Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue No. 17 - Evidence - March 2, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 2, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, met this day at 10:30 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, it is normal for me to ask at the beginning if the committee wishes to remain on camera for the clause by clause. Normally in this committee, we do. What is your wish? Do you agreed to stay on camera?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: In that case, I'll start the meeting in the normal way, by welcoming everybody to the meeting.
[Translation]
Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I am Kelvin Ogilvie, chair of the committee, from Nova Scotia. I will ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen from New Brunswick.
Senator Unger: Betty Unger from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Meredith: Don Meredith, Ontario.
Senator Frum: Linda Frum, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, senator from Toronto and deputy chair of the committee.
The Chair: We are here dealing with Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act. The meeting is called as a clause-by-clause meeting. Is it your will to proceed to clause by clause?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Perhaps I'll give general advice to the committee before I invite you to speak.
I think it's important that I go over some general process with you to remind you how we operate. First of all, I want to tell you that in the room there are several officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and from Justice Canada with us in the event there is a on which question we need further clarification with regard to some aspect of the bill.
With regard to several points on how we'll proceed, once we get to it I will call each clause successively in the order that they appear. If anyone wishes to move an amendment on any clause, please wait until that clause is called and at that point we will deal with the amendment appropriately.
If a senator were opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move an amendment but rather to move to defeat the clause because we call them all individually.
If there is a requirement for votes, I would remind you that the most effective way to ensure a count on a vote is for us to have a polled vote of the committee. If it's obvious we can go from that, but anyone has the right to ask for a recorded vote, that is a called vote of all members at any point.
With that, are there any general questions of procedure before I call Senator Eggleton, who wishes to make a few remarks before we start?
Hearing none, go ahead, Senator Eggleton.
Senator Eggleton: I want to make some very brief general comments. I welcome Bill C-6. I believe it has improvements to the Citizenship Act in different areas that we have learned about in past sessions of our committee and the hearings that we have had with witnesses.
We'll be going through each of the provisions clause by clause. I support all of the clauses in this bill. At the end we will be asked about observations. I will have an observation, and perhaps other members will as well. We'll leave it until we get to that point in the program.
I do believe, however, that this bill does need an amendment with respect to the area of revoking citizenship for misrepresentation. We have heard a lot about that from witnesses. I believe there is a deficiency in terms of due process, a deficiency in terms of right of appeal in regard to that provision. I anticipate that there will not be an amendment today at this committee, but there will be at third reading of the bill when it gets into the Senate chamber.
With those few remarks, I'm complete on that.
The Chair: I will now proceed to clause by clause. I know there are some relatively new senators here, but I think you have probably been through the first part of the process. We deal with minor technical issues. We usually defer them to the end, so you will hear "stand'' called for those. Then we get to them after we have dealt with the bill itself.
I have already asked the committee if we can proceed to clause by clause and you have agreed. I'm going to start at clause 1, not with the title. We will deal with that at the end in this case.
We start right away with the clauses.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Senator Seidman: On division.
Senator Stewart Olsen: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Clause 2 carried, on division.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Senator Frum: I would like to ask for a vote, if this is the clause that removes the ability to revoke citizenship from terrorists. I would like a recorded vote on this clause.
The Chair: Thank you. That is your right. The clerk will poll the committee.
[Translation]
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C.?
Senator Eggleton: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Fraser?
Senator Fraser: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Frum?
Senator Frum: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Meredith?
Senator Meredith: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Neufeld?
Senator Neufeld: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Unger?
Senator Unger: No.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas, eight; nays, five.
The Chair: The clause is defeated.
Senator Meredith: Is this an Oscar moment?
The Chair: Yes, the wrong envelope. Don't ever do that again. We're changing auditors before we proceed. That was clause 3, right?
For absolute clarification, clause 3 carried on a recorded vote.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Clause 5 carried on division.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Senator Seidman: On division.
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Clause 7 is carried on division.
Shall clause 8 carry?
Senator Fraser: On division.
The Chair: Clause 8 is carried on division.
Shall clause 9 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Senator Stewart Olsen: On division.
The Chair: It is carried on division.
Shall clause 10 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 11 carry?
Senator Seidman: On division.
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Clause 11 carried on division.
Shall clause 12 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 13 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 14?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Senator Frum: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 15 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 16 carry?
Senator Frum: On division.
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 17 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 18 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Senator Frum: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 19 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 20 carry?
Senator Frum: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Sorry, chair, I would like a recorded vote on this one, please.
The Chair: Okay, so we're dealing with clause 20, Senator Stewart Olsen, just to be absolutely clear.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes, please.
