Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 18 - Evidence - June 17, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 17, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day, at 7:01 p.m., for the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I'm Kelvin Ogilvie, a senator from Nova Scotia and chair of the committee. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, senator from Toronto and deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Cordy: I'm Jane Cordy, a senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley, senator from Prince Edward Island.
Senator Munson: Jim Munson, Ontario.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga, Ontario.
Senator Demers: Jacques Demers, Quebec.
Senator Seth: Asha Seth, Toronto.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Nancy Ruth, Ontario.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Toronto.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
Senator Seidman: I'm Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We are here this evening dealing with the document the Senate has referred to us, and that is Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
The agenda calls for one item, and that is clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. I would advise the committee that we have officials in the audience who are prepared to answer questions, should questions arise that are in their areas.
From Citizenship and Immigration Canada, we welcome Nicole Girard, Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch; Alexandra Hiles, Acting Director, Citizenship Program Delivery and Promotion; and Mary-Ann Hubers, Former Acting Director, Legislation and Program Policy, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch.
From Justice Canada, we have Karen Hamilton, Counsel.
Thank you, officials, for being here and being prepared to assist us, if necessary, this evening. Without further ado, I will take us to the subject of the agenda for tonight. Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the subject matter of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts?
Senator Eggleton: Yes. If I could speak to that, we did agree we would do clause-by-clause consideration tonight, but I think we've heard a lot of evidence over the last while from people who were witnesses before our committee about many of the difficulties with this bill. I think this bill is headed nowhere, even if it's passed. It's going to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. We already know that it's going to be challenged. We heard today from our foremost constitutional expert, Senator Joyal, about this matter. I think that's really misleading the citizens of this country and it is wasting a lot of time.
We would be better off trying to come to grips with the needed changes of this bill so that it can work. There are some good provisions in it, and with a few other changes it can work a lot better than it will.
I don't know what it is; I don't know whether the government just decides on a path it wants to go on or whether officials are leading them down the garden path with their advice, but we've seen so many bills end up at the Supreme Court of Canada. It is not good for this country to have that happen. I'd rather we take more time, try to sort these things out and see what we can do to improve this bill.
I would add that the revocation clauses, the language issues, the fees and some of the other things need to have further attention. I welcome other responses from committee members as to how we should proceed.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. You had a very impressive speech in that regard in the chamber.
Senator Eaton, you spoke in favour of the bill today with a very well-articulated speech. Would you like to comment?
Senator Eaton: I have to disagree with my honourable colleague. I felt this bill was thoroughly thought out. I think there are certain steps for every step along the way. The officials presented it very well. Anybody facing revocation of their citizenship has the court system to fall back on. I strongly disagree with you.
If there are challenges to this bill, so be it. I don't believe there will be because I think when people read the bill carefully and they don't have a conflict of interest the way some of our witnesses seem to have because it involves their business, it will go much more smoothly than you think it will, senator.
I think we should proceed to clause-by-clause, and if it goes to the Supreme Court, well, then it will be in the hands of the Canadian justices to decide.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Cordy: A couple of years ago we talked about cutting all the funding out for refugee health care and how this would be so much better. Now we're finding out that what in fact is happening after we passed that legislation, which was part of an omnibus bill, is that it's actually costing our system more because people are only going into the emergency rooms; they're not getting the basic care. I have a fear that this is the same kind of thing. This has been the first major overhaul of the Citizenship Act for many years, and I think it's a positive thing that the bill was looked at.
It's unfortunate that yet once again we have not had any consultation around this bill. This is a major overhaul. Citizenship and immigration is extremely important to our country, and I think that the department, the minister, had a responsibility to do an examination of how best to make the changes.
There are good things in the bill, and Senator Eggleton and Senator Eaton today talked about the good things that are in the bill. The "Lost Canadians," the shortened wait times are very positive things in this regard.
But the intent-to-reside aspect troubles me. I know the minister said not to worry. I have no doubt that while he's the minister, he would accept that dual citizens, new citizens could actually travel, but that's not what I read when I read the bill. I'm troubled by that.
With the revoking of citizenship, now we'll have two classes of Canadian citizens. That troubles me. I compare it to having two groups of Canadians, one group living in a house they own, one living in a home they rent. If you're in the rental property, then you could be asked to leave Canada at any time. That's not what Canadian citizenship should mean to any new Canadian.
