Submission to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration
Bill C-6: An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential
amendments to Another Act
April 26 2016 Robert D. Watt, LVO, retired Citizenship Judge, North Vancouver,
B.C.
I want to thank the Committee for having this opportunity to make a written
submission on Bill C-6: An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act and to make
consequential amendments to another Act.
Based on my six year experience as a Citizenship Judge, from September 2009 to
September 2015, when I sat primarily in Vancouver and initially also in the
departmental office in Surrey, holding hearings and conducting ceremonies, I have
concerns with several of the provisions in Bill C-6. Before detailing these I would
like to outline what might be seen as a philosophical approach to the idea of
citizenship.
Before I was appointed as a citizenship judge, I am sure I was like most Canadianborn individuals; I had not reflected much on citizenship nor had I considered in any
detail what the process was for applying for, and qualifying for citizenship. That
said, I am sure I was also typical of individuals born in Canada in believing that
citizenship was (and is) an extremely valuable possession, in fact one of the greatest
gifts that Canada could confer on those lucky enough to be born here or to come
here from another part in the world. For this latter group, which included my
paternal grandparents who arrived in 1906 and were naturalized under the old
system in place before the passage of the first Citizenship Act in 1947, I expected
that in exchange for the precious gift of citizenship, there would be expectations all
related in one way or another to demonstrating the immigrant’s determination to
making a commitment to Canada. If you ask the question what should a country ask
of someone who wishes to become a citizen - I think it is fair to say that proving a
desire to stay and contribute to Canada through a statutory period of residence, as
well as demonstrating a basic competence in one of the official languages of Canada
and a basic understanding of the Canadian system of government, our geography,
our economy and our shared values, have for many decades been at the heart of
what is asked of would be citizens.
What did I find as I began work as a Citizenship Judge? I would summarize my
experience in the following way. In large measure it was a positive experience.
Playing a part in helping thousands of people from countries around the world to
become citizens was an honour and a privilege. I learned so much from the
hundreds of applicants that I met at hearings, and rejoiced with thousands as I
presided over the citizenship ceremony and administered the Oath of Citizenship
after having an opportunity to speak briefly about the rights and freedoms that are
CIMM brief 27 April 2016
1
enshrined in citizenship and the responsibilities that are an equal part. It would be
inappropriate for me to give actual examples of the many impressive new citizens
that I encountered, but let me say that I met countless newcomers who had studied
and learned fluent or extremely serviceable English or French without any prior
education in their country of origin, who were raising children, sometimes having
been abandoned by their partners, who were working and supporting themselves
and their families sometimes after years in refugee camps. These individuals were
thrilled to become citizens and are wonderful additions to the Canadian family.
There was a darker side, however. Very early on it became clear that noticeable
percentage of all applicants were not really interested in citizenship, but viewed
citizenship as an opportunity to use the Canadian passport and to be entitled to all
the benefits, not in making along term commitment to Canada or engaging in
everyday Canadian society. Many left Canada immediately after making an
application, returned the country of their birth or residence, continued working,
continued schooling, returning to Canada only to have documents checked, take the
knowledge test and leave again, finally coming one more time to take the Oath, and
then leaving again. Dealing with this group was challenging and disheartening.
Memorably, on one occasion, several newly sworn in citizens brought suitcases to
the ceremony room for a rapid departure to Vancouver International Airport.
Members of this group have been labelled, I think rightly, as citizens of convenience.
In many cases, they distorted and misrepresented the length of their residency in
Canada. Using their PR cards to enter and leave Canada through the US, they were
able to obscure their residency because the system that Canada Border Services
uses keep track of the movements of individuals through our borders is still
imperfect as are the questions that are sometimes asked of those entering,
especially at land borders. These cases were referred to us by CIC officers for
hearings and we had to try to extract the true situation from the falsehoods that
they had attested to in their applications. Indeed, individuals whose PR cards had
expired (because they had been out of the country so long) were in line for
citizenship until their real situation was clarified for us.
Many of these individuals clearly failed to make a substantial effort to develop a
basic competence in English or French, despite the many opportunities given for
language classes given in the community. In recent decades Canadian taxypayers
have provided substantial assistance for language classes, an important contribution
to ensuring a fuller and deeper integration into Canada. How quickly we forget that
such assistance was not always available, certainly not for the million of immigrants
who came in the first half of the 20th century. During hearings, the same “
convenience” group often revealed that for them the knowledge of Canada test was
something to get around or get out of if at all possible.
These applicants were at first startling, and then, as they kept turning up, they
provided the most dramatic evidence why it was essential to have the requirements
for citizenship made as clear as possible and to have assessment processes which
CIMM brief 27 April 2016
2
would ensure that those who deserved citizenship and truly qualified for it, received
it and those who fell short, in whatever way, did not.
My colleagues and I recognized that it was fair to consider, how the government in
Ottawa might be trying to appropriately balance the important policy objective of
shaping a clear route for permanent residents to become citizens while trying to
deal with the phenomenon of those who partly because of globalization were trying
to live in several places at once, or who, at worst, were only interested in the
benefits that citizenship would bring, not in the obligations to make a commitment
to build Canada, to participate in Canadian society. Citizenship should NEVER be just
about numbers processed over a given period of time, but about ensuring that those
wanting to commit to a new life in Canada were able to do so in an appropriate
period of time, and those trying to get around or disregard requirements, were
denied citizenship.
With this balance in mind, I would like to express a deep concern about three
aspects of Bill C-6.