The Chair: I'm going to give everyone a chance to refresh themselves with regard to clause 20, including me.
Senator Stewart Olsen: This was revoked, subsection 10(2). This says it was not revoked. For all kinds of reasons, I think we should be careful with this one.
The Chair: I will ask the clerk to poll the committee.
[Translation]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C..
Senator Eggleton: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Fraser.
Senator Fraser: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Frum.
Senator Frum: No.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Hartling.
Senator Hartling: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Jaffer.
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Meredith.
Senator Meredith: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Neufeld.
Senator Neufeld: No.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Omidvar.
Senator Omidvar: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Seidman.
Senator Seidman: No.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen.
Senator Stewart Olsen: No.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Unger.
Senator Unger: No.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas, nine; nays, five.
The Chair: I just wanted to confirm the numbers in terms of if they've changed since the last time.
My auditors have confirmed that the numbers given are correct and I declare that by a voice recorded vote this clause carried. Clause 20 has carried.
Shall clause 21 carry?
Senator Frum: On division.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 22 carry?
Senator Seidman: On division.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 23 carry?
Senator Stewart Olsen: On division.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 24 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 25 carry? Is that carried?
Senator Frum: On division.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 26 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Frum: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 27 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Stewart Olsen: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: In some places, the English version says:
[English]
The portion was "physically present.''
[Translation]
Whereas the French version says "effectivement présente.'' Perhaps the Translation Bureau should be consulted.
[English]
"Physically present.''
[Translation]
Ms. Anwar: Can you tell where you see this wording in the bill? In which paragraph?
Senator Mégie: On page 1, paragraph 1(2)(i). It does not mean the same thing.
Senator Petitclerc: No, it is not the same thing.
Senator Mégie: And on page 2, amending paragraph 1(7). Does it mean the same thing?
Senator Petitclerc: There is a nuance. "Physiquement'' implies —
Senator Mégie: "Physiquement'' implies "effectivement,'' meaning that the person is actually present.
[English]
The Chair: We're not going to mess around with this. We're calling for an official to come in. I ask if one of the officials would come forward who can handle this question of the language.
Thank you, Mr. Attfield. I will remind the committee that Mr. Attfield is Director General of the Citizenship Branch. Would you please take on this question for us?
Alec Attfield, Director General, Citizenship Branch, Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada: Yes, and I apologize. Could you refer me to the specific clause?
The Chair: Yes. I have the first one in front of me, which deals with clause 2.
Ms. Anwar: The first instance is clause 1, line 14, on page 1, and the second instance is on page 2, lines 17 and 18, also in clause 1.
Mr. Attfield: For the first, in terms of the translation between English and French, we have relied on our jurilinguists with the Department of Justice in determining what the best use of the language selected to be absolutely comparable between the two. The refinements of the language are beyond my abilities to describe, but I can say that this was their determination as the best use of the language to be reflected in the law, to have equal effect in both English and French.
I'm not sure that I can say much more. I'm certainly not a jurilinguist and I apologize for that. If there is a more specific question or you wish us to consider something else, we would be absolutely open to bring that back.
Senator Petitclerc: Maybe it's a legal nuance, but I think for all of us who are French speaking it feels like it should be the same because why not?
Mr. Attfield: Fair enough.
[Translation]
I understand what you mean. There are jurilinguists at the Department of Justice who choose the best wording.
[English]
The Chair: Just to interject briefly, we need to remember that this document was drawn up with regard to the legal meaning.
Mr. Attfield: Yes.
The Chair: It was drawn up by justice officials. Senator, the question is how far you wish to proceed.
Senator Stewart Olsen: What we have to look at here is whether this changes in any way the bill itself. If it's simply a matter of language, does it make any change in the direction of the bill?
The Chair: Again, that's what I was trying to address by indicating the justice officials are required to look at it with regard to the intent of the language, which is a different way of approaching the question you have raised and I think we have a positive answer in both cases.
The point where we left off was: Shall the title carry?''
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: And we had agreed. It is carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Senator Frum: On division.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The bill carried on division.
Does the committee wish to append observations? I think we have three at least. Perhaps I'll start with the sponsor of the bill, the critic and then Senator Eggleton.
Senator Omidvar, you will go first. I want to remind the committee that we are on camera. At any time a member of the committee can move that we go in camera.
Senator Omidvar: I'm happy to talk about the observations.
We have handed them to Ms. Anwar in both languages. Could they be distributed so people have them in front of them? That makes it a lot easier.
The Chair: Absolutely. Committee, we are now distributing the observations. We will wait for that to occur and then I will invite you to discuss them.