If somebody does something wrong, they should be penalized. They should go through the judicial system and be penalized because they are Canadians.
The Chair: Any further observations?
Senator Eggleton: I better put it to the test, then. If no one else is going to speak, I move that we defer clause-by-clause consideration and that we conduct further hearings and receive more input from Canadians across this country. That's what was done in 1977; we actually went across the country and asked Canadians what they thought about changes to the Citizenship Act. I think we got pretty good input. We had a lot of changes in 1977 as a result of it, some of which are being reversed now.
So I move that we defer and have further hearings.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. The motion is in order, and I will put it to the committee. Do you want a recorded vote?
Senator Eggleton: Yes, please.
The Chair: The vote will be recorded. I will ask the clerk to poll the committee.
Jessica Richardson, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: I agree with the senator. I'm not sure if you can read the motion again? I agree with Senator Eggleton.
The Chair: To make sure everyone understands, essentially the senator has put a motion forward that the bill be deferred and subjected to further consideration by the committee.
Senator Cordy: I agree that the bill should be deferred.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Demers?
Senator Demers: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Eaton?
Senator Eaton: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Enverga?
Senator Enverga: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Hubley?
Senator Hubley: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Obviously it should be deferred, yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth?
Senator Nancy Ruth: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seth?
Senator Seth: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: No.
Ms. Richardson: Yeas, 4; nays, 7.
The Chair: I declare the motion defeated by a vote of 7 to 4.
We will now proceed in the normal order.
Shall the title stand postponed? Agreed or not?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the short title in clause 1 stand postponed? Agreed or not?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's carried.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Senator Eggleton: I have three amendments to clause 3. You should have them in front of you. The first of them will occur on page 11 and page 14. The first deals with the question of the intent-to-reside provisions. I move:
That Bill C-24, in clause 3, be amended:
(a) by deleting lines 7 to 22 on page 11.
(b) by deleting lines 31 and 32 on page 14.
This would delete the intent-to-reside provisions. In a globalized world, many people may have to leave a country for jobs that are overseas, as I indicated second reading debate of the bill today. They may work for a company that asks them to transfer to another part of the world; they may do a fair bit of that. People might also go abroad to study, which happens quite frequently as well. We should not take away their citizenship because they are doing that.
Now, I'm sure the minister and others will say —
Senator Eaton: They're not taking it away.
Senator Eggleton: Well, no, this is the intent-to-reside provision. It's different from the issue of four of six years.
Senator Eaton: It's before you get citizenship.
Senator Eggleton: No. The first thing is that you've got to do the four years out of six years, which I'm not very happy about either. It's three years now but we'd be going to four years. Now you get four out of six, and you have to have 183 days for each of those four years.
After that, then there is an intent "to continue to reside in Canada," and that's on page 11. I'm speaking specifically to that.
One of our witness, Lorne Waldman, pointed out that this bill is creating two classes of citizens: Those who are born here and are free to travel, take jobs, go have their education wherever they want, stay as long they want; and then there are those who are naturalized citizens, who could be accused of misrepresenting their intent to reside and as a result could lose their citizenship.
You may say, "Well, that's not going to happen; there's no intention of doing that." I heard the minister say that if people aren't intent on residing here, then they could be and should be removed. How do you prove this intent? When the person becomes a citizen, they may have every intention to reside here. Then, suddenly, they're overseas on a job here or a job there; they're not in the country for a period of time and some bureaucrat says, "I think they must have misrepresented. I think there's a case here for having misrepresented their expression of intent to reside." It's quite possible that that could happen. That really creates two classes of citizens: one for the naturalized citizen and one for the person who's born here who could do anything they want, any time they want.
That is not the kind of equality we're used to having in terms of our citizenship, and I think it creates a chill. Obviously, until there's some case law that indicates to the contrary, some lawyers will advise their clients, "You better be cautious about it." You tell the client who is a naturalized citizen they better be cautious of it, but you don't tell that to the one who's born here. What does that tell you? That tells you it's a two-class system. It creates a chill.
I think this part of it is totally unnecessary. Not only that, I think it's unconstitutional and probably will be challenged. Mr. Galati indicated he's going to challenge this, and we all know how successful he was in the Nadon case, which obviously the government didn't get right.
I think we need to take out the intent-to-reside part of this — not the four out of six years. I'm not terribly happy with all of that, but I'll leave that.
