CIMM Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, November 21, 2002

0900

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.))

Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mr. Michel Dorais (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mr. Denis Coderre

0905

0910

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Denis Coderre

0915

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

0920

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. Luke Morton (Senior Counsel, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Luke Morton

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Luke Morton

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. Luke Morton

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Denis Coderre

0925

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC)

Mr. Denis Coderre

0930

Mr. Inky Mark

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. Steve Mahoney

0935

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)

0940

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

0945

Mr. Denis Coderre

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

Mr. Denis Coderre

0950

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. John Bryden

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. John Bryden

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Denis Coderre

0955

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.)

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Mr. Denis Coderre

1000

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. John Bryden

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. John Bryden

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Luke Morton

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1010

Ms. Rosaline Frith (Director General, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Rosaline Frith

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Rosaline Frith

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Rosaline Frith

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Rosaline Frith

Ms. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Rosaline Frith

1015

Ms. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Rosaline Frith

Ms. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Rosaline Frith

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.)

1020

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Bruce Scoffield (Director, Policy Development and International Coordination, Refugees Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

Ms. Rosaline Frith

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Rosaline Frith

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Rosaline Frith

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1025

Mrs. Rosaline Frith

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mrs. Rosaline Frith

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mrs. Rosaline Frith

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1030

Mrs. Rosaline Frith

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

1035

Mrs. Rosaline Frith

1040

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Mrs. Rosaline Frith

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Rosaline Frith

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Rosaline Frith

1045

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Rosaline Frith

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Rosaline Frith

Ms. Patricia Birkett (Registrar, Citizenship, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Rosaline Frith

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Rosaline Frith

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Rosaline Frith

1050

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Rosaline Frith

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Rosaline Frith

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Rosaline Frith

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Rosaline Frith

Mr. Paul Yurack (Counsel, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

1055

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Paul Yurack

Ms. Rosaline Frith

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Paul Yurack

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 006

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, November 21, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0900)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, l'm going to call the meeting to order because we only have the minister for an hour.

Minister Coderre, we're really pleased to have you here with us this morning. Perhaps you would like to introduce your staff and then move ahead with a brief presentation to the committee. Then we'll try to open up the committee.

Folks, we only have an hour, and we'll try to keep the questions brief so everybody will have an opportunity to get on board that way. Thank you very much.

Minister Coderre.

Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, even for myself, I'm starting to get to know the new people around me. So we have Michel Dorais, who is my deputy minister, and Michel will introduce everybody by their the proper titles.

Mr. Michel Dorais (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): We have with us Alfred MacLeod, ADM, Strategic Directions; Rosaline Frith, who is director general of citizenship; and Paul Yurack, who is from Justice Canada.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chair, first of all,

[Translation]

thank you very much. It's always important to engage in this type of discussion among parliamentarians, since Citizenship and Immigration Canada is first and foremost

[English]

what we call a nation-builder, and it's about people. So we really believe it's important to have those kinds of discussions.

[Translation]

Obviously, our primary focus today is the proposed new citizenship legislation. This bill touches on the very essence of what it means to be Canadian.

[English]

So I'd like to make a few comments regarding Bill C-18.

We will talk also about the levels, if you want, and I will touch base, of course, on the safe third party agreement that we will sign on December 5 with the Americans.

[Translation]

Bill C-18 allows us to further develop our model of citizenship, which is based on both diversity and mutual responsibility.

[English]

It also enables us to correct certain shortcomings in the current legislation. At the same time, it provides us with tools to modernize the management of citizenship applications.

¿ (0905)

[Translation]

It is important to Canadians that new members of our society share certain fundamental values, such as respect for democracy and the freedom of individuals.

[English]

We are making the importance of these values clear by including them in the proposed new oath. When new citizens pledge loyalty and allegiance to Canada, they will be making a commitment to respect Canadian rights and freedoms and to uphold our country's democratic values. The absence of these commitments in the current oath justifies this change.

[Translation]

In addition, we have a duty to protect the value of Canadian citizenship. We must not allow people to retain citizenship if they obtained it when they were not entitled to it.

[English]

The minister will have the authority to annul citizenship in straightforward cases in which the applicants have obviously used a false identity or concealed a criminal history.

[Translation]

The citizenship revocation process will apply to more complex cases and to cases dating back more than five years.

[English]

So now what we're saying is that the revocation of citizenship will go through a judicial process.

[Translation]

Only the Federal Court will have the authority to revoke citizenship. This will ensure the transparency of the process. Furthermore, during revocation hearings, in cases of individuals who have participated in acts of terrorism, war crimes or organized crime, the Federal Court could be asked to render a second decision that would allow for a person's swift removal from Canada.

[English]

So when we said from the beginning that it was zero tolerance regarding war criminals, it was zero tolerance. And because we want to do it in a transparent way, revocation and removals will be, at the same time, in front of the judge. I would like to repeat that it is only in very rare cases that the governor in council would be able to refuse citizenship to persons who demonstrate a serious disregard for the values and principles underlying our free and democratic society.

[Translation]

I have followed the debate somewhat and I know that some MPs have concerns about this provision.

[English]

However, the authority to refuse citizenship is in fact controlled in two ways. First, the phrase “free and democratic society” is tied to the case law concerning the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and secondly, the procedure eliminates the possibility of the government using it in a frivolous manner.

[Translation]

First, we must ask ourselves what values and principles belong to a free and democratic society. We can find an answer to that question in the Oakes decision of 1986, in which the Supreme Court of Canada provided an interpretation of section 1 of the Charter.

[English]

The court ruled that these values and principles include, among others, respect for human dignity, tolerance of a wide variety of beliefs, and respect for cultural and group identity.

[Translation]

The details of the procedure are set out in the bill. The Minister must first notify the person of the proposed refusal and the grounds for it, and give the person 30 days to submit written representations.

[English]

Only after these 30 days have elapsed will the minister be able to recommend that the governor in council prohibit the granting of citizenship. The cabinet will need to examine the file and decide if an order must be made.

[Translation]

Such an order would simply prohibit the granting of citizenship for a period of five years. The person concerned could remain in Canada as a permanent resident and submit a new citizenship application at the end of those five years.

[English]

I would now like to move to the administrative component of the bill.

[Translation]

Because the new criteria are easy to understand and to apply, we will be able to work effectively in a system based on administrative decisions.

¿ (0910)

[English]

Through the ministerial review process simple errors detected by applicants could be corrected without involving the courts.

[Translation]

Persons who receive a negative decision during the internal review will be able to apply for judicial review by the Federal Court.

[English]

I would like to conclude my comments on this draft legislation with the following thoughts. Many people have made enormous sacrifices to become Canadian citizens. We cannot allow a few individuals to undermine the meaning or the integrity of something so precious. Ladies and gentlemen, I truly believe that the new legislation for the new revocation process will give even stronger values about what it is to be a citizen of our country.

Let's talk now about the safe third country agreement. Obviously, as I've said, this is not the only file we should discuss today. On the safe third country agreement with the United States, the implementation ruling project was deposited before the House on October 28.

[Translation]

I believe that some time ago, you received copies of this important part of the Smart Border Declaration.

I've also asked that a copy of the appendix, which is part of the agreement, be tabled. It serves to clarify section 9. And for anyone who may be wondering if there is a side deal, I would have to say that there is not.

Moreover, when this agreement in principle was made public, I spoke about the need to clarify section 9.

[English]

Before proposing this regulation, we worked closely with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees. The office of the commissioner supports such agreements in the context of managing the movement of refugees. I know the Canadian representative came here and said she had some doubts, but we have clearly a text from UNHCR saying that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner “recognizes as positive the ultimate objective of this Agreement, which is to ensure an appropriate allocation of State responsibility for determining refugee status”. We will translate that and we will deposit it. Sometimes there are also some communication problems among the stakeholders around that, but when the leader of UNHCR himself says this is a good deal, I think it is appropriate for me to tell you this today.

[Translation]

In Canada, we co-operated with the Canadian Council for Refugees and worked to ensure that the proposed regulations were made public.