Senator Omidvar: I am happy to submit two observations for your consideration. The first one is around, and we heard this from witnesses, the concept of how do you define "parent'' in an evolving world. We have adoptive parents. We have parents who have children in different means through scientific innovation. The law or the minister needs to consider that some Canadians and some same-sex couples do not have equal rights to confer Canadian citizenship to their children who were born outside. This sort of takes that into account.
Some case law has pointed to or questioned the merit of some of the decisions that have been made. We note that Bill C-6 actually does not discuss the question of parental rights and conferring of citizenship to their children who are adopted, born outside Canada, et cetera. That's one observation.
The Chair: Could we take them one at a time?
Senator Omidvar: Sure.
The Chair: On the first observation, Senator Stewart Olsen.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I do have a question. I understand same-sex couples but I don't understand conferring Canadian citizenship on their children born outside Canada. If you adopt a child and bring the child to Canada you are saying that the child should be conferred as —
Senator Omidvar: Should be.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Does that happen now? If it's a man and woman and they adopt a child, say from India, and bring the child to Canada, is that child automatically Canadian? What happens?
Senator Omidvar: You have to make an application, obviously, and you have to do all those things. The observation points out that there is lack of clarity on it.
Senator Stewart Olsen: They would be treating everyone the same then.
Senator Omidvar: As a child of a Canadian parent who is a citizen it should not matter whether they are adopted or they have been conceived.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I'm asking what happens now. If a same-sex couple would adopt a child from India and bring the child over here, they could apply in the same way.
Senator Omidvar: They should be. The observation calls for a clarification that would ensure fair and non-discriminatory treatment for all Canadian parents, including same-sex couples.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Is that not happening now?
Senator Omidvar: Apparently that is not happening to the extent that it should. We heard this from one of the witnesses, the Quebec Bar Association.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I believe that all should be treated equally, but I think as the committee we should have more facts. Just taking one witness's word without looking into it makes me a little nervous because I think that you can apply. If you adopt a child as a same-sex couple, I'm not sure that you're not able to anyway.
The Chair: I will take one more comment from a senator, and then I'm going to invite an official to attempt to clarify. I understand the issue here and I think all you're doing is seeking clarification.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes, I am.
Senator Omidvar: Chair, if I may just point out, there is case law cited where in the Quebec Court of Appeal a parent was required to have a genetic or gestational link. Clearly, there is something that is not right and that needs to be corrected.
Senator Stewart Olsen: It's not an equal treatment.
Senator Seidman: That was sort of my question also. I am trying to understand. The law as it applies now to a couple who wants to adopt a child, the law now creates a problem for them because there is no genetic link. Is that correct? Is that true for any couple?
For the moment let's not talk about same-sex couples trying to adopt but for a heterogeneous couple trying to adopt is there an issue? Is it your understanding that there is an issue currently? That's my question.
I think Senator Stewart Olsen is saying there should be equal treatment, and I completely agree. What is the law? Perhaps the official can answer that question.
The Chair: We clearly understand the dilemma that exists in terms of the minds of some senators. The question that we want to know is: Does this observation create a completely new access to Canadian citizenship for adopted children, or is it simply extending a possibility that already exists for opposite-sex couples to same-sex couples?
Mary-Ann Hubers, Director, Citizenship Program Delivery, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: With regard to intercountry adoption, first of all there are three different ways that you can become a Canadian. You can be born in Canada, unless you're born to a foreign diplomat. You can be born abroad to a Canadian parent as long as you're born in the first generation, or you can get a grant of citizenship; you can become a citizen.
There is a grant of citizenship specifically for children adopted abroad by Canadians as long as, again, they are in the first generation. This was introduced through Bill C-14 in 2007 or 2008, I believe. It was to provide a direct access to citizenship for adopted children, which didn't exist before. Before they had to be sponsored in the family class, come to Canada and then become a citizen.
With regard to adopting a child abroad there is no difference in treatment. The Canadian parent just has to demonstrate that it meets the requirements, the adoption was genuine, and what have you.
In terms of the birth abroad to a Canadian, the law applies a genetic or gestational link. In other words, if you are born of a Canadian parent, a mother carried you to term, you are eligible for Canadian citizenship. Basically it's about genetic material. There has to be at that genetic link or a gestational link to a Canadian parent.
The Chair: Perhaps you could stick to the adopted situation.
Ms. Hubers: As long as the adoption is legal in the country in which it took place, it's accepted for purposes of a grant of citizenship for adopted children.
The Chair: At the current time that applies equally to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples.
Ms. Hubers: Yes.