That's my amendment.
The Chair: Before I go to Senator Eaton, I remind the committee that, to be very clear, the motion put forward by Senator Eggleton will remove the section dealing with intent to reside, which occurs in two places, as he has clearly outlined on the written motion he presented to you.
Senator Eaton: Colleagues, I think the minister and the officials were very clear: When you fill out your application to become a Canadian citizen, they ask you the question, "Do you intend to reside here?" which is a fair question. "If you're becoming a citizen of Canada, do you intend to reside here?"
Once you become a citizen of Canada, if you get offered a job the next day to go and work in Ghana, you can do so. You're like everybody else.
I'm sorry. You heard the minister and the officials: "intends, if granted citizenship," when you fill out your application form. Once you have fulfilled your conditions and you have done your four out of six years, you are as free as any born Canadian; you can come and go as you please. In fact, there's no way CIC can track you, and they don't track people. Once you're a Canadian citizen, they don't track you. The CRA might track you for income tax purposes. The Ministry of Health in your province might ask how often you live here for your OHIP card, but CIC couldn't give a darn.
Senator Cordy: I go back to what I said earlier about the two classes of citizens —
Senator Eaton: We just keep repeating the same argument.
The Chair: Senator Eaton. Please.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, chair.
I go back to what I mentioned earlier at the beginning: This bill creates two classes of citizens. I guess we have what the minister would call "true Canadians" and those who are the new Canadians or those who have dual citizenship. That troubles me greatly.
I know the minister said last week that this wouldn't matter; that once they're citizens, they can travel wherever they want to. Canadian citizens have a right to mobility, and this generation is more mobile than any other generation. I'm sure we can look at our children and our friends' children who have travelled the world.
That's not what the bill says. The bill says in proposed paragraph 5(1)(c.1) "intends, if granted citizenship." If granted is past tense, so they're going to be a citizen; and (i) says "to continue to reside in Canada."
I know what the minister said, but in 20 years' time, when a minister is looking at the legislation, it says that if you are granted citizenship, you have to continue to reside in Canada.
I've had emails — and I'm assuming that everybody else on the committee got them as well — from the gentleman who is an engineer and who, because of his job, was expected to travel. When this bill passes, his feeling is that he will not be able to take a contract in London, England, which is where part of his business is. I'm not pulling this out of the air. We had a number of witnesses who said that this intent to reside is going to create two classes of citizens.
I wish that every witness who came before us had said, "Don't worry about that; the minister said it's wonderful." It's like the elections bill; the minister said it was terrific. No changes to any bills. It's wonderful that every piece of legislation that comes through does not require sober second thought.
Clause 3 in this bill clearly states that if granted citizenship, you have to continue to reside in Canada.
Senator Seidman: For me, it's very clear what the minister said. I have his words right in front of me from the transcripts, which I'd like to read back to remind us, if I might. He said clearly:
There's no requirement for a citizen of Canada to remain physically in Canada once granted citizenship, so there is no question of interpretation here.
If granted citizenship, the person will be in Canada or will have been in Canada for four years out of six. That's the intention referred to.
He said:
The mobility rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to all of us. There has always been a residency requirement to receive citizenship, and what we are doing is asking people to confirm their intent to reside in order to meet those requirements.
He then asked the lawyer from the department to talk about these mobility rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or to clarify because he said he's not a lawyer. The lawyer, Ms. Girard, said:
The only thing I would add to what the minister has already said, and I think he's been very clear on this point, is that the language that you're reading in the drafting of the bill has to be read in the larger context of what these requirements are.
She said "in the larger context," so beyond the bill.
These are requirements to become a citizen of Canada. They are requirements that can apply only up until the point that you are found to have met them and become a citizen of Canada. All of the changes to the requirements in the bill and the requirements in the current legislation cannot be applied once someone obtains that grant of citizenship, and I think the minister's been quite clear on that score.
That was the lawyer from the department talking about the larger context within which we have to see this bill.
The Chair: Senator Eggleton, a final comment?
Senator Eggleton: Remember that you can revoke citizenship on the basis of fraud. You can do that now. Misrepresentation could constitute that — if you misrepresent yourself. Somebody could argue that somebody misrepresented themselves when they agreed to the intent to continue to reside in Canada. It's what the law says, not what the minister. We don't operate on the basis of how the minister sees this; we operate on the basis of the word of law.