[English]

This agreement will enable us to better help people who need Canada's protection. I don't want to expand too much on this because you already have heard a lot about that and I will be able to answer your concerns and questions specifically on the safe third agreement.

I remind you that this agreement, I think, is appropriate to regulate the system. It was signed in a Canadian way. It is another tool to work with, and at every level the Canadian way is respected. There are some exceptions, as you know, and the minister himself has still the prerogative, the discretion, so we are able to take the proper steps. Even with that addendum of 200, it is supporting the law before our own agents, and at no time does anybody impose anything on us.

Because of that, it is truly a win-win situation.

[Translation]

I would now like to talk about the annual report to Parliament. As you know, on October 30, I tabled the first annual Report to Parliament under the IRPA. This report presents more complete data than the previous annual immigration plans.

I would like to note that the government is continuing to aim for an annual immigration rate of 1% of the Canadian population. That being said, we are aware that this number must be dependant on available resources, that immigration is not merely a point of entry, but also encompasses notions such as integration and resettlement. Since the extraordinary and historic federal-provincial-territorial conference on immigration, we have received firm commitments from the provinces and from all partners. Moreover, we have already signed new agreements with provincial governments, all with a view to upholding existing agreements and to ensuring that immigration takes on a more regional flavour and that all partners can play their respective roles fully, that we have a fully inclusive policy where all Canadians have a voice and can participate in the process. With respect to rate, there is no question that we are continuing to aim for a rate of one per cent. Accordingly, any assistance in obtaining resources would be welcome.

[English]

So, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chair, that was my first comment. I have to go at 10 a.m. so I thought it was better for me to have a short introduction so we can expand on it and have a discussion. I promise the opposition that I will have some short answers too, so we can answer as many questions as possible.

I want to make sure, though, that I come back to the issue of citizenship. I know there's some concern about adoption, especially in Quebec.

[Translation]

Let me just say that this legislative measure was drafted with consideration for the provinces and in a spirit of complete cooperation with the Government of Quebec. Indeed, Quebec government officials are in total agreement on how we have proceeded on the adoption question. I could give you a more technical answer later.

[English]

Thank you very much. It's up to you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

Diane.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The safe third country agreement has been characterized in a number of ways and I wonder if the minister would let us know what, in his mind, this agreement is intended to achieve.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Two things. As you know, we want to make sure that we respect our international duties, but we have always said in terms of immigration that we have to find a balanced approach between openness and vigilance. We have a system that we agreed to work with to receive and protect about 25,000 to 29,000 refugee claimants a year, and the new system for the last three years brings us an average of 45,000 to 50,000.

Secondly, of course the safe third country agreement is a tool. We already have the new legislation with new regulations; for example, they cannot shop any more, or if we refuse refugee claimants once they cannot come back again, and again, and again.

At the same time, because of our legal obligations since 1985 with the Supreme Court's decision on the Singh case, we don't have any choice; every citizen and non-citizen is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the only way to make sure we can regulate the system would be to have a safe third country agreement.

The United States and Canada: Canada of course signed the Geneva Convention, the United States signed the protocol, and we have some documents we will deposit that will prove they are respecting the Geneva Convention. But what we are looking for is to regulate our own system and to make sure that, with our exception that's within the agreement, we will be able to fulfill our international duties.

But at the same time, the facts of life are that if we have a system that can welcome 25,000 to 29,000, we just don't have the resources to have 45,000 to 50,000 every year. So by having a safe third country agreement, those people who are going through the United States, except for the exceptions of course, will have due diligence and the Americans will be respectful of the Geneva Convention. So we feel good about it.

¿ (0915)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: So in a way, this is a way of limiting the number of refugee claimants who come through the United States. I'm a little bit puzzled, though, because when the officials were here they said that everyone would still have some kind of determination hearing. It wouldn't be on the spot. There would have to be checks made and documents checked out and so forth. Where are these individuals going to be while these checks are being made? If they're not in the country, where are they going to be? If they are in the country, wouldn't Singh apply, and so you're back in the same situation where everybody in our country has certain protections of appeal and due process?

Mr. Denis Coderre: The thing, of course, is that we are working now regarding the monitoring. Now we have an accord, and as I've said, on December 5 we will officially sign the agreement between the United States and Canada. We agree to work with the stakeholders such as UNHCR and the Canadian Council for Refugees to make sure that when we implement the agreement itself we will be able to answer all those questions.

There are some cases at the border where we will be able, of course, to react quite immediately. Of course, when there are exceptions we're saying that people who have relatives--and we have a definition of family--will be able to go through, or unaccompanied children will be able to pass through, because we have our own policy regarding children.

I think we'll have to see. It's really in the implementation and the way we monitor all the stakeholders that we'll have all those answers. It's an ongoing issue; it's a tool to work with.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Well, I guess I'm a little puzzled about why we would enter into an agreement when we don't know how it's going to work in practice.

Mr. Denis Coderre: That's not what I'm saying, Diane. What I'm saying here is that right now we're negotiating with the Americans to make sure we won't be stalled at the border. If we want to regulate a system, we want to make it work. Of course, now we agree on the principles.

I'll remind you that since 1990 the Canadian government has wanted this agreement. Now we have one. What we're looking for right now is the procedure to make sure it will work.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: My question was with respect to the fact that, under Singh, legitimate refugee claimants are accorded charter protections. I'm just wondering what happens in order to make that determination. If Singh does apply, then clearly we haven't gained any efficiencies of time, because people have access to all of the protections and the due process and the appeals of our system.

¿ (0920)

Mr. Denis Coderre: Luke Morton will give you an answer. I have another to complete afterwards.

Mr. Luke Morton (Senior Counsel, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Certainly Canada expects to honour its charter obligations. It's important to keep in mind that in Singh the person concerned was being returned to his country of origin. That's not the case here. People are being returned to a safe country.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Speaking of that, as you know I have a serious concern about proposed section 159.6, which essentially says that if someone seeking refugee status under this agreement has been charged with or convicted of murder, they cannot be sent back into the United States. That would be one of the exceptions.

When I questioned your officials on this, they said you had included this in the public interest. I'd like to know, Minister, how giving safe haven to accused and convicted murderers could possibly be in Canadians' public interest.

Mr. Luke Morton: If I could--

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: No, I'd like the minister to answer that, if I could, because you've already answered it.

Mr. Luke Morton: The minister will answer. I just want to--

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I've heard from you as officials, but I need the minister to, if he could, tell us why he included that.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Fair enough.

What we're looking for is if, for example, somebody is convicted and will be condemned to death, it's in our values that we're not sending back somebody who will face the death penalty. There are ways to fulfill the public interest without sending back somebody to face the death penalty. That's my understanding of the situation of that case.

That's the reason: legally we cannot send them back. The other thing is that the public interest is also a matter of respecting our own values. We can't take care of that person without jeopardizing the security of Canadians.

[Translation]

That is what we had in mind with this provision. I don't know if Mr. Morton has...

[English]

Mr. Luke Morton: I just want to briefly add that since I was here Tuesday I double-checked with our extradition office at the Department of Justice, and in Burns and Rafay the Supreme Court of Canada has made a clear statement of law, based on section 7 of the charter, that the judgment applies to both Canadians and non-Canadians.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Well, it's never been tested with respect to non-Canadians, for one thing, but the point is that we have now had an agreement whereby, according to the minister, Canadian values would make paramount the protection of people who might face the death penalty because of murder. Is the minister really saying Canada places such a high priority on protecting murderers? Don't forget, Minister, that terrorists are murderers.

Why would we be a magnet for murderers by making an exception and refusing to let these people face justice, however their country of origin might determine it? Why would we put such a high priority on protecting murderers?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: The honourable member knows full well that Canada is not a haven for terrorists and in that respect, the Safe Third Country Agreement is a tool. The new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allows us to fully assume our responsibilities and to stop those with a criminal record who enter the country as refugees to go through the refugee process. We have also committed resources and put in place some regulations to ensure the public's safety.

As you know, Supreme Court decisions always take into account the public interest. You're a lawyer and consequently, you abide by the rule of law. It's important to take an approach that is consistent with this rule of law.