The Chair: Can you clarify further, senator?
Senator Omidvar: Perhaps you could comment on the Kandola ruling, which is the one that drove us.
Ms. Hubers: That led to the decision to extend the application of the law to those with a gestational link. Prior to that there had to be a genetic link. In the Kandola case, if memory serves me, there was no genetic material from either parent but the mother gave birth.
The decision in Kandola, as far as I recall, was that it extended the application of the law from those who had a genetic link to those who also had a gestational link.
Senator Omidvar: That's fine.
The Chair: When you say that's fine, senator, do you mean you're withdrawing your observation?
Senator Omidvar: I'm withdrawing my observation, yes.
The Chair: Committee, you all heard that Senator Omidvar withdrew her observation on the basis of the explanation. Thank you, senator, very much.
Senator Jaffer, you understand she has withdrawn
Senator Jaffer: She is withdrawing.
The Chair: Yes; it's done. Thank you.
Senator Omidvar, you will move to your second observation.
Senator Omidvar: The second observation again comes from the witness testimony that we heard that observes the need for greater flexibility in exemptions for knowledge and language testing in order to obtain citizenship.
We've talked a lot about the age group exemption, but we observed that there are exceptional circumstances that can prevent a person from learning English or French which are actually not addressed in this bill. These may involve social, physical and instance-specific mental health factors.
The committee heard that people from different socio-economic backgrounds had differential ability and capacity to acquire a new language. The scope and accessibility of exemptions to language and knowledge testing should be reviewed with the goal of ensuring that applicants do not experience unreasonable delays or hardship to obtain citizenship.
Senator Seidman: I understand the differentiation that you're making here between age category and other aspects of perhaps challenges in learning a language. However, I'd like to know again what witness testimony you're referring to, because we also heard witness testimony that said quite the opposite, that there were huge barriers for someone to fully integrate into Canada, understand the Canadian culture and have a fulsome life here.
We've seen many studies this very committee has done which have demonstrated that unless you have language skills you really don't integrate into the country.
I'd like to know: Are you basing this on one witness who said this, or on what are we basing this observation?
Senator Omidvar: I think this observation doesn't speak against the need for language as being the primary facilitator of integration. I'm not arguing that. I'm talking about people who are not able to learn the language because of specific conditions.
I note mental health. Mental health is the issue at hand here, I think. I note disability. Social circumstances is a big bucket, but I can think of circumstances where in particular women who find themselves in a specific domestic situation of a certain kind are not able to freely go and access language classes.
We're making this observation. We're not making a recommendation. We're not asking for it to be embedded in the law. It's just an observation that we know there are certain people who are over 18 years old and under 55. Notwithstanding all the safeguards that are put in for the other age groups, there may be some people who fall in this bracket that may require an exemption.
Senator Seidman: The concern I have is that this exception of circumstances that are listed are extremely broad. When you say social, physical and mental health factors, it could be almost anything.
We heard yesterday, for example, that already there are questions about the standards in language testing. We heard this from a retired judge who had a lot of experience with Canadian citizenship hearings. If he's saying that already there is a weakness in demonstrating language skills and that already we don't have strong enough standards for classification of language skills, and now we're opening the door to a very broad base of almost anything could fall under these categories of social, physical and mental health factors, I worry that it will loosen up the standards even more. You could put almost anything under these categories.
Senator Omidvar: I understand what you're saying, but I should take issue with some of the witness testimony yesterday. It was out of date. I know that the marks for knowledge testing have been raised from 60 per cent to 75 per cent. I made a note of that. I know that there are assessments required from independently set-up language schools.
I actually dispute the claim of a judge who may have had some experience in the past, which I do not disrespect, but I will actually dispute the claims that language testing and knowledge testing have become weak.
I agree with you that this language is broad. I was not going to lay out the specifics in an observation. My understanding of an observation is to raise an issue and ask the minister in this case, or the Senate in this case, to think about it.
We're not proposing a law. There's no legislation around it. We're just raising an observation that some people will find it difficult.
The Chair: I have a list and I'm going to go through the list.
Senator Frum: While we have the officials here, I had understood that there are currently possibilities for exemptions from the language test already. Could you confirm that there currently exists the possibility of exemptions?
Mr. Attfield: There is absolutely discretion within the law for the minister to make exemptions for special circumstances of individuals. The bill that's before you also included an amendment that was brought by the other chamber that further defined disability, which we interpreted as pretty broadly based.
We would argue that's helpful but the authority was also there. The discretion was already there for the minister to make such a determination. We are fairly confident that we have the authority we need to take into consideration the individual's specific circumstances.
