canada or take away any options I have to live where I need to given my life circumstances. That's what we're saying. Why create two-tier citizenship by having this intent to reside clause?
Senator Enverga: But it is only to a certain point. Just to let you know, being in Canada is not a right. It's a privilege. We are here because Canada accepted us with open arms. As naturalized Canadians, we should be happy that we were accepted as we are. We cannot just demand, "Because I live there, I can be a citizen." I don't think that's the right way to do it. You are here because you deserve it.
The Chair: I think we have explored this, and I think Ms. Rico has made very clear and very understandable explanation of her position. I think, senator, you have very clearly outlined your position, and we are not going to debate this to a conclusion. If there is a new point with regard to the bill, I will welcome that, but we're not in a debate to convince one or the other of you of your different views in that sense.
Ms. Douglas: Ms. Dench talked a bit about the lost Canadians and that the bill missed the opportunity to redress some of the issues that came out of the changes that happened in 2009. So it's interesting because this bill actually pays attention to lost Canadians but doesn't address the issue that was created in terms of second-generation Canadians born abroad not having Canadian citizenship. I think it's a missed opportunity, and it's certainly something we strongly encourage this committee to look at in terms of amendments that may be going forward.
Senator Eggleton: One of you mentioned live-in caregivers earlier. There are a lot of those folks here, and they've got credit towards the time to qualify for citizenship. That's being taken away.
Ms. Douglas: That's right.
Senator Eggleton: What do you think the impact of that is? How fair or unfair is that?
Ms. Douglas: It's unfair, and it raises issues around family separation. It lengthens the time that parents, especially mothers, are away from their children. We know that family breakdown happens when families have been apart for any length of time. As I said, there is no rationale that I can see for why it is that we would not count time already spent in Canada, even up to one year of time spent in Canada, towards citizenship residency requirements. I've yet to hear an argument about why that changed.
Senator Eggleton: So you're saying that, until they get citizenship, they can't reunite their families?
Ms. Douglas: No, once they become permanent residents, they can begin the process of reuniting their families. However, it takes them longer to become citizens if you don't count the time spent in Canada.
Senator Eggleton: Yes.
Ms. Dench: Just to add to that, the rationale for the longer period of waiting and also taking away time before you become a permanent resident was that you wanted people to have fully integrated into Canada, but, for somebody who is a live-in caregiver and so is living with a Canadian family, what better kind of introduction can you get to Canada and what better commitment can you see to Canadian society than looking after our families?
Senator Eggleton: On the issue of the fees, I don't know if you have anything to add to that. The previous panels discussed this going from $200 to $400 per person, plus whatever they have to pay for the language test. To some, I would imagine, that would be a burden, certainly to many low-income people, many of them refugees, perhaps. What's your experience regarding people's ability to pay these kinds of things from the immigrant community of today, particularly the refugee community?
Ms. Douglas: We anticipate that the costs will be prohibitive, especially for larger families, to have the fees increased to $400 for adults. It stays at $100 for youth, but imagine if you have three or four children and this price has increased? Our concern is that this is not part of the bill; it's a done deal.
So we will continue to raise concerns about it, that it isn't part of the bill because it has been implemented.
Ms. Dench: In the last few years, we've seen a number of increased barriers to citizenship, and the increase in fees is certainly one of them, as is the fact that the language requirement has to be proven by the applicant. In many cases, that means paying fees. It means also, for some people, travelling to another city where they can take the test because it's not available in all parts of Canada.
We've also seen the increased length of time that people are having to wait and the residence questionnaire, which some applicants have to fill in, that also involves costs in terms of getting certain types of documentation. Within the Canadian Council for Refugees, we tended in the past not to talk much about citizenship, but it is being raised constantly by our members, by organizations, because they are seeing a lot of clients who are really struggling with all of these barriers and needing assistance with complying with all of the requirements. We had a workshop just recently about it, and it has become a fairly major issue for organizations serving refugees and immigrants because of these increased barriers. That's why I circulated earlier a two-pager that was just giving a little bit of an overview of the new barriers that our members are reporting to us.
Senator Eggleton: Okay, I will read it.
Senator Enverga: You answered about the live-in caregivers. As soon as they have permanent residency, they can apply, so it doesn't really affect the —
Ms. Douglas: Yes, I should have clarified that.
The Chair: Thank you very much. The issue with regard to the various aspects around citizenship, once acquired, and the issue of leaving the country after you acquire citizenship, regardless of what you've testified to before, we have heard that a sort of thing is brought in to deal with the so-called citizenship of convenience, that is, the ability of people to pick up a Canadian citizenship, disappear, and then only use it for convenience at some point.
In the last session, it was suggested that one way of perhaps achieving that without having the current regulation is to follow the example of the United States and to tax citizens wherever they reside. What would your reaction be to that in terms of something that would be better? The implication is that it has a tendency to substantially reduce your convenience factor with regard to the issue. How would you respond to that?
Ms. Douglas: My council, OCASI, does not have a position on that, but I'm a big believer in taxes, so absolutely. Canadians who live and work abroad should be paying some sort of tax here in Canada, but I would tie that to the right to vote as well.
The Chair: Ms. Rico?
Ms. Rico: We don't have a position at the Canadian Council for Refugees, and we need to discuss that with the members.
The Chair: I was thinking more in terms of —
Ms. Rico: But I proudly pay my taxes.
The Chair: — you're very knowledgeable of the overall issues. Do you have a view with regard to the fact that Canadian citizenship seems to be a destination of choice for citizenship of convenience? Do you think that's a good idea, or should there be something that deals with that in some way?
Ms. Rico: If you remove the intention of residency, for many countries around the world, if you are a citizen, you need to file taxes, and you also have the right to vote.
The Chair: That's a very good point. I think you have been very clear in your presentations to us and you have been detailed in your responses. You speak from personal and considerable experience, as one or two of my colleagues have already indicated.
I want to again thank my colleagues for their questions, but I also particularly want to thank you for joining us today and being so clear with regard to your responses. I thank all three of you in that regard.
(The committee adjourned.)