As Senator Cordy has pointed out, it says "intent, if granted citizenship." This has to do with what happens after you get the citizenship. If what you say is true and we follow what the minister says, this means that they will be able to travel, then just take this out because this only deals with intent after. It doesn't deal with the four out of six years. Just take it out. That's what my motion is. Why would you leave it in if there's no intention to restrict anybody?
Senator Eaton: We keep going around in circles.
The Chair: At this point it's clear there are two points of view on this. We've heard them clearly articulated.
Is there a different point of view? If not, I'm going to call the question. I assume you will want a recorded vote.
The question is called. Clerk, please poll the committee.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: I'm in favour of the amendment.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Demers?
Senator Demers: Not in favour.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Eaton?
Senator Eaton: Not in favour.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: In favour.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Enverga?
Senator Enverga: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Hubley?
Senator Hubley: In favour of the amendment.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: In the interests of equity, in favour.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Opposed.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Opposed.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seth?
Senator Seth: Not in favour.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Opposed.
Ms. Richardson: For, 4; against, 7.
The Chair: I declare the motion in amendment defeated by a vote of 7 to 4.
Senator Eggleton, you have a further amendment.
Senator Eggleton: I have a second amendment. I move:
That Bill C-24, in clause 3, be amended:
(a) by replacing line 23 on page 11 with the following:
(d) "if under 55 years of age at the date of his"
(b) by replacing line 27 on page 11 with the following:
(e) "If under 55 years of age at the date of his"
This has to do with the language requirement. I want to get it back to the status quo certainly for the senior end. I don't think this is necessary for older people. I think all of us know people who have immigrated to this country in their later years as part of family reunification, maybe parents or grandparents. They don't come here to be big employees in the economy necessarily; they come here as part of their family reunification.
I remember my years both on city council in Toronto and as an MP. I always represented communities with a very heavy ethno-cultural population. I've known many people who have become good citizens of the country, but they struggle a bit with the language. You can have a bit of a conversation but not a big one.
Many of those people — all of you must know of these people — would be afraid of doing a written and an oral test. A lot of them have limited literacy in their own language. I don't see why we need to make this change to particularly visit this problem upon older people.
You will remember we heard from one lady — I forget her name — who said, "We have many women coming out of vulnerable situations, whether or not they're coming out of a refugee camp and whether or not 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 learn an official language, either English or French, and have to sit for a test we believe is unnecessary and unfair." I quite agree with that. These people could still be good citizens even if they are incapable of doing the CLB 4 test. I move the amendment with those people in mind.
The Chair: To make sure everybody understands, this is a motion in amendment that would revert the age requirement for a language test back to the existing 55 years from the age of 65 years proposed in the bill.
I have Senator Cordy — actually, I should ask Senator Eaton: Would you like to comment on this?
Senator Eaton: I'd just like to say on the record that I think people of 64 or 65 are very able to do what a 55-year-old can do today. I think it addresses specifically women who are often left at home and don't go out to the workplace or to clubs or to schools. They are left at home, unable to communicate, and I think this encourages people who at 64 are well able to do what a 55-year-old did by making them learn a very rudimentary bit of language.
Senator Cordy: Your comments, Senator Eaton, make me believe in this amendment even more. When I was a teacher and had students moving in who didn't speak English or French, the students learned very quickly because they were young. The fathers, in many cases, were in the workforce. They learned the language. It was English and it was in Nova Scotia. They learned the language very quickly. But it was the mothers who were at home with few resources to learn a second language. They were the ones who had the challenges.
I was very struck by the testimony from Loly Rico and Janet Dench, from the Canadian Council for Refugees, from Debbie Douglas, who is Executive Director of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. They spoke about the challenges for the age requirement, moving it up from 55. Afterwards I spoke with Debbie Douglas and said that this is a concern. She said that she has women who were new immigrants and they have written the test — one lady three times — and couldn't pass it. She was saying, "But I'm almost 55; then I can apply to become a Canadian citizen," but she can't now. She has to wait until she is 10 years older to become a Canadian citizen.
I think it's easy to say that age doesn't diminish capabilities of learning a new language, and for most people that may be true, but we've got women refugees who've come to Canada who don't have the educational background that we are fortunate enough to have in this committee; nor did they have the abilities or the opportunity to learn a second language and to get a lot of education. They come to Canada and they are not able to become a Canadian citizen now until the age of 65, unless they learn one of our official languages.