The Safethird Country Agreement is not an end in itself, but rather an additional tool that allows us to fully assume our responsibilities in terms of fighting abuse of the system. To my mind, this is how we must look upon this agreement, not as a new magnet designed to protect terrorists.

We are mindful of the law and of the decisions of the Supreme Court. We do our job and we now have the tools that allow us to regulate the system and in the process, do our job while upholding our own values and agreements on the world stage.

¿ (0925)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

Now, to the committee, I have had a special request from Mr. Mark. He has to go to another committee meeting. I want to assure all members that they would have their same time, but the request is that he could go ahead at this point and ask his question.

Is that okay with committee members? Any problem with that?

Go ahead, Inky. Five minutes.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me welcome the minister and congratulate the minister for his work in meeting with the provinces to enhance the nominee program, which is long overdue. I hope he continues in that direction.

To make sure people don't get confused about who I represent today, I represent the PC Party. The party's position is that it supports immigration, and certainly refugee protection.

There are two points I want to raise. First, as the minister indicated, he's here to talk about both Bill C-18 and the Safethird country agreement. The only criticism I have of Bill C-18, as he knows, is the two classes of citizenship, which are still in the bill. And I hope he'll correct that.

My question will deal with the Safethird country agreement. The last two days of hearing witnesses have been very educational, to say the least. I think we're getting to see it may not be the bullet that the government is looking for. In fact, we may end up shooting ourselves in the foot with this Safethird country agreement.

There's no doubt that it will stem the flow of refugees from coming to this country, and I think we're doing it for the wrong reason. Unfortunately, this country hasn't learned from its past history, as was brought up by our witnesses. We've had a few bleak moments in our history. We turned away the Jewish people, who wanted to come here in times of need; we did that to Asians from 1923 to 1947, we interned even our Japanese Canadians, as well as the Ukrainians. Hopefully, from the big picture of this country in terms of its culture and history, I think we need to look at Safethird countries from that point of view.

The question was raised this morning, what is the problem? I think we need to really define what the problem is and why we're putting in place this vehicle. I'm sure there are other solutions. Certainly, the witnesses we've heard have other solutions.

The reason this agreement will not work is because of the way it's written. The key is getting landed; in other words, after getting over here--illegally, however you get here--then you still have the right of access to refugee appeal. So from that perspective, it's not going to work.

It has been brought up over and over again that this country is kinder and gentler than others. We're unique. We are leaders when it comes to refugee protection. So why are we jeopardizing our world reputation by putting through this kind of legislation?

Actually, my question to the minister is, will you allow the committee to make amendments to the regulations before they become finalized?

Mr. Denis Coderre: First of all, thank you. We have to be very careful. The way the agreement was written was to protect the Canadian way.

The reason the minister still has that exception, that discretion, that prerogative, for certain cases is to protect against the abuse that you were referring to. So we're not just sending back people to send them back, and we believe that with the way we negotiate, and with the proper wording of that agreement, we will prevent those kinds of abuses.

But we need to regulate the system. We're not just using the safe third country agreement as a finality; it's not like, this is it and that's it. We made some major changes, which you participated in, through the new legislation for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We put more tools in the hands of our people on the border to work with, and we believe that now, by having that agreement, we will be able to be respectful also of our own judgment of other cases, like the Singh case, saying that now the only way to make sure we can regulate a system and be respectful of the rule of law is to send back to a safe third country those people who want to come here.

But again, your own party, it's not new.... In that committee work on the safe third country possibility, the Alliance was saying that it hoped--and you were dissident, as usual, of course--that a comprehensive agreement would be reached about safe third countries with our American friends and the European Union. The PCs said the use of a safe third country or direct-backs must be implemented by Canada. I hear you.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Inky Mark: The problem--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Rather than our getting into a back and forth debate, other folks need to answer questions.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, good morning and thanks for coming. You must be a little puzzled because the same parties that are strongly criticizing the Safethird were the ones who were standing in the House at Question Period demanding that we implement it. It's puzzling to me as well.

I want to ask you some questions on the citizenship bill, but before I do, let me ask a couple on the Safethird.

Some of the witnesses have said that all we will achieve with the Safethird is that we will drive people underground; instead of walking across the border at Lacolle, Quebec, they will somehow go through the bush in my friend's riding and come across in some other way. Or, given the fact that the agreement only applies to land crossings and not airports, where 95% of the individuals who we are dealing with cross at the land points and only 5% at airports, once we implement this we may see a reversal of that trend and somehow these folks will get onto aircraft coming into Canada.

Is there any thought of a monitoring system that could be put in place, or perhaps some kind of review process after a year or two years, that kind of thing, whereby we could determine whether or not this agreement has in fact driven these folks underground?

Mr. Denis Coderre: First of all, thank you for the question.

Of course amendments can be made by government, and that's why I invite the committee to give me their views. Nevertheless, again, speaking about the airports, we have what we call the multiple border principle--it's not just at the land borders--and we are pushing forward what we call a prevention strategy too.

Canada has created what we call immigration control officers, so we want to make sure that even before they come to our border we put in place some prevention. Because of this, because we now have 44 immigration control officers in Heathrow, in Charles de Gaulle, in every airport in the rest of the world, and we have that kind of agreement with airlines, we have prevented 45,000 cases in the last six years. Again, all this--our prevention strategy and the resources that we have put in place, the new regulations with the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Safethird country agreement--will help us. When I said to regulate the system, I meant it's also to address those kinds of issues. We are working also with other agencies, so there's a full partnership at every level to make sure we can be efficient.

But immigration and Safethird country is an ongoing issue. We want to make the system work. Of course, with our relationship with the Americans, with the way we will implement it, we are ready to monitor it with other stakeholders, so I think we will be able to face the music.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Just to be clear on this, my understanding is that the vast majority of the individuals who are targeted by the Safethird country agreement are in the United States with visas, either working or studying or visiting. They're there legally. These are not people who have somehow been smuggled through the U.S.--come in at the south end and ridden a bus up to the north end--without detection, particularly post 9/11 when it should, I would think, be more difficult to get a visa into the United States.

But wasn't the concern that they're in the States legally and that they are in a Safethird country and therefore have the opportunity to apply for refugee status there? There seems to be some feeling that the Americans will not give them a proper hearing, an opportunity to apply within their borders.

Has there been any discussion with U.S. officials about this, the fact that we would like to ensure that the Geneva Convention is honoured and that we indeed do provide safe haven one way or another?

¿ (0935)

Mr. Denis Coderre: There are several things in your question, but I think for the benefit of the committee we will deposit some documents that will help to give you that kind of expertise.

We will have, for example, an expert report by Professor David Martin. He's a professor of law at the University of Virginia who is evaluating how the U.S. asylum system complies with international obligations and standards. Because of that we have expertise saying it is a Safethird country and they in fact apply the Geneva Protocol, which was implemented in 1967 but is the same thing as the Geneva Convention of 1951. The protocol includes more countries attached to it.

But you have also a decision of the U.K. High Court of Justice, the Queen's Bench division, considering a challenge to the legislative scheme that designates the United States as a Safethird country. That decision will be relevant to a Canadian court considering a similar challenge. I will deposit also that decision.

You will have some comments from the UNHCR on the Safethird agreement saying that, yes, the Americans respect those conventions.

So, of course, we believe the United States is a Safethird country. They accept about 53% of their hearings. We put forward about 56%, in our case. Again, every case is specific.

The thing is, because we have some exceptions, there are some people who come into the United States but then find a way to come to Canada afterwards and, with our exceptions--such as the unaccompanied children and people who have relatives in our country--will be able to come into Canada. But you cannot have at the same time a demand, a refugee claim, in the United States and in Canada.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think my time is up, but let me ask you to comment on your views on biometrics and the use of an identity card and where we might be going, as it relates to the Citizenship Act and all of the other issues--the privacy, and the identity, the security, that kind of issue.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I believe in biometrics; that is, in the maple leaf card. I believe that biometrics, when used offline in an authentification process, is a good thing. It's up to us to decide what we want to do with technology, and that's why I asked for a debate, a debate not only on the maple leaf card. We already said, and I was on the record saying, that I am ready to implement biometrics for the maple leaf card regarding landed immigrants and permanent residents, and of course with what happened with the United States, I think this debate is even more acute.