1. The intent to reside provision – this provision should remain in the Act.
While as framed in the current Act it may be imperfect, it at least recognizes
that citizens should be casting their lot with Canada, something that I suggest
the majority of Canadian citizens expect. This provision asks for a
commitment, not for all time and not to be held over the new citizen as some
sort of residential “Sword of Damocles” to be activated for a revocation in the
future. I urge the Committee to retain this provision, modified, if necessary,
to respect the mobility rights of all citizens but as a clear signal to those who
would try to spend three or four years in “immigration prison” as it is quite
frequently referred to in the Vancouver area (meeting only the minimum
number of days to qualify and disappearing after making their application,
showing up again to take the Oath never to be seen again, or only when it
comes necessary to utilize this citizenship safety net, or to use the many
social programs which are available to citizens and Permanent Residents).
2. Reducing the number of days before applying for citizenship. What is
burdensome about 4 years out of 6 years? What is burdensome about 183
days of physical presence in Canada in each of those four years? I believe
those figures emphasize in the best way, that citizenship involves a solid
commitment to Canada, which anyone, who is serious about wanting to be
here can meet. The path to citizenship and the requirements for it should not
just be about speed and ease of meeting the requirements; it should be about
meeting requirements that are substantial and fair, and not needlessly
prolonged. I do note Bill C-6 is proposing to accord to those lawfully here in
Canada under some permit, student visa or other form of lawful presence, the
ability to claim a certain amount of that time toward meeting the residence
CIMM brief 27 April 2016
3
requirement, even though they may not yet have been given the status of
permanent resident.
3. Limiting the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of Canada and of
one of its official languages. Under this revision, fewer people need to
prove language and knowledge proficiency. I feel particularly strongly that
this is a grave mistake. Repeatedly in hearings over the nearly five years in
which I was authorized to hold language and knowledge hearings I was faced
with individuals who had made little or no effort to gain a basic proficiency in
one of Canada’s official languages. In other cases, individuals had not spent
sufficient time preparing to take the knowledge test, which in most cases was
a multiple choice exam, an exam which was over the time of my service
altered to make many questions simpler and easier. I believe strongly that in
order for an individual to fully belong and be included as well as explore and
take advantage of all that Canada has to off, they deserve to and need to learn
basic English or French and understand our system of government, our laws,
our economy, history and geography. On the language side especially, why
would I have found this lack? In Vancouver the reality, increasingly, is that
several linguistic and cultural communities are of such a size now, that
individuals from those homelands can and do immigrate to Canada but in
several senses, are not here. They can continue to live comfortably in their
birth language and the impulse to learn English is dramatically diminished.
Knowledge of English or French and knowledge of Canada are central to the
successful integration of immigrants into Canada and should be centerpieces
of the requirements set out for those, hopefully the great majority of
permanent residents, who wish to become citizens. Reducing the age of those
required to show proficiency in English or French sends the wrong signal
entirely and suggests that individuals between 55 and 64 are not able to
develop a basic competency. Where is the evidence for this? What happened
to the idea of lifelong learning? The lack of language proficiency, especially
for those above age 55 can create, in effect, language ghettos, barriers to
realizing the full dimension of citizenship and full engagement with the wider
Canadian society. Inability to communicate in English or French can also
become a serious safety consideration as well. I would urge the Committee to
retain the present age requirements for language and knowledge. Effort
would be better spent working in tandem with the provinces to ensure that
there is sufficient public funding to guarantee a place in ESL study classes for
any permanent resident that applies. I would also add that ESL or the
equivalent classes in French are excellent settings for applicants to interact
with those from other countries and further enhance their understanding of
Canada and Canadians.
I would be remiss if I did not also make a comment about processing times. I would
like to recommend that the government should consider carefully the length of time
that files take to get through the system. Many times, I met potential citizens whose
files had taken months and years to get through the process. This in itself needs to
CIMM brief 27 April 2016
4
be sorted out. CIC in Sidney and in the remaining regional offices should be given
resources to deal with the flow of applications in a timely manner, thoroughly but
properly and without incentives and quotas to approve applications, especially at
senior levels in the Department.
In summary I feel that several of the proposed amendments diminish the value of
citizenship and seem to be oriented to speeding up and watering down the
requirements to gain citizenship without any apparent benefit, in my view, to
Canadian society as a whole. It is not clear to me where the impulse for some of
these amendments has originated.
I regret that I was unaware until 24 April 2016 that the Committee was holding
meetings on the proposed amendments and that this submission is late. I had
sought a mechanism in early March to provide input through my MP but had
received no response from his office. Had I known earlier about the meetings, I
would have sought an opportunity to make a presentation to the committee
hearings in person as I have probably seen more citizenship cases than anyone else
from whom you have heard.
I would urge the Committee and the Minister to heed the words of the Prime
Minister’s mandate letter in which he states that he expects the government to
engage in “constructive dialogue with Canadians” 1. Many of the changes in
proposed in Bill C6 need more discussion and consideration, in more parts of the
country than has been the case thus far and I would urge public hearings in
Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver for your committee before you finalize your
deliberations.
Thank you for considering these comments. I am available to provide further
comment as needed.
Several years ago, a change was made to the Canadian Coat of Arms. Now the coat of
arms includes a ribbon encircling the shield which includes the Order of Canada
motto:
“Desiderantes Melioren Patriam” (They desire a better country).
This coat of arms is on every Canadian passport. How can citizens who have no
intention of staying in Canada desire a better country?
1
Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Mandate letter.
CIMM brief 27 April 2016
5