Senator Frum: Does it happen frequently or how often, I should say?
Ms. Hubers: I pulled some stats on the last few months with regard to waivers. There are four different things that can be waived, but primarily they're language and knowledge. About 80 per cent of requests for waivers were granted and 20 per cent were refused.
In terms of numbers there were about 320 waivers processed. That doesn't mean anything on its own unless you look at the numbers of applications processed. I don't have the number processed in that time frame with me, unfortunately, but it gives you some sense.
Senator Frum: Do the waivers include social, physical and mental health factors?
Ms. Hubers: The law says humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Individual circumstances are brought to bear. For example, this is used for deaf clients who aren't able to demonstrate their ability to speak an official language. It's used for medical reasons where someone doesn't have the capacity to learn the knowledge of Canada, for example.
Senator Meredith: As I said, Senator Omidvar, that is a valid observation. Just a month ago, I personally intervened with two citizens who were permanent residents on the fact that one was blind and one had a brain trauma and could not retain. I intervened with the minister's office and they're citizens now as a result of the intervention.
It is already there, but I think, Senator Omidvar with due respect, you wanted to make sure this was encapsulated in this full observation. If it's there and it's qualified by the government representatives that it is a valid, that it is there, that it is on humanitarian grounds and that it covers these spectrums of disability, I'm satisfied with that.
I want to be on record that you've brought forth a valid observation.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I got the answer to my question from Ms. Hubers. It is an additional argument related to the fact that there are other reasons why people do not pass language tests.
It is not just a question of mental illness, because they have already adjusted. For older people, they can look after the children. Various experts have made the argument that these people could participate in life in Canada, by helping their own children and looking after their grandchildren.
They do not have the time to learn new languages. These people could be in the category of those who cannot learn the official languages. That does not mean, however, that they cannot integrate into life in Canada. I think various experts made this argument and, as our witness said, there is already a way to categorize them. To my mind, that is satisfactory.
[English]
Senator Fraser: I note that this observation refers explicitly to exceptional circumstances, which I'm sure we would all agree is the appropriate way to go. Interestingly, listening to Senator Meredith, I was persuaded that this observation should be adopted.
Somebody who is blind should not have to go to a senator to get an exemption. There ought to be well-known guidance as to the kinds of exemptions that can be granted right away without having to jump through bureaucratic hoops. This is just an observation. It's just a suggestion, but I think it's a good one.
The Chair: It's always difficult to clarify when we bring in an example and the author of the example has left the room, because the issue could well be that he was approached before for help and guidance in going forth with this.
Mr. Attfield or Ms. Hubers, do you have comments?
Ms. Hubers: Many blind applicants take the test and pass the test. We have a Braille version of the test. That factor alone may not be enough to justify granting a waiver of the language and knowledge requirement. That's why it's done in particular circumstances.
We do a lot of accommodation in terms of large print versions of the study guide and the test and a Braille version. It's not just because of a physical condition that someone necessarily would require a waiver of the language or knowledge requirement.
Senator Eggleton: I think that I support this observation. I think it is valid. The officials say that the minister has the authority. Sure, the minister has a lot of authority in different things. It doesn't mean it gets exercised and it doesn't mean the people on the front line administering it necessarily have the right direction or the right guidance in doing it.
I would refer to some of the evidence we've had before this committee, for example the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian legal clinic, Avvy Go. She says that they submit that the requirement of front-end language testing is unduly harsh toward some communities and points out that people coming into the country where the language is particularly important to their job prospects are largely the economic immigrants. To get permanent residence status they have to already indicate their knowledge of the language. She questioned why in fact this also should apply to citizenship since there already has been that kind of test for many people.
She points out further in her testimony that many immigrants and refugees on the lower end of the socio-economic strata must work long hours in order to support their families and do not have the luxury of time or resources to improve their language skills to a high level.
I well know this, and I think a lot of people who have dealt with different ethnic communities in Toronto or in other cities across the country know this. She particularly points out that immigrant women are adversely affected by strict language and knowledge tests as they are more likely than men to have come to Canada as sponsored spouses without having to meet any educational or language requirements. A lot of them, not just women but also men, are challenged in terms of literacy skills even in the language of the country they're coming from.
These kinds of things need more attention in terms of greater flexibility. It's not just a question of the minister having authority; it's a question of how the front line is instructed. I think this is worthy of our support.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Does that mean that people from different socioeconomic backgrounds do not all have the same ability to learn a new language? Does this observation include the financial ability that is needed to learn a language? Is that part of the observation? Do you know what I mean?