But I believe at the same time it's up to us as Canadians to have a fair and good debate on the use of biometrics and how we can implement a system based on an authentification process where it would facilitate or prevent some abuse. I believe we can protect privacy and use technology. We're not just a bunch of Luddites, as in the eighteenth century.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Some are.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Well, probably, but I believe it's up to us in a Canadian way to decide, and because we have legislation on citizenship, Mr. Chair, I believe it's up to us to decide what kind of society we want to live in. We can be protective of our rights but still use technology for proper use.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Minister.

In light of the urgency of the situation, I will focus mainly on the Safethird Country Agreement. After listening to government officials and to witnesses for five hours, I have to tell you, although I'm sure you already know it, that the witnesses unanimously feel there is nothing positive in the agreement as far as refugees are concerned. These witnesses voiced many concerns that we share as well. As you know, we've always had some reservations about this agreement.

I've been asking myself one question, as have many people with some common sense. Why is it that the Americans, who were strongly opposed to such an agreement prior to September 11, are suddenly all in favour of it? One cannot help draw a comparison with a couple and with the argument: You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. We'll never know what the Americans wanted, but we can always surmise.

Yesterday, we heard from representatives of the legal community. We heard from the American Immigration Lawyers Association which has 120 members working here in Canada. I asked them to identify the most important proposal of the many put forward and to make some suggestions. They felt it was critical, should the agreement be signed - and all signs point to that happening - that the regulations include a provision respecting ministerial discretion. Such a provision is included in the agreement, but not in the regulations. That discretion should be spelled out very clearly.

The United Auto Workers are gravely concerned about gender-based discrimination and discrimination based on racial profile. No need to be genius to see who might be targeted in the case of racial profiling.

In the opinion of the Canadian Bar Association, it is critical and fundamental that each refugee status claimant have access to a system. In other words, if a person's claim is rejected in the United States, that person should be entitled to make a claim in Canada.

¿ (0940)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Maybe we can try to get an answer for a lot of those questions.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: His response will be brief. He's going to tell me that I'm right.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): But he won't be able to answer your questions if--

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Here's what I want to ask the minister. Since the situation isn't urgent, since the US regulations have been drafted perhaps, but have not yet been made public, could we possibly have more time to hear from other witnesses, perhaps even from expert witnesses? This isn't a minor agreement. It's nothing to sneeze at. We witnessed the events of September 11. My concern is that September 11 has eclipsed Canadian and Quebec values, namely compassion and judgment.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): That's been a long five minutes, so if you can be very quick on this, I'd appreciate it.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Our compassion hasn't been eclipsed because provision has been made for some exceptions. The reason why we have done so... By the way, the legislation refers to the minister's prerogative to use all necessary discretion. You mentioned gender-based discrimination and so forth. Recently, I visited Fort Erie. There was talk of a Francophone contingent wishing to...I told them that it was my prerogative to examine the situation and to exercise the necessary discretion.

The Safethird Country Agreement is not the result of September 11. Plans for such an agreement have been moving forward since 1990 to address the fact that some people were abusing the Canadian system. We want to be in a position to regulate the system so that we can do our job to the fullest, demonstrate compassion and assume our obligations to the international community. If we fail to resolve this situation, we're going to have a problem with the High Commission for Refugees and you'll be complaining in the House about the fact that it takes seven or nine years to settle these cases.

Now we have an opportunity to put in place a complementary system that would help us to resolve the situation in Canada and to uphold our traditions. Such a provision is part of the agreement and of the 30 components of the Smart Border Declaration. We negotiated this agreement very shrewdly and we should be proud of this accomplishment! Our negotiator John Scratch has done an amazing job. Earlier, mention was made of an appendix to the agreement that clarifies the scope of section 9. The Americans wanted the figure to be set at 2,400 per year, and I said so publicly; this figure was reduced to a maximum of 200. In other words, we said that it was going to done our way, according to our values.

There are some success stories and this is one of them. We did our job and we resolved the problem. We made provision for some exceptions to preserve our sense of compassion. There will be no extension.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Judy, you're up. Go ahead.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd like to begin by asking questions about the safe third country agreement. The minister can call me many things, but he won't be able to call me inconsistent.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You said that, according to Canadian values, this country would not send someone to the death penalty. But with this agreement, you are potentially sending women facing domestic violence to their death sentence, because the United States doesn't recognize persecution based on gender in terms of refugee status.

So my question to you is, do you feel confident about this agreement in terms of Canadian traditions, international law, and just general standards of humanity and compassion? I assume you would have no problem in sending this agreement to Parliament for approval in principle. Will you do that next week?

¿ (0945)

Mr. Denis Coderre: No. we won't. because it's an international agreement.

You're doing a great job here with the implementation of the regulations. You have had witnesses, you have spoken about it, and you know how things work. It's also an ongoing issue. That's the reason we implemented some exceptions and why we have that prerogative.

But no, we don't have to send it to Parliament. You know as well as I do what our procedure is. But we accept under our own law—section 5, if I remember correctly—that the implementation regulations go through the committee. This will be sufficient, in my opinion.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's true one could argue that you don't have to, but you could if you were really concerned about transparency and accountability—as you were in terms of war criminals just this morning. The Kyoto accord also doesn't have to be sent to Parliament, but it is in the best interests of democracy and these important issues to have that process. So I would urge you to reconsider your approach and to, at least, if you feel confident, let it come to Parliament and have a vote on the principle of the safe third country.

I'd like to ask you about the national identity cards for all citizens. You had expressed great concern about the racial profiling at the border and about the treatment of citizens and landed immigrants by U.S. authorities. You said that you went off to Washington to fix this. You came back with a national identity card for all Canadian citizens. Who asked you to do it?

Mr. Denis Coderre: First of all, regarding the debate that I asked for among Canadians, I think this committee would be a very appropriate place—a great place—to discuss the issue. So Mr. Chair, it's up to you decide among yourselves. But I think we should do it.

I was annoyed by racial profiling, especially regarding landed immigrants. I was annoyed by the situation regarding the passport. But because we have the place of birth on passports and not on the citizenship card, we're not asking to reinvent the wheel. I was asking the Canadian people if there was a way to use technology like biometrics to protect our own privacy and, at the same time, find a way to prevent possibilities of abuse. That's why I asked for a debate. Nobody asked us.

It's not the government's intent right now to impose or to have a new ID card. It is because of the citizenship legislation that we already have that citizenship card. It is an ID card by itself, with a picture, which doesn't have the place of birth on it. I believe we can also have a biometrics capacity, which is why I provoked the debate. A debate is transparent; it's up to us to define our own Canadian way. This is what I was seeking.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): John.

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Thank you.

Mr. Minister, I note that the words in the supposedly new oath are cribbed directly from the current Australian and New Zealand oaths. The words are:

I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.

These words and ideas are all taken from the oaths of other countries. How can the citizenship oath be unique to Canadians, or even represent Canadians, when it's derived from oaths of other lands?

Mr. Denis Coderre: I note that my colleague is working very hard on this issue. But we believe—and you will have to address this issue—that the oath by itself is very balanced, very appropriate, and I think reflects what Canada is all about. I'm not going to have another debate on monarchy, but at the same time, I believe that the people who are coming here want to.... They are coming to Canada, so to pledge allegiance to Canada is pretty appropriate. So I don't understand; I'm asking myself why you think that we don't have our own Canadian way with the wording right now in the oath.

¿ (0950)

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Minister, very simply, it's the wording from other countries, from Australia and New Zealand.

You spoke a little earlier about our values. What's wrong with having Canadian values represented in the oath, like the values of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for example? Why don't we define ourselves as Canadians by our charter in our oath?

Mr. Denis Coderre: By pledging allegiance to Canada, I think that's included.

Mr. John Bryden: Perhaps, Mr. Minister. I don't know how to reply to that.

