CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 3, 1999

• 1519

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): I shall now convene the meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

As you may know, we are engaged in a very important legislative study to examine Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship. We also know that it was about 52 years ago that the onset of Canadian citizenship began as a part of Canadian law and 22 years ago that the current act came into force.

• 1520

As we examine the new bill, we should be reminded that citizenship reflects the soul of any nation. Hence, Canadian citizenship reflects the essence of who we are as a people committed to democracy, freedom, fairness and equality.

We are honoured to have with us today as the first witness the honourable Minister Madam Lucienne Robillard and her departmental staff.

On that note, Madam Minister, may I invite you to start with your opening remarks, please, perhaps after introducing the members of your staff to the committee? Thank you, Madam Minister.

[Translation]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, I am pleased to appear today before the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration as they undertake this new stage which will soon lead, I hope, to the adoption of the Canadian Citizenship Act.

Since the bill was introduced, I have listened with interest to comments made by my colleagues, the members of Parliament, as well as by our citizens. I believe that the message that our government wanted to convey to the Canadian people has been well received. We did not simply intend to define the criteria for obtaining Canadian citizenship. We wanted and still want this Act to be a reflection of the value that we wish to give to one of the most respected citizenships in the world.

The present Citizenship Act is more than 20 years old. Even though the principles of the act remain current, the context in which it applies has changed. With individuals becoming more mobile, and the increase in trade and globalization, our planet has become even smaller; therefore, citizenship in a country such as ours has become more and more valuable. We should therefore take the time to reflect and ask ourselves what it will mean to be a Canadian citizen in the coming years.

Our citizenship is the very foundation of our identity as Canadians. Even though people who are born here don't necessarily think about it regularly, and even if, in many ways, we often take it for granted, the same cannot be said for those newly arrived. For them, obtaining Canadian citizenship is often the end of a very long road. It can represent freedom, the end of fear or oppression, but especially an opportunity to offer their children a future filled with possibilities.

Having Canadian citizenship isn't simply a requirement to obtain a passport or the right to vote. It is also, and especially, an important stage in becoming a full-fledged member of our society and its great humanitarian tradition of justice and fairness.

It is in the respect of what we are and with the vision of what we want to leave our children that we have prepared the new Canadian Citizenship Act which, we believe, satisfies all of the concerns expressed by our fellow citizens. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank all of the people who have contributed to this process and take a few minutes to speak to its main elements.

[English]

First, allow me to address the issue of citizenship by birth. As you know, Canada has always granted the automatic right to citizenship for those born on its soil. This is known as the principle of jus soli. You are also aware that the new Citizenship of Canada Act does not propose to change this fundamental principle.

I realize, having listened to the debates during second reading, that not everyone around this table agrees with granting automatic citizenship to all children born on our territory. Let me assure you that I understand some of the views expressed and I understand that there is some concern about the potential for abuse, but let me reiterate here again before this committee that we do not have any real evidence of abuse. We do not even know if a problem exists that needs to be addressed, let alone the scope of the problem.

As a matter of public policy, it would seem irresponsible to change such a fundamental aspect of Canada's citizenship policy without having clear reasons for doing so. We are undertaking research in this area in collaboration with the provinces to try to get a better understanding of these issues.

• 1525

I know that the committee is aware of some of the complexities of collecting this kind of research, but let me be clear. This issue is about much more than the collection of research or statistics. I firmly believe that Canadians are a very generous and compassionate people. We believe in equality. We believe in our humanitarian traditions. We believe in preventing statelessness. Let us not forget that the principle of granting citizenship in Canada is based on birth on our soil and is a Canadian tradition that predates Canada's existence as a nation.

In keeping with our tradition of justice and fairness, we also propose changes to ensure greater equity between natural-born and adopted children. With the new act, a foreign child adopted by a Canadian will be granted citizenship without having to go through the immigration process, which is currently the case. Of course, since adoption falls under provincial jurisdiction, the adoption must conform to the laws of the place where the adoption takes place and to those of the province in which the adoptive parents reside.

Last week, I travelled across the country to meet with my provincial counterparts. The provinces generally supported our objectives in principle and agreed to work with us to achieve these objectives. Let me be clear again. If meeting our objectives requires making amendments to our bill or adjustments to our regulations, we are prepared to do so. I am of course also open to the suggestions of this committee.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, there are many Canadians who acquired their citizenship not by birth but by naturalization. Canada has always welcomed people from all over the world and has encouraged them to become full and equal participants in our society.

One of the main features of the new act is the clear and precise definition of criteria for obtaining citizenship by naturalization. Our primary goal is to ensure that people who obtain Canadian citizenship have a deep commitment to their adopted country. We believe that such a commitment is possible only if the person is physically in the country. With this in mind, we have refined the residency criteria.

As many of you have noticed, the current legislation does not include the word “physical”, leaving too much room for interpretation on the meaning of “residence”. The new act phrases the residency conditions in more precise terms, requiring physical presence in the country.

Mr. Chairman, let me reassure committee members that I do understand that many newcomers need to travel extensively, either for business or for personal reasons. Many maintain strong economic and social links with their countries of origin and Canada benefits from these links. That is why, with Bill C-63, we provide these permanent residents with the flexibility to travel outside Canada by extending the period during which they need to meet the physical requirement from four to five years. This criteria provides a necessary balance between two key principles: protecting the value of Canadian citizenship while providing flexibility for prospective new Canadians.

The bill also includes requirements for adequate knowledge of our country and for adequate knowledge of one of our official languages. This is not new, Mr. Chairman. The current legislation, the 1977 act, includes these requirements as well. The proposed legislation clarifies the intent of these provisions. We want applicants to be familiar with the values of Canadian society and to be able to demonstrate their familiarity without the help of an interpreter.

Let us remember to distinguish the issue of citizenship from permanent residence. Let us remember that citizenship is not only about rights but also about responsibilities. I think it is very reasonable for Canada to expect its new citizens to know about their chosen country and to be able to express themselves in one of its official languages.

[Translation]

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, you know that most applications for citizenship are quite straightforward. That is why we have decided to simplify the process, by having citizenship officers process the applications.

• 1530

But beyond the more practical aspect of granting citizenship, we strongly believe that we must give ourselves some means to promote the values that are closely related to Canadian citizenship within our communities. This will be accomplished through the use of citizenship commissioners; they will be Canadian men and women who have demonstrated, through their contribution to our society and by their involvement in the community, that they are capable of fulfilling the role with enthusiasm and dignity.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that everyone around this table would agree that one of the most important symbols of our Canadian citizenship is our pledge of allegiance. Canada's citizenship oath has not been amended in over 50 years. It is high time to adapt it to the Canada of today to ensure that it reflects our values and our pride as Canadians.

The proposed oath includes a clear commitment to Canada and a respect for our rights and freedoms. When new Canadians pledge their allegiance to Canada, they will also commit themselves to observing our laws and to fulfilling their duties and obligations as members of Canadian society. I have no doubt that the oath will be the subject of debate within this committee, and it is a debate I welcome.

[Translation]

When we drafted the bill that you will soon be analyzing, we