Among the issues related to learning a language, it seems that, in addition to social factors, a person's financial ability to obtain language training must also be considered. This argument was made often by the witnesses we have heard, and I think the observation that there is a category of citizens who do not have access to language training for financial reasons is important. Does the observation include this reality?
[English]
The Chair: The observation clearly includes it as socio-economic conditions. That's clearly included in the observation. Did you wish further clarification? Socio-economic conditions are understood to be a basis.
Ms. Hubers: I would point out that a variety of language evidence is possible to submit. It's not that everyone is required to pay to take a third party test. For example, there's free instruction funded by federal and provincial governments and evidence of having completed is accepted for language evidence.
When the requirement to introduce upfront language evidence was introduced in 2012, the intention was for it to be as less a burden as possible on citizenship applicants. If they had already done a test for immigration, for example, we accepted that. We didn't make them do another test. LINC, government Language Instruction for Newcomers training is free. It was also accepted as a kind of evidence.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I have a point of clarification for the officials. I don't mind this observation, but are these tests more subjective than objective? I do worry about that. Depending on who actually is doing the testing, there may be a need for this observation if these are more subjective than objective. Do you understand where I'm coming from?
Mr. Attfield: I think I do. What I hear being considered within this observation are a number of some rather subjective measures that perhaps you could put objective metrics against. That said the minister has broad discretion with humanitarian and compassionate grounds. That's a pretty sweeping statement that provides opportunity to respond to whatever may be the unique circumstances of an individual who deserves Canadian citizenship but is prevented from meeting the requirements of the language or the knowledge.
I want to say I have a special needs son. We understand that. He would never pass the knowledge or language test, even though his first language is English. I'm sure that he would be able to succeed through a humanitarian and compassionate process. I'm confident that we've the authorities in place and the instruction to our officers to make those reasonable decisions and make recommendations accordingly.
Senator Frum: Senator Omidvar, I would support this observation if I believed that there were no exemptions possible or allowed, but having heard the officials, hearing that 80 per cent of applications for exemptions are accepted and having heard the other comments they've made about the broad scope of the reasons they allow exemptions, I really believe that what you are hoping to see is actually what is in place and in practice.
The Chair: You have the final word.
Senator Omidvar: I'm so sorry. My technology seems to have died on me so I'm not able to access the particular part of the testimony by Ms. Avvy Go, wherein she stated that they often have to go to court to get waivers. I'm trying to find that sentence, and I can't find my phone. This happens to me all the time.
I would say there is the system as it is described and as it is envisioned. Sadly, what happens in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal may not quite be what the system was imagined to be. I think we heard some conflicting testimony yesterday from other witnesses who implied that whereas there is a system that is ideal, on the ground it doesn't quite work like that.
I would like to ask Senator Frum to look at the wording. Exceptional circumstances will be considered. Based on the witness testimony and what I have heard from people and their inability to work the system and get the exemption, they go to the legal clinic and it becomes a request to the court. I think I've said enough. Maybe it's in your hands now.
The Chair: I think we've had a fulsome discussion and I think we need to put it to the committee because you're maintaining it before us.
I'm going to ask the committee for their position on this. Perhaps we'll test a voice vote first and then poll the committee at your request.
Is the committee in favour of appending this observation?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Those contrary? It's agreed. We have managed to wrangle our way through an agreed observation.
Now, I believe Senator Frum is next.
Senator Frum: I guess the clerk will pass around this observation.
The Chair: Don't speak to it until we have the copies.
The committee is ready. Senator Frum.
Senator Frum: This observation follows up on a suggestion that was made by one of our witnesses to implement smart permanent resident cards, the idea being that when somebody applies for citizenship they have to prove how much time they've spent in the country. In order for them to do that, they have to keep receipts and evidence of all the travel they've made in and out of the country.
We also heard from Ms. Hubers yesterday, I believe, that the greatest number of fraud cases in revocation cases has to do with fraud committed around false declarations about time spent in the country. I think that's what she said about this coming and going.
As per the testimony of Julie Taub, one of our witnesses, it seems strange that in this era of modern technology we don't have a simpler system for permanent residents to keep track of their entry and exit in and out of the country, much like we do when we enter the building here. We have our cards that let us in and out and record our comings and goings.
This observation has strong language. It suggests that the government be asked to implement a smart card residency program. If the committee felt that language was too instructive I would be okay with amending the final paragraph to say, "The committee urges the government to review or consider a smart card residency program.''