Certainly, I ask you once again if there is any reason why we can't have an oath of citizenship that defines what we are as Canadians and what we believe in—things like equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, basic human rights, the rule of law, and democracy. Why can't we have those in the oath? Those define us as Canadians, not as Australians, not as New Zealanders, and not as British. Why can't we do that, Mr. Minister? Why are we afraid to define ourselves as Canadians in our own oath?

Mr. Denis Coderre: My answer will be that, for the benefit of everybody, I'm going to read the proposed oath of citizenship. I think this covers it all:

From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country's right and freedoms, to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.

That's not bad.

Mr. John Bryden: May I just reply to that? I'd just like to read the oath that I have proposed, if I may, just to get it into the record.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Go ahead. Read it quickly, John.

Mr. John Bryden: The alternative, Mr. Minister, is:

In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by the solemn trust to uphold these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law.

Which oath, Mr. Minister, describes Canadians better?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you.

Diane.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: There is so much I could ask that I wish I had more time. I'm sure you wish I had more time, too.

I would like to ask about the backlog in the refugee system. That does trouble me, and I'm sure it troubles you, as it's over 50,000 now. These are people who have no status, who can't get on with their lives, who, in my view, are being treated very unfairly by being kept in limbo. I just wonder what practical measures you can assure us are being taken to actually deal with this backlog. Or is it just going to get bigger and bigger, with the problems exacerbating?

Mr. Denis Coderre: That's probably one of the most important questions. I agree with my colleague that there is a situation, and my role as minister is also to make sure that efficiency will be a priority. That's the reason we changed the legislation. We put in place some new regulations, and the safe third country agreement will have an impact.

We're saying we want to regulate the system and prevent those people from having to wait five, six, and seven years. That creates some other social problems. We don't defend what's not defendable. There is a situation, and we have to face it and we have to address it. With the new resources, with the new tools to work with, I believe we will be able to see the light.

Already we've ameliorated the system. Other tools that we have will have a major impact on the backlog itself. I believe that concretely, in the short term, we will be able to address those issues at the same time. But that's also why we had the federal-provincial conference. We spoke about that, too—at the demand of the Quebec government, as a matter of fact—and we agreed that we're all going to work together because it's a shared jurisdiction. It's a commitment made by everybody that we have to do what's best to make sure we prevent those problems.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Does that mean you're bringing the provinces into the refugee determination system?

Mr. Denis Coderre: No, it means that during the time when the refugee claimants are in Canada, we have to take care of the people. There's the school system, there are some issues that we have to take care of related to those persons. In that sense, the provinces are playing a part. They're not doing it through the IRB but through the people themselves.

¿ (0955)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: But what specifically is being done to deal with this backlog and to make sure it doesn't continue to swell?

Mr. Denis Coderre: What I would propose to you, respectfully, is that the board is independent, so I think you should ask the new president, Jean-Guy Fleury, to come here so that you can ask him those kinds of questions. The new legislation and the new agreement on the Safethird country will have an impact themselves, but all that micro-management will be taken care of by the president himself. So I think the committee should ask the president of the board to come here to face those questions.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Are you saying you have no role to play in dealing with the backlog?

Mr. Denis Coderre: We have a role to play in making sure we create the proper environment and give those people, those professionals, the proper tools to work with to make sure that those dedicated persons fulfill their mandate. That's what I'm doing.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you.

Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Thank you, Minister, for coming to share your experiences with us.

Does the 200-person side deal, for lack of a better name, provide for full reciprocity? In other words, does it provide for the possibility that Canada will also send 200 persons per year to the US for resettlement?

Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes, the agreement is fully reciprocal.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Could someone from your group tell me where I can find this information in the text of the agreement?There's no time for that now, because we have only three or four minutes remaining.

Had we had a little more time, perhaps we could have found someone who supports the Safethird Country Agreement. As it now stands, every single witness was opposed to the agreement.

You accurately quoted UN representatives, but they made these comments in July, before reading the text of the agreement. While they concurred with the objectives, they did submit to us a brief in which they observed the following: while we did make these comments, the next seven pages of recommendations and amendments are aimed at making the overall agreement acceptable.

Acceptable in what way? Some persons, maybe even public servants, have argued that Canada and the United States are both playing the same game and applying the same set of rules. However, even though the two countries have formally signed the same agreements, it's not true that the situations are identical in both countries. Witness their respective laws and how they are applied.

A number of questions, in particular detention and gender-based discrimination, give rise to numerous problems. The US takes a harsher approach than Canada in this area. We heard as much from all those who testified before the committee.

Under the proposed regulations, a person who is refused entry into the United States cannot try to gain entry into Canada. If this person is denied entry on the basis of values that do not correspond to Canadian values, then why would he not have the right to try his luck in Canada? Why wouldn't a person have the right to choose Canada because of everything that sets it apart from and, as I see it, gives it an advantage over, the United States?

Major concerns have been noted in several areas. For example, representatives of workers at the border and on the front line maintain that these workers are not equipped to make a definite judgment call on the spot, a call that cannot be appealed. Such practices differ substantially from procedures normally followed in Canada.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You'll find an answer to several of your questions in the documents that I will be tabling.

First of all, let me clarify that the local delegate for the UN High Commission for Refugees made a statement that in no way corresponded to the agency's stand on the matter. We went to Geneva to sign the agreement in principle and there, we met with officials. Everything was in order, down to the last detail.

In my opinion, when you read the latest copy of the agreement, your questions will be answered.

Another reality we need to face is that we will no longer be able to shop around for immigrants. As I see it, our job is now to ensure that the right message is being conveyed. Thus, potential immigrants will make their way directly to Canada.

Clearly, we now have a series of tools at our disposal and some components of the agreement allow us to preserve the sense of compassionate alluded to earlier. Thus, we are in a position to do our job to the fullest extent possible and to meet needs while upholding at the same time our international commitments.

The documents that have been made available to you and my comments today demonstrate that we can achieve our objective. We have the tools we need and the capability of assuming our full responsibilities. Regulating the system will have a positive impact, including on our own officers.

À (1000)

[English]

Mr. Chair, just as a clarification for Judy on her question about Parliament, it's under section 101 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that we voted in, in paragraph (e). We speak about a Safethird country, so Parliament did have a way to decide on that.

So that's your clarification. Where were you at that time?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Where were you? According to the...[Editor's Note: Inaudible—]...any refugee can come in? No.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Judy.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I very much appreciate it that you came in, as does the committee.

We will take a break for just a minute or two while the minister leaves and the officials get set up.

À (1001)

À (1006)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): To all committee members, just so you realize what the process is going to be regarding the safe third country agreement, the question was raised about what the committee can do or where the recommendations are going. I understand that our research people will be working over the weekend to get everything together and get it into translation. By Monday at 4 p.m. approximately, you will have in your office a set of recommendations that you can look at. Pick and choose, work at it, and work on the wording, because that will be submitted to you. Then, on Tuesday morning, the committee will be meeting to discuss those recommendations and make our committee report.

That is what is structured right now, so you will have a say in that by Tuesday, before we submit it to the minister.

Yes, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: What will be the deadline for the submission of minority statements, should we feel the majority report doesn't reflect our wishes?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I would hope you'd do that as quickly as possible, hopefully on Tuesday.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We won't see it until Monday, so doing it by Tuesday.... I believe the normal rule is 48 hours.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Just give me one second, because there's a logistical problem here related to time.

I just asked the clerk, Judy, so that I could get a little clarification.

Once the committee adopts a report or decides to move a report, if there's a dissenting position that people would like to present, it is up to the committee if there is an extension of time required for that. I have been told that 24 hours is the norm.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay, fair enough.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): John.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, before we commence this stage, can I ask the committee whether it could ask the officials to table documents before the committee pertaining to the consultation that led up the oath of citizenship wording that we have before us?

My concern is that there has never been any consultation with MPs. To save myself an access to information request, I would like this committee to have the benefit of the consultation process that led to the wording of the oath that we have before us in the bill now.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): The committee is certainly the master of its own direction, so if the committee decides to make that request, that is up to the committee.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Yes.