In a utopian society it would be wonderful if everybody learned a second language and learned English and French very quickly, but it's not utopia; it's reality. And some of these — I say women, but we'll talk about all immigrants and refugees — have particular challenges in learning either English or French as a language.
The Chair: Thank you.
I think the intent of this amendment is clearly understood. It has been moved that the age requirement be reduced from 65 to 55. Seeing nothing further, I'm going to put the question. I'm going to ask the clerk to poll the committee. You will either say you are in favour of the amendment or opposed.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: I am in favour of the amendment.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Demers?
Senator Demers: Opposed to the amendment.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Eaton?
Senator Eaton: Opposed.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: In favour.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Enverga?
Senator Enverga: Opposed.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Hubley?
Senator Hubley: In favour.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: In favour. It makes sense to me.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Opposed.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Opposed.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seth?
Senator Seth: Not in favour.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Opposed.
Ms. Richardson: Yeas, 4; nays, 7.
The Chair: I declare the motion in amendment defeated by a vote of 7 to 4.
Senator Eggleton: I have one more amendment in clause 3 to propose. I move:
That Bill C-24, in clause 3, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 12 the following:
"(1.011) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), for every day during which the person was resident in Canada before his or her lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be deemed to have accumulated one-half of a day of physical presence in Canada."
Now, this is to reinstate something that has already been in the act, and that is to allow for pre-permanent resident time credit. This is currently done in the case of temporary workers, student workers, and a lot of live-in caregivers. I specifically mentioned students and live-in caregivers. Live-in caregivers are people who have come to this country, a lot of them from places like the Philippines, and a lot of them live with families. They learn a lot about this country and adapt very well. They live in that family atmosphere to be able to become citizens.
We keep saying that we want to attract the best and the brightest in terms of students into this country, and that it's a competitive situation out there. I mentioned Jason Kenney, the former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in my second-reading speech today and that, yes, this is a very important thing to do to attract those people.
Now we're removing this credit. We're saying that's no longer of any significance, and it's being moved on the basis that it levels the playing field and makes everybody the same. Well, I think we're out to get people to become citizens. We've always gone the extra mile to give people the opportunity to become citizens. We want them to become citizens of this country. We shouldn't be now putting these roadblocks in their way as we're doing in this provision.
It's a competitive world market for those best and brightest and keeping the credit for that time — I think it's up to one year; it's half a day, as I said, up to one year — would help out our competitive position. It recognizes the value of working and studying in Canada and certainly encourages people to become a permanent resident and then a citizen. I think we should continue to have this and my amendment is to reinstate it.
The Chair: Senator Stewart Olsen, did you want a point of clarification?
Senator Stewart Olsen: I do. Thank you.
Just for my own purposes, are these people you're speaking about illegal immigrants?
Senator Eggleton: No. These are people that are here under permits or work visas.
The Chair: Student visas.
Senator Eggleton: Student visas, yes. These are people who are in the country. We attract students and we want them to stay here. We want them to become citizens. That's part of our encouragement, and part of our encouragement is to say, "Well, for your time here you'll get credit for some of it, not all of it." Why would we now take that away if our objective is to have more people stay here?
The Chair: To be sure everybody is clear, the amendment is intended to give credit to those who are in the country on special permits for being in the country and not permanent residents, okay?
Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: I just assumed Senator Eaton was going to speak.
The Chair: I looked at her and she said no.
Senator Eaton: No, no. I mean, I can correct the record; but that's fine, we can proceed.
Senator Cordy: I agree with Senator Eggleton that the pre-permanent resident time credit should be restored. I think we have heard the terminology "the best and the brightest Canada wants." We've got the best and the brightest who are here on student visas. Let's make it easier for them to stay.
Live-in caregiver is another group that comes to Canada. Many of them are well educated but come to Canada because they can get a work visa to work as a live-in caregiver, so why wouldn't we give them time credit under the Citizenship Act? I agree with Senator Eggleton.
The Chair: Sponsor of the bill?
Senator Eaton: I think what we're trying to establish is that Canadian citizenship has great value, is highly prized and we shouldn't just sell it as cheaply as possible.