Senator Jaffer: In theory, I completely agree with Senator Frum because when I became a citizen I had to keep every piece of paper when I was out. I accept that, but in practice, as Lorne Waldman told us yesterday, it will not work because when we leave our country there is no exit visa. There is only an entry visa; there is no exit visa. There is no correct way to keep count.
I absolutely agree with the sentiment of what Senator Frum says, but in practice it is not possible. In many other committees that I sit on, we are trying to get the government to put in place exit visas. This is not feasible at this time.
The Chair: We don't want to get into the technology here, but I have a feeling some of the comment yesterday referred to a slightly different way of keeping a record, but we can't go down there because they're not here. Your point is well taken.
Moving forward on it, I've already mentioned in other meetings our difficulty with even an electronic health record. Having said that, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking to the future, which I think is what Senator Frum is suggesting here.
Senator Omidvar: I too think, Senator Frum, this is a good idea, but in the absence of exit controls in the country it makes it difficult. Perhaps you could accept a friendly amendment that when exit controls are properly instituted in this country, the time would be right to look at an electronic permanent resident card.
The Chair: Could I ask if the amendment that Senator Frum suggested would actually cover that? If I may, I will read what I have, Senator Frum:
"Therefore the committee urges the government to review and consider the implementation of a smart card residency program.''
Does that capture the essence?
Senator Frum: I would be very happy with that.
The Chair: Senator Omidvar, would you agree that would essentially capture the issue?
Senator Omidvar: Yes.
Senator Fraser: I was going to weigh in against exit controls, but I think it's not necessary in light of Senator Frum's amendment.
The Chair: Are you ready for the question? The question is called. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary? Carried. Thank you very much. Was that it, Senator Frum?
Senator Frum: Yes, thank you.
Senator Eggleton: I wish to put an observation with respect to the citizenship application fees.
The Chair: Could you wait until we distribute them, please? I think it's a little easier if everybody has a copy in front of them. It will only take my auditing firm a few seconds here.
Senator Eggleton: Citizenship application fees are rising at an accelerated pace. Just three years ago, in February 2014, an individual applicant fee cost $100 and today the cost is $530. That's more than a 500 per cent increase.
There is an additional $100 right of citizenship fee and all together the cost to acquire citizenship for a family of four with two minor children is $1,460. When extra costs such as language training and testing are taken into consideration, the costs are much higher.
High citizenship fees can present a significant financial burden to potential applicants and could act as a barrier to traditionally low-income groups such as those with disabilities, single mothers and minorities. To ensure that potential applicants are not barred from citizenship based solely on their income, the committee advises the government to consider lowering these fees.
The testimony we received specifically to that came from Andrew Griffith. He submitted a written document. He has written a book on the subjects of multiculturalism in Canada and policy in citizenship and immigration. He is a former director general for Citizenship and Immigration Canada. He has worked in a variety of government departments in Canada.
His submission spent some time on the question of fees. He talks about fees in other jurisdictions. He shows some charts and talks about the increase in fees as they now apply. He says there has been an alarming drop of 50 per cent in the number of people applying to become citizens, which he says belies departmental assertions in the Canada Gazette notifications that the number of applicants was not anticipated to fall following an increase in the fees.
He goes on to say that historically citizenship applications have averaged close to 200,000 a year. They dropped to 130,000 applicants in 2015, the first year the $530 processing fee was applied, and that with the current rate it is likely there will be significantly fewer than 100,000 in 2016, should the current trend continue.
The staff of the department thinks there are other reasons involved in this, and there may well be. The other aspects of Bill C-24 may also have also acted in a somewhat discouraging manner.
We don't want to discourage people from becoming citizens. There are a lot of people out there that want to become citizens and who want to make a contribution, even if they have some difficulty with the language or have other challenges that they need to meet. The challenge to becoming a citizen should not be how much you have to pay for the application.
One of our witnesses also said that we shouldn't expect the taxpayer to pay that, that we should in fact recover the cost. That seems to be part of the rationale. Certainly it was a part of the rationale of the previous government when they set this, but it is creating a barrier, I would suggest to you, for a lot of people. I think that's what other witnesses also told us. Mr. Waldman and Avvy Go also talked to the fee process.
On top of that, a lot of the settlement services around the country have been trying to help people with different aspects of becoming citizens, but even they're cut back on money. That doesn't particularly help people either, but this particular observation focuses on the fees.
It was also suggested that you might income-test them to see if they need some sort assistance. That's the wrong way to go. I don't think people should be marginalized more by requiring some sort of a test.
The fees need to be lowered. I think a lot of that is the reason why citizenship has been reduced. There may be other reasons as well. I certainly don't agree with the department. A large part of that I believe is relevant to the fees.
