C-24 Citizenship Act Committee Hearing – 12 May

Committee only heard from the first three witnesses as it went in camera for the second hour (and have not seen any updates since then – will update if needed).

Starting with those supporting the Government approach.

Paul Attia of Immigrants For Canada started off by noting the broad base of his organization and the basic view that citizenship should be viewed as a privilege. If earned, it should be available to all. He supported the increased residency requirements but questioned whether 183 days in 4 years out of 6 was sufficient. All citizens should have language proficiency, as language was a key unifier. His association strongly supports revocation for terrorist activity but the process has to be consistent with Canadian values, constitutional democracy (i.e., formal judicial review required). Similarly with respect to criminal convictions outside Canada, provisions should ensure comparability to Canadian norms.

He finished with a hockey analogy (very Canadian!). If you want to where the team sweater, brandishing his Team Canada sweater, you need to meet the requirements (residency), communicate with team members (language) and not lie to or kill your team members (revocation).

Interestingly, despite the claims of his organization having a broad base of support and many members, their website appears to be largely inactive since 2011. He is also a board member of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation appointed by the government.

Those opposed to the bill.

Avvy Yao-Yao Go of the Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic largely reinforced some of the earlier concerns made by CARL and others. Given their clientele, largely refugees and the more vulnerable, her organization strongly opposed the increased residency requirements, removal of time for temporary residents (refugees, live-in caregivers, students, spouses who are conditional Permanent Residents), the intent to reside provision given concerns it could be grounds revocation for fraud, the expansion of language requirements to 55-64, and fee increases. They also oppose revocation for dual citizens, both on substantive reasons (creating differential treatment between mono and dual nationals) as well as process and comparability for foreign convictions to Canadian norms. The overall impact of the bill would be to restrict citizenship in practice, bringing Canada back to an era of discrimination.

Bernie M. Farber and Mitchell J. Goldberg spoke for the Jewish Refugee Action Network (J-RAN), starting off by noting that many refugees when treated with fairness and compassionate become productive citizens, building their lives in Canada. There should be a reasonable path for refugees to become citizens. J-RAN was deeply concerned about the impact on the fee increases (a “cash grab”), increasing language requirements affecting children (hard to see, they will have been in school) and grandparents, and removal of credit for pre-Permanent Residents time. They expressed concern over the intent to reside provision given Charter section 6 (mobility rights) as well as the practical reality that circumstances change for work, study or family reasons. While they have no sympathy for terrorists and criminals, they do not support revocation (“banishment”); such provisions are “unconstitutional and unjust” and such cases should be handled by the criminal justice system. Revocation in cases of fraud was supported.

In questioning, some nuances in positions emerged. In response to CPC/Menegakis, Attia noted need for greater clarity on the intent to reside provision. Liberal McCallum probed further, stating that the Minister had been unclear. Attia confirmed this lack of clarity, stating that the “devil was in the details” on what exactly it meant and how it would be enforced.

There was more interaction between witnesses and MPs who had different perspectives. CPC/Shory pressed J-RAN on revocation, given that terrorism struck at the “bedrock of Canadian identity.” Goldberg picked up on the hockey analogy, “if a heinous act committed against a hockey player, they are penalized, not banished.”

CPC/Shory noted that only 15 percent use pre-Permanent Residents time towards citizenship. NDP/Sitsabaiesan continued to press on this issue with J-RAN and Avvy Go who reaffirmed their positions and noted the apparent contradiction between encouraging Canadian Experience Class immigration while not providing credit for pre-Permanent Residents time.

Witnesses scheduled but not heard included:

Canadian War Brides (Melynda Jarratt,Don Chapman (Lost Canadians)

Amandeep Singh, Singh Thind & Associates

Narindarpal Singh Kang, Law Firm of Kang & Company

I have created a top-level tab for C-24 briefings for those interested (note that not all organizations post their briefs or respond to requests for same) and add a link to transcripts when available (usually about 2 weeks after meetings).