We are not asking anything from anybody that our peer nations, such as the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, the U.K, don't demand, that or more. So I'm quite happy with this, and, in fact, they will end up getting their citizenship faster if we get things moving the way we'd like to.
Senator Eggleton: Just one more closing point on this. They won't get it faster because now it's four out of six years to start with.
Senator Eaton: But the processing time will be quicker.
Senator Cordy: They won't have the credit.
Senator Eggleton: They won't get the credit.
Senator Eaton: Yes, senator, if they're serious about becoming a Canadian citizen.
Senator Cordy: But you can't say the time will be shorter.
The Chair: It's good to put things one at a time, but I think we understand this one. I think we've had the comments here, so, senators, I'm going to call the question.
To be certain that everybody understands, those who are in favour of the motion will say "yea"; those who are contrary to the amendment will say "nay." I'm going to ask the clerk to poll the committee.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: I am in favour of the amendment, yea.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Demers?
Senator Demers: Nay.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Eaton?
Senator Eaton: Nay.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: Yea.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Enverga?
Senator Enverga: Nay.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Hubley?
Senator Hubley: Yea.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: It would be nice, one day, to all vote as individuals on another common sense amendment.
Yes.
Senator Eaton: Oh, my, my, aren't we being sanctimonious.
The Chair: Senators?
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Nay.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Nay.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seth?
Senator Seth: Nay.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Nay.
Senator Eaton: May I console Senators Eggleton and Cordy?
Ms. Richardson: Yeas 4; nays 7.
The Chair: I declare the amendment defeated by a vote of 7 to 4.
Senator Eaton, did you have an intervention?
Senator Eaton: A consoling note to them both. Less than 15 per cent of applicants currently rely on non-permanent resident time.
The Chair: Thank you.
I am going back to clause 3. The amendments were defeated. I see no further amendments on clause 3. I will now put to you: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried?
Senator Eggleton: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
By agreement with the deputy chair, I am going to put the next clauses, 4 to 7, as a block. Shall clauses 4 to 7 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Senator Eggleton: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 8 carry? Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: I move:
That Bill C-24, in clause 8, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 25 the following:
"10.61 An appeal lies to the Federal Court from any decision of the Minister made under section 10."
This deals with this whole question of being able to appeal a revocation proceeding. The way this is being set up is so that it's done administratively. It's done by the minister or his officials. A written document goes out saying, "I'm revoking your citizenship; 30 days to respond in writing; no guarantee of hearing." The minister can ask for one, but there's no guarantee of it.
Leaving this totally in the hands of the minister and officials I think is dead wrong. There needs to be a full appeal process. As Senator Eaton was pointing out today, at second reading, there is a provision for a judicial review, but a judicial review is not the same thing as a full appeal with a full hearing and new testimony. A judicial review, first of all, requires leave to appeal. So it's a very legalistic procedure, and we find out that leave is only granted 15 to 20 per cent of the time to start with. There's no physical appearance. It's decided by a paper review process. No reasons are given when leave is denied. It's just denied and that's the end of it. If leave was granted, it would be granted on the basis of some bigger issue than just the issue of the individual involved. They can't present new evidence at a judicial review. They cannot make arguments for humanitarian, compassionate grounds in a judicial review, and the judge cannot substitute his or her own decision but, instead, refers the matter back to a different decision maker for redetermination. A judicial review is not sufficient in this case. A full appeal process is needed to give that person the opportunity to make their case.
You can say, "We're criminalizing things like espionage, treason and stuff like that. Who would want any of those people?" I think the difficulty here is that terms like "terrorism" are not all that well defined. This is terrorism with five years, and it could be five years that's done internationally. I cited the case today. What if this fellow, Fahmy, a Canadian-Egyptian journalist being held in Egypt, is found guilty? Maybe the minister would say, "Yes, but those Egyptian courts, I'm not sure they've gotten it right," but who knows.
This leaves a lot open to the minister's discretion without the proper third-party hearing guaranteed, and that's what we need. That's the court system, and that's part of our Canadian tradition of doing things in fairness. No matter how bad that person may have been, they still have this right.
Also, as Senator Joyal pointed out today, this is a double whammy or a second punishment because the person gets punished under the Criminal Code to start with, and then this is a further severe punishment. It is a severe punishment that will affect not only them but their families as well.