The Chair: Just before I turn to Senator Frum, I would like to ask the officials if they know when the $100 fee was originally instituted.
Ms. Hubers: I'm not sure when the $100 fee was originally instituted. I know there was a two-stage increase in recent years. In February 2014 it went up from $100.
The Chair: I'm not interested in that. I just want to know how long the $100 has been in effect.
Ms. Hubers: Quite some time.
The Chair: Long enough that you're not familiar. I have no further issue on that.
Ms. Hubers: Long before my time it has been that way.
The Chair: I wanted to know whether this massive increase occurred fairly dramatically, or whether it had been a long time in the coming. That's all.
Senator Frum: Senator Eggleton, I listened to your explanation for the observation, which is why you may not agree to what I propose to you. I appreciate it has been a steep increase. We heard from the minister himself, not just the officials, that he felt this was not the reason for the decrease in applications, and we have heard that this is the recovery cost of the process.
I would be supportive of this observation if you could add at the end: "to ensure the potential applicants are not barred from citizenship, the committee advises government to consider lowering these fees for individuals who qualify for financial relief.''
I don't think there is any stigma. It's a completely private process. People know there is a possibility that they can qualify for a fee waiver, if they show their income tax return or some other evidence. There is no stigma to that. It means for those people who can afford the fee that they of course should pay it.
The Chair: Just to let you know, we have gone to the bible, the 2009 annotated Citizenship Act, which lists the installation through regulation of the $100 fee in 1995. It maintained over that long period of time. That answers my question then. Since I asked it, I'll put it on the record.
Senator Eggleton: Let me speak further to that. I'm not suggesting there can't be an increase. I'm just saying a 500 per cent increase and getting up into the kind of numbers that are here is a problem particularly for low-income people. You just don't go from $100 up to $530 in so short a period of time. It's creating a burden on people. That's the main point.
I don't agree with what Senator Frum asking for. It further stigmatizes people of low income by having them perform an income test for something like citizenship, something we should be happy they are willing to apply for and become citizens.
I'm not suggesting you roll it back to $100. You could roll it back to $300. It was at $300 at one point. It has become too high. This extra $100 for additional right of citizenship is ridiculous. The fact that for a family of four with minor children it is up to $1,400 or more is just not acceptable.
I'll stick with the motion as it is.
Senator Omidvar: To add to the citizenship fees and the application fees, the various numbers that add up to $530 do not include any fees the applicant may have to pay for demonstrating language efficiency. Yesterday we heard from a witness and I was surprised at the cost if you add this all together. I have to check it out, but for a family of four it could run well into $3,000, I believe he said.
Senator Neufeld: At the end of the day, we have heard from the officials about when the costs were put in and when they increased. You could put this in as an observation, but the minister was pretty clear yesterday the fees that are there represent what needs to be there to actually operate the system and carry forward.
We shall remember this is the best country in the world that people want to come to. I do not see any reason to change it. If you want to make an observation, I'm sure the minister will take it and put it over there because he has already given us the answer and I can't imagine his answer will be any different after he reads that.
The Chair: Okay, the point is made. Senator, I'm ready to put the question. Senator, I'll call for a voice vote first and record it.
All those in favour of this observation will please signify by saying aye.
Some Hon. Senators: Aye.
The Chair: Contrary?
Senator Neufeld: No.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
We have reached this point. You have agreed to each of the three observations individually. I want to put it to you to make sure I have it on the record: Is it agreed to append the observations, previously voted on by the committee, presented by Senators Omidvar, Frum and Eggleton?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It was already done individually but I was just collecting them.
These are three documents. First, in order to present them to the Senate they need to be put in the appropriate structure. Second, we have the amendment to Senator Frum's motion. I have read it out and Senator Frum agreed to that. We have it on the record, but in case there is any question in the document that is given to us, is it agreed:
That the staff merge these observations; and
That the steering committee approve the final version?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill, with the observations, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's agreed. Thank you very much, colleagues.
As I said at the end of the meeting yesterday, this is a bill that has a lot of ramifications for people in a society. I think Canadian society has been well represented by the senators here in terms of the breadth of questions that have been raised, the way you have raised your questions, and the way you have heard and understood the answers presented. I thank you for the way you have handled this throughout this meeting.
Senator Omidvar, do you have a question?
Senator Omidvar: I wanted to thank you, chair. I was a visitor in this committee for a little while. I'll go back to Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and I wanted to commend you. You are quick. You are fair. You get things done in time, so thank you. It was a pleasure to be here.
The Chair: I'll accept that, but we should strike that from the record. I kid. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)