Mr. Luke Morton: Mr. Chairman, regarding your schedule, we are trying to get you the expert report. We have it in English, and we're urgently getting it translated so it can be deposited with the committee. I just want to let you know that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much.

Are there any other questions on procedure before we go ahead now?

Okay, may I ask the committee if you would like to request all the consultation background, as Mr. Bryden had requested, on who the consultations were done with on Safethird country? I think that is what was asked.

I see strong support for that.

Yes.

À (1010)

Ms. Rosaline Frith (Director General, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Chair, I believe he was asking for the consultation on the oath.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): On the oath, itself? Okay.

Do you have information on consultations regarding the oath?

Ms. Rosaline Frith: I'm sure we can find some information on past consultations on the oath, but I don't quite understand the urgency.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Would you attempt to do the best you can and get back to the clerk on that, please?

Ms. Rosaline Frith: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I'm not going to go any further on that one, folks. I think we've made the request, and that's as far as we're going to go on that, if that's okay with the committee.

Yes, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But, Mr. Chairperson, in terms of the issue at hand, for which there is some urgency, I think it would be useful to get a report on the consultations pertaining to the Safethird country agreement as soon as possible.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Is that a request to the committee, as well?

Yes, Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Perhaps what we should do is get the committee report that this committee adopted and passed. That would probably be a good place to start in terms of the consultations--go back and read it.

An hon. member: We sure did enough of it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'd be happy to have that discussion of the previous committee's recommendations, and we'll table all relevant documents pertaining to concerns with respect to the safe third country agreement.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We had better do it before December 5.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: There's lots of time to bring it to Parliament. There's nothing on the agenda. We have another take note debate today. We could have done Safethird country.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Go ahead; I'm in. Give me 20 minutes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay, get it done.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's not an issue.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): At this point in time we don't have enough members to do the motion, so maybe we can carry on with the officials.

Would you go ahead, please, if you have some introductory comments.

Ms. Rosaline Frith: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Rosaline Frith, the director general of integration at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I'm pleased to be here this morning with Patricia Birkett, who is the registrar for citizenship; and Paul Yurack, who is our legal counsel.

We're prepared to answer any questions you might have on Bill C-18. We've already given a very quick brief on the differences between Bill C-18 and the previous bill, Bill C-16. I believe you probably would like to spend your time asking questions and getting answers, so with that, I turn it back to you.

Merci.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much.

I hope everyone did attend those briefings. It was laid out, and print material was supplied to each member as well.

Lynne.

Ms. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to go to the adoption part of the bill. Who will be doing the screening? They will almost circumvent immigration, because they will be allowed to--I think I'm understanding this--get their citizenship if there is an adoption or they have been adopted. So who will be doing the screening on this?

Ms. Rosaline Frith: We will be following essentially the same approach that we have used in the past in terms of working with the provinces, in terms of working with our officers who are overseas, our immigration officers and others. So the same approach will be used to determine whether or not a full adoption has taken place. The difference will be that this information will then be used to issue a citizenship status as opposed to an immigration status.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: So you will be using immigration officers in the immigration system. There won't be another--

Ms. Rosaline Frith: We will not be reinventing a new process. We'll use the people who already have a certain degree of expertise, and we will be certainly doing it in conjunction with the provinces, who have jurisdiction over adoption.

À (1015)

Ms. Lynne Yelich: So they'll apply for their citizenship, and it won't be that quick, then, or that easy, because they'll be in a process much like immigration, which is backlogged--yes or no?

Ms. Rosaline Frith: The adoption process runs fairly smoothly, and there should not be any additional delays. If anything, we're reducing one activity for the parents. They don't have to go through the complete immigration process; they just go through the adoption process. So they apply for adoption. The portion that is involved in getting the interaction between the provinces and our officers overseas, and so on, will still take the same amount of time.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: In most provinces--it's provincial jurisdiction, or it seems to be--even though you have a good process in place with immigration, it sometimes takes eight years to adopt in Saskatchewan, and I can't see this being too successful for the children being adopted.

Actually, that is my question. I just want to know what safeguards are in place so it won't be abused. Have you ever spoken to case-presenting officers? There is a percentage. There are also adoptions of convenience. I'm just wondering if that's a concern.

When this bill was mentioned to me when I was actually overseas, that was one situation that was brought up, that sometimes it's abused very much by families who just want to bring over a niece or a nephew, and they don't indeed need children. It's not that they are childless, and it isn't that they are orphans. Lots of times they are just using adoption as a means to get into Canada. I think we might have a concern over the adult adoptions, not so much the minors. So I'm wondering about that, and if you could answer that.

Ms. Rosaline Frith: We believe the system we have in place is working effectively today, and we're doing our best to ensure that they are proper adoptions, full adoptions, and are not for other reasons. In the case of those adoptions that are taking place after the person has turned 18, we will be looking very carefully at the information to make sure that the relationship, the parent-child relationship, existed prior to that child becoming an adult and continued after that child became an adult. Therefore, we feel that the safeguards are in place and that there should not be any additional abuse in the system.

Again, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, there are similar statutes in place concerning adoption of those over 18 for immigration purposes. So we will be using our same expertise across the board.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Anita?

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): No.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Andrew, you're up, and then Yvon.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): On this Safethird country agreement, if we think back to the Chilean situation, we had thousands of people from Chile who were accepted as refugees to Canada. The situation was that if they had asked for asylum in the United States, they would have been sent back to Pinochet and back to Chile. Of course, at that time, Chile was the land of the missing. People disappeared and many were found to be dead. I wonder how those folks would have fared under the Safethird country agreement. I just put that on the record because we have similar situations from South America in which the United States was or is used as a land transit to get to Canada.

Another issue that I have relates to the proposed Citizenship of Canada Act, and clauses 16, 17, 18, and 56.

Clause 16 makes some improvements by allowing for an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and, with leave, to the Supreme Court. This is still done on the balance of probabilities, which is a concern to a lot of folks. But clause 56 then states that this new process does not apply to anybody currently in the system. That really causes me a great deal of concern. Simply put, why have a new law when we recognize that the old law is bad, but not allow the benefit of that new process? So that's one question.

À (1020)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): You have two questions on the floor right now, and I think we'll have time to get those answered.

Bruce, do you want to start?

Mr. Bruce Scoffield (Director, Policy Development and International Coordination, Refugees Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the documents that the minister referred to in his statement that will be deposited for the committee's study, we have commissioned one paper from Professor David Martin, at the University of Virginia, that looks very carefully at a range of issues relating to the U.S. refugee determination system.

A criticism that I believe the committee has heard is that, in the past, U.S. refugee determination was sometimes influenced by foreign policy or political considerations. The member referred to the situation in Chile in the 1970s.

I think it's very important to point out for the committee that, from 1990 onward, a series of legislative reforms in the United States has fundamentally altered the nature of the U.S. refugee determination system, so that today it is not subject to those foreign policy or political influences. Decision-makers are independent, whether they be public servants—who are known as asylum officers—who do the first level of decision-making, or immigration judges who preside over immigration courts. Both asylum officers and immigration judges have access to a wide range of independent information collected through a central resource information centre modeled on the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board's documentation and immigration centre.

So I think the concern that has been expressed can be fully answered, and the documents being tabled will do that for you.

Ms. Rosaline Frith: As for the second question, with respect to clause 17 and the certificate process, it is very clear.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I didn't ask about clause 17.

Ms. Rosaline Frith: Did I misunderstand your question?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I talked about clause 16, which I said had some good parts. I then talked about clause 56, which negates anybody presently before the system from benefiting from the new legislation, both for the Crown and the person whose citizenship is a concern.

Ms. Rosaline Frith: Okay, so we're referring to clause 56—which is the transition—and how we would go from those cases that are currently in the process to new cases that would fall under the new legislation when the new legislation comes into effect.