So I think, in the interests of doing things the proper way, we need to have a full and complete right of appeal to the courts. This particular amendment not only covers the appeal in the case of a criminal conviction but also the intent to reside. If that gets questioned and the minister decides somebody loses their citizenship on that basis, this also provides that. This is a full appeal to the Federal Court in citizenship revocation hearings. Surely, we can all agree on that.
The Chair: Okay, so I think the amendment is very clear in its intent. It adds an additional level of appeal to the existing document.
Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much.
I guess it still goes back to creating two levels of Canadians, two classes. I believe that all Canadians, whether they were born in Canada or not, whether they were dual citizens or not, if they are Canadian citizens, they should have the right to a full appeal process. That's the Canadian way.
The Chair: Thank you.
I see no further intervention. I will ask the clerk to call the question. You are either in favour or opposed to the amendment before you. I will ask the clerk to poll the committee.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: I am in favour of the amendment.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Demers?
Senator Demers: Nay.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Eaton?
Senator Eaton: Opposed.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: In favour.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Enverga?
Senator Enverga: Opposed, or nay.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Hubley?
Senator Hubley: In favour.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: In favour. Going into overtime; Jacques Demers would like that.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth?
Senator Nancy Ruth: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Opposed.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seth?
Senator Seth: Opposed.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Opposed.
Senator Munson: Come on; just one.
Ms. Richardson: In favour 4; opposed 7.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated by a vote of 7 to 4.
I have no further amendments on this clause, so I will now ask you: Shall clause 8 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Eggleton: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
I've looked through the list of remaining clauses. I have no further motions on the table for amendment and I've spoken with the deputy chair. Are you agreed that I lump together clauses 9 to 26 inclusive for a single question?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 9 to 26 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Eggleton: On division.
The Chair: Clauses 9 to 26 are carried, on division.
That takes us to clause 27. Do I have your permission to lump together clauses 27 to 46?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 27 to 46 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Eggleton: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division, clauses 27 to 46.
Now I go back to ask you: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cordy: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall the title carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The title is carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Eggleton: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Eggleton: This is an observation. You can feel a little freer because you're not affecting the bill that you've sworn up and down you're going to support. This is an observation and it comes on this question of fees. The fees that come into this issue are quite substantially in the discussions, and the minister raised it as well. It's in all the documentation from the department, but it's not part of the bill. It's something that was already put into effect pursuant to previous legislation. It was put into effect by regulation earlier this year, but it's double the fees.
Let me go through the math for you. The basic requirement for an application is $300 for an adult, but in addition to that there's a thing called "the right to citizenship fee," and that's $100. That's a total of $400 per adult, and that's double. The child application is $100, but there's also that $100 fee for the right to citizenship, so that's $200. If you consider a family of five, two adults and three children, for two adults, that's $400 each, so $800; three children at $200 each, $600; that's $1,400. So it's $1,400 just to apply to become a citizen, and if they are rejected they forfeit the money.
Now some people can afford this, but there are a lot of people that can't, particularly if they happen to be refugees, or if they are a large family with low incomes. Remember that a lot of immigrants in recent times have had low incomes and have not done as well as some immigrants have been able to do in past. That's pretty formidable, $1,400 for a family of five.
On top of that, since you now insist that people have got to still have the language test up to and including 64 years of age, they're probably going to need training, and that can cost upwards of $200.
Senator Eaton: No; there are free language classes.
The Chair: Please let him finish.
Senator Eggleton: Okay. Make sure you get that in an observation, free language classes.
Earlier today Senator Eaton said, as did the minister, in fact, that fees are lower than in other countries. Well, in the United States that's true. They are lower here, but the United States also has the provision to waive fees for lower-income people. We don't have it, so hence the observation.
The observation is this: Since citizenship application fees can be onerous for low-income families, the minister should consider creating a procedure of reducing or waiving fees for low-income permanent residents that are applying to become citizens.
Senator Eaton: I'm fine with that, Senator Eggleton; that's fine.
Senator Eggleton: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: I will go back, then.
Is the committee prepared to accept the observation put forward by Senator Eggleton?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We're agreed.
The Chair: In the event that when the clerk takes this forward there is a required change in the translation, are you prepared to give the steering committee authority to approve that change?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
With that, is it agreed that I report the decision of this committee to the Senate?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Eggleton: On division.
The Chair: On division, and with the observation agreed to?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's agreed.
Thank you, committee. I believe that takes care of all the business.
(The committee adjourned.)