Shorter hearing given voting in the house which made the statements and Q&As shorter.
Supporting the Government’s approach were the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Canada, National Forum for Civic Action, and James Bissett, a retired immigration official who comments on immigration and related issues.
Predictably, supporting the opposition were the two academics, Elke Winter and Patti Tamara Lenard of University of Ottawa, with the most neutral advocacy coming from Pre-PR (Permanent Residents) Time counts, focussing on the Government’s proposed elimination of counting time in Canada for students, live-in caregivers, and refugees towards the residency period to become citizens.
Starting with Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Canada, one of the preferred Muslim groups of the governments (along with the Ismailis). After noting the pride members of his community have in Canada, Asif Khan emphasized that Islamic teachings require “absolute love and loyalty” to one’s country of residence. It was essential for the Government to have powers to deter aggression and protect against extremism. He supported the proposed approach to revocation, and argued that more attention and measures should be applied to those who used investment or trade opportunities to enter Canada and spread their “hateful ideologies.” He did express concern over increasing the number of applicants that would be required to take language and knowledge tests.
National Forum for Civic Action argued for even tougher citizenship requirements. Bikram prefaced his comments by saying that he was going to be “politically incorrect.” Canada’s approach placed original Canadians at a disadvantage, and the Government’s approach was half-hearted. Proficiency in English or French, not just adequate knowledge, should be required. Stop family reunification, seniors are “forced to come here” and are unhappy. Permanent Residents on welfare should lose status. Revocation should be broadened to include domestic abuse and should also apply to second generation immigrants and those elected to public office in other countries. Ministerial discretion on humanitarian and compassionate grounds should be ended.
James Bissett, in a somewhat rambling presentation, stressed his support for a longer residency period. He would have preferred five years but proposal goes in right direction. He supports the revocation provisions and (erroneously) stated that this is in line with most EU countries, and citing UK granting the Home Secretary considerable power in this regard. He dismissed that the provisions would create second class citizens as there was an inherent different between those born in Canada, whose citizenship is granted automatically, and those who choose to become naturalized and take the oath.
Opposing the bill, Elke Winter noted that immigration was fundamental to Canadian nation building, that Canadian Immigration was largely economically driven, and that multiculturalism and citizenship were huge factors in increasing belonging. Some elements of C-24 undermine success in integration by making citizenship as the end-point of integration, rather than part of the journey. The bill makes it harder for the less educated, socially and economically disadvantaged, including many women. Higher fees are an additional barrier. For the highly skilled and mobile, the longer and tougher residency requirements may result in this group becoming as “utilitarian as the selection process”, and adopt a more instrumental approach to citizenship. More flexibility over physical residency is required. She opposes the proposed revocation measures and fears that it will increase the suspicion of dual nationals.
Patti Lenard started off by correcting Bissett on revocation, noting that only UK had taken this approach. US and Australia had rejected it, most EU countries either didn’t apply revocation or were changing their approach. While 75 percent of dual nationals were naturalized Canadians, there was also a significant number of dual nationals by birth (i.e., they didn’t make a choice as Bissett asserted). The fundamental problem with revocation is that it made a group of Canadians more vulnerable to the coercive powers of the state, with Ministerial discretion in too many cases, creating the perception, absent a role for the Courts, of possible Ministerial abuse. UK illustrated the risks of what she called a “fundamentally corrupting power.”
Pre-PR Time Counts strongly opposed the elimination of credit for time as a temporary resident counting towards citizenship. Taisia Shcherbakova and Maria Smirnoff argued that Temporary Foreign Workers and equivalent were not newcomers to Canada but had already largely integrated into Canada. The change perversely would give preference to those without any Canadian experience. They noted that this change would place Canada at a disadvantage compared to Australia and the UK, and argued for similar credit of one year for every year of temporary residence (current legislation only provides for 50 percent credit).
Questioning by MPs largely buttressed party positions, but there were some interesting moments.
In response to CPC/Menangakis, Bissett clarified that while he supported longer residency periods, there was a need for flexibility, as it may create problems for people who have to travel a lot on business.
NDP/Sitsabaiesan rather cleverly did a quick poll of all witnesses on credit for time as temporary residents. All supported providing credit, notwithstanding their very different perspectives on citizenship. Liberal/McCallum picked up on that point, noting that Minister Alexander had refused to change approach when asked at the beginning of the hearings.
Will add links to briefs as they become available.