I believe what we've put in place is clearly a system to try to allow the cases that have already been processed to complete the process under the current legislation, as they would have already been partially heard or completely heard by the courts. Those cases that would be coming forward would then be heard under the new legislation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like your opinion on two separate matters. As for my first question, the minister was certain that I would ask it. He provided a response, but I would like further clarification. My question concerns the stated intent, in Bill C-18, to grant Canadian citizenship to adopted children. I'm delighted with this provision. However, the problem is that in Quebec, international adoptions are subject to the Quebec Civil Code. The minister maintains that he has had discussions with officials. I'd like to know who these officials were because it's important that Bill C-18, which will pass sooner or later, jibe well with the Quebec Civil Code. There are already sufficient reasons for being discontent and I truly hope an intelligent way is found to make the provisions match.

In your opinion, have Quebec and federal government officials discussed this matter sufficiently to ensure that the provisions will correspond properly?

After that, I'll put my second question.

À (1025)

Mrs. Rosaline Frith: We've had some discussions with existing organizations that handle adoptions in Canada, including in Quebec. We talked with those responsible in each province for all adoption laws and procedures.

In the case of Quebec, in light of the differences in the Civil Code, we came to an agreement whereby the law is the law and applies across the board. However, in the special case of children who were not formally adopted prior to their arrival in Canada, that is children whose adoption was not approved under the Quebec Civil Code, some kind of administrative arrangement is required as part of an agreement between the federal and Quebec governments. The purpose of this agreement would be to avoid a situation where Quebec parents would encounter more problems and red tape than their counterparts elsewhere in Canada. That's how we proceeded and the arrangement worked rather well up until the last. Parents have an opportunity to follow a different , albeit equally effective process. Children receive their citizenship as soon as they are formally adopted in Quebec.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Madeleine, excuse me, but please allow me to interrupt just before you ask that question.

Ladies and gentlemen, you notice that several folks have just come in. Visiting with us this morning are members of Parliament and senior officials from Ukraine.

We're honoured to have you here. Welcome.

Sorry to have interrupted you, Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I had a good reason, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to welcome the visiting parliamentarians.

Rosaline, you spoke of an agreement between Quebec and...Could committee members have a copy of this agreement?

Mrs. Rosaline Frith: I'm sorry, but the document in question was a discussion paper and both governments agreed not to make it public until appropriate legislation was before Parliament.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Then it's not really an agreement, but more in the line of muted discussions.

Mrs. Rosaline Frith: Yes, absolutely.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I see. Since you used the word “agreement”, I thought it was something more formal.

Mrs. Rosaline Frith:I apologize.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral:That's all right.Our other concerns about Bill C-18 are about the clauses that deal with citizenship revocation. Given the way the bill is currently worded, we have grave concerns about the possibility that in some cases, a person's citizenship could be revoked without the person in question even knowing what evidence has been adduced and with that person having no right to appeal the decision.

Every successive government in Canada was extremely proud, in my view, to say to the world that Canada's legal system was a model. Now, however, it appears we have a serious problem on our hands. I'm concerned that a judge can act very quickly and receive as evidence that which would be deemed inadmissible by the other courts. If this legislation infringes upon the rights of even one person, then it should be considered unacceptable. The judge in the case could make an exceptional ruling, admittedly, but I would never allow someone to cut off my left hand--I'm left-handed--for that. So, my question is: What justification could there possibly be for the current wording? I want to tell you right here and now that my party will certainly be tabling some amendments. You can count on that.

À (1030)

Mrs. Rosaline Frith: You are quite right. Different citizenship revocation processes apply. There's one process for “ordinary individuals”, so to speak, that is for cases where there is no reason to keep the information confidential. In other cases, it's impossible to go forward without safeguarding the information. In these instances, we have proposed a points system which would allow a person to know why a case is being mounted against him or her. Yes, the information is protected, but it's not a black and white issue. Two ministers must sign the certificate at the outset to indicate the need to protect the information in the case.

A judge then takes a close look at the case presented by the ministers and decides whether or not the information truly needs to be kept confidential. Only then does the case move on to the third phase in which the judge ensures that a summary document is available detailing why the person is before the court. The information is then conveyed to that individual. Furthermore, the judge may also call that person to a hearing. Therefore, the individual is not excluded from the process.

It's true that information must not be disclosed, but in some instances, we have no choice. In cases where we're dealing with a terrorist and a person involved in organized crime, if we allow information to be made public, the witnesses may be adversely affected. Therefore, for reasons of public safety, it's important to keep any information confidential.

We do not anticipate that many cases like this will arise. In the very rare instances where they do, this is the only way to proceed before the courts.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Rosaline.

Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mrs. Frith, I note that you are the Director General of Integration. Let's talk about integration then.

We can discuss the rules of the game when it comes to granting citizenship, but we know very well that a new arrival to Canada faces much more than legal formalities. Many more conditions must be present in order for the transition to be a successful one.

Several weeks ago, I organized a round table in my riding to bring together agencies that work every day to help new immigrants integrate into society. A total of 65 persons participated and I was told that the first year was by far the most critical period of time. If no positive measures are in place to ease the transition during this first year, the risk of failure is great.

Participants spoke in particular of the stress that new arrivals experience, such as individual and couple or family related stress and of the tense relations between parents and children. Often, very little attention is paid to such matters. New arrivals also have problems finding work and housing and must familiarize themselves with their rights in such areas as social security, education and health. They have much to learn in a short period of time. Those I consulted with urged me to emphasize to the powers that be that they were volunteer agencies with few resources. They told me that while the need was great, they felt there was little in the way of government services to ensure the integration of new arrivals.

Since you are the Director General of Integration, could you tell me how this legislation will help to ease the integration process for new arrivals? Or is the legislation simply a federal-provincial mechanism for action?

À (1035)

Mrs. Rosaline Frith: That's a fairly complex question, but I will nevertheless venture a response.

I am indeed responsible for the integration of new arrivals across Canada. The federal government, working in partnership with provincial governments and non-profit organizations in Canada, endeavours to provide assistance to persons upon and even prior to their arrival in Canada and to help them understand the problems they are likely to encounter with housing, employment and language. We have done a considerable amount of work in this area.

You were wondering about the link between the Citizenship Act and the integration of new arrivals and future citizens.

Clearly there is link. The legislation is drafted in such a way that it extends an invitation to persons coming to Canada either as permanent residents or refugees to become Canadian citizens. That's extremely positive. It means that new arrivals to Canada will know right away if they meet the objective criteria for citizenship. The obstacles to citizenship are therefore removed.

Without question, language is a critical factor in becoming a Canadian. However, it is more important to find employment in Canada to complete the integration process. Clearly, it's important that new arrivals speak one of our official languages.

The legislation stipulates that some knowledge of Canada is essential. That knowledge is also critical to the process of integrating into Canadian society. Canadian laws must be upheld and new arrivals are told right away that abuse of family members will not be tolerated, that women must be respected and that men and women enjoy equal rights. We also discuss the issue of linguistic duality. The Citizenship Act is devised in such a way that all persons feel welcome from the outset and the stress and anxiety they experience upon their arrival in Canada is aleviated to some extent.

À (1040)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: What means are employed...

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Yvon, could you give me one second?

At 11 a.m. another committee will be in here, so we have approximately 20 minutes left. I would guess we could have four people go back and forth here. Pretty well everyone, or most people, will have one more round.

Go ahead, Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I agree with everything you've said, but I would like to know if your department intends to take additional steps to assist with integration, language skills, employment and the various other factors that make for successful citizenship. Or, are these goals better achieved through federal-provincial agreements?

What are the respective responsibilities of the two levels of government? What is your relationship with non-profit organizations? Do you associate directly with them, or do you act through the provinces? Are both of these approaches taken?

Mrs. Rosaline Frith: Both approaches are taken. It all depends on the province. We have different agreements in place with certain provinces. In some cases, resources are allocated to the province which is then responsible for integrating new arrivals. In other cases, the department works closely with non-profit organizations.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, could Mrs. Firth send us a table or a summary of the situation broken down by province? Perhaps she could tell us which provinces have an agreement with the federal government and how much money is involved. That information would prove useful to us.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): It would depend very much upon the availability—if something of that nature is available from the department.

Rosaline, do you see anything like that being available or being put together for the committee?

Ms. Rosaline Frith: We have general documents explaining integration, the kinds of arrangements that are in place, and the actual sums of money spent across the country. This information is available and is public; we can certainly share it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you. That would be excellent. I think it would answer Yvon's question.

Diane.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I have questions about a number of clauses, so I hope I'll get to some of them.

The first one is with respect to subclause 21(1). It allows the minister to recommend that an individual not be granted citizenship if he has grounds to believe that a person “has demonstrated a flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”. This is a very broad clause. As a lawyer and a democrat, it worries me a little bit that this is a bit of a catch-all, to say the least. I wonder whether you can give us some idea of precisely what is meant by “flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values”?

Ms. Rosaline Frith: Yes, I certainly can answer that.

I would start by saying that what we have tried to do in the bill is to set out a clearer definition of what judges would be able to debate in terms of the definition. But we haven't set out a precise definition that is all-inclusive and that states every single possible case that we might come up against.

What we've done is to set out the principle of demonstrating “a flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”. In doing this, we've given guidance to provide a standard for debate. That standard for debate flows from a decision that was taken in the Oakes case. It referred to “the values and principles essential to a free and democratic society,” which include “respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society”.

This would be a starting point. It would ensure that there's not abusive use of this particular subclause in the bill, and that we are truly talking about a flagrant disregard of our values.

À (1045)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Will there be more specificity in the regulations on this subclause?

Ms. Rosaline Frith: No, there will not be.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Will the regulations be tabled with the committee?

Ms. Rosaline Frith: The description of regulations in general can and will be available as we go through. But I do not—

Ms. Patricia Birkett (Registrar, Citizenship, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): I think what's important to notice here is that there are no regulatory powers with respect to making regulations on this particular clause regarding the refusal for flagrant and serious disregard. So the whole explanation is here in the bill. Nothing is going to be in regulations that either defines or does anything else; the whole thing is here.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Okay, so the reference to the Oakes case is the most definitive one at this point?

Ms. Rosaline Frith: Yes, that's correct.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you for that.

With respect to subclause 18(5), clause 16 provides that the minister can disallow or revoke citizenship under certain conditions, such as finding out that the person misrepresented himself or herself substantially, or that he or she has engaged in criminal activity that was not disclosed, etc., but under subclause 18(5), the minister only has five years from the granting of citizenship to exercise this discretion. I'm wondering why the limitation is for five years. What if the information comes to light six years from the time the person has received citizenship?

Ms. Rosaline Frith: I believe that, when we went through it and tried to come up with reasonable limits on when the information became available and how clear-cut the information would be, a decision was taken that if the person had never been entitled to receive their citizenship in the first place due to criminality, if the misrepresentation had taken place within the previous five years, if the documents were available, and if there were very few other factors to be taken into consideration, then it was perfectly reasonable to annul the citizenship. They never should have received it in the first place. If that was a possibility in certain cases, they would have to wait and could apply again at a later date, as though they still remained a permanent resident of Canada.

In a case in which it has been more than five years and other factors might come into play, it was felt that going through the revocation process—which, in the case of the bill, is a fully judicial process and would allow for a more complex presentation of the case and for a judge to hear everything—made more sense than to simply go through the annulment process. That is why we restricted it to a five-year period.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Are you saying the person might still have their citizenship revoked, but just not by the minister?

Ms. Rosaline Frith: That's correct.

À (1050)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Do I still have time?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I will try to get back to you. I have Andrew, and I will do my best to come back if we can do it, okay?

Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Actually, the real problem with this process is that the government makes an allegation that says you obtained citizenship by fraud; however, it then doesn't give the person whose citizenship is at stake a chance to defend themselves in a court of law.

Just imagine if the government could go around saying that you did this or you did that, could accuse you of crimes, and didn't give you a right to defend yourself in terms of a court of law. That is really the basic complaint I have with the whole of clauses 17 and 18.

In the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 7, under “Legal Rights”, says:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Now, there are six million Canadians in this country who were not born here, and to us our citizenship is very much part of our security of the person.

Mr. Chairman, at some point, I would like to see all the consultations that the department has tabled before this committee, because we at this committee heard evidence on this issue before. Every group that appeared before the Commons committee—and there were dozens of them—wanted the due process of law in there and wanted the courts to decide these decisions, not politicians, and certainly not bureaucrats. And that's essentially what you have when you say “the Minister”. He follows the recommendations of the bureaucracy. God knows, how do you test that evidence? How do you test that charge? You don't.

The other issue is in clause 17. This is a brand new clause as well. We talk about no appeals to a very draconian process. We can present evidence in secret and the rules of evidence do not apply. This doesn't make any sense. Not only is there no appeal for the person whose citizenship is at stake, there's also no appeal for the Crown.

I will refer you to the case of what happened to Maurice “Mom” Boucher. If the Crown could not have appealed, Mr. Boucher would be walking free. The Crown appealed, and Mr. Boucher is behind bars. I think that just shows how ridiculous it is to have a situation in which there is no appeal. To suggest otherwise, to suggest that we somehow have a system that is efficient and that works, is a fraud. We haven't gotten rid of anybody. Even though we've spent tens of millions of dollars on very few cases, not one person has been sent out of the country and ultimately deported.

I think the problem is that we do not respect section 7 of the charter. Had we respected section 7 of the charter, I think all the cases before the courts would have been dealt with, along with submissions to that effect. If we had a better process, a process with appeals, we probably would have resolved all the cases before us right now.

Ms. Rosaline Frith: I believe we are discussing clause 17, the security certificate in particular, and the fact that there is no appeal in that case.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: In clause 18, there is no appeal. It is done by the bureaucracy and the minister.

Ms. Rosaline Frith: In clause 18, there is an appeal. There's a judicial review.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: A judicial review is not an appeal. Don't mislead the committee.

Ms. Rosaline Frith: I'm sorry.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): [Editor's Note: Innaudible]...clarify what we mean. Go ahead.

Ms. Rosaline Frith: Paul, would you please address this one.

Mr. Paul Yurack (Counsel, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): You've made a number of points, so I want to go back to the context of citizenship.

To date, citizenship has not been held to engage section 7 interests. It's purely a creature of statute, subject to being in compliance with the charter. Therefore, when somebody is granted citizenship lawfully, they have a right to retain citizenship lawfully. However, if somebody has acquired citizenship by fraud, misrepresentation, or knowingly concealing material circumstances, the government has an absolute right and duty to take that away in accordance with the law.

We have the revocation process, we have a certificate process, and there's an annulment process. It would depend on the circumstances of each case. We'd look at it and determine what's appropriate.

À (1055)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, this is where the whole confusion from the department comes from.

If the prosecutor charges me with fraud, I get to go to court and I get to contest the allegation of fraud. If I lose in the first instance, I have the right to appeal. With leave, I can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

What you are alleging is that the person committed a fraud in obtaining citizenship. Well, we have a presumption of innocence in this country. But with your process, by saying we give it and can take it away and that a person does not have the right to due process, what you imply is that there's no presumption of innocence.

Mr. Paul Yurack: No.

Ms. Rosaline Frith: Very clearly, there is an presumption of innocence. The person goes through a process in order to determine whether or not fraud occurred. In that first instance, under the normal revocation rules under clause 16, that person is able to proceed with appeals and can go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: But not clauses 17 or 18.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Unfortunately, we have a committee waiting. I apologize to any committee members who didn't get all their information down. I hope you would accept the fact that there will be a minute or two to clean up, but the other committee starts in two minutes.

Madeleine, you can have a final, very quick one.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'd like your opinion on two provisions, namely clause 42(2) and clause 44(1). Both of these provisions refer to the Minister's signature and make a point of noting that the signature's authenticity need not be verified. I find that rather surprising. I'm trying to understand the logic here and I wish you luck in trying to convince me. Is that brief enough, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

You can think about that and come back to the committee.

Mr. Paul Yurack: We'll get back to you.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, I'm sure you will.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Remember that you will get information Monday by 4 p.m., as soon as we have it together. On Tuesday morning, be ready to discuss the concerns you have with regard to that.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: And for dissident opinions, they're due 24 hours later?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Yes, 24 hours.

Thank you very much, folks. I appreciate it. Have a good day.

We're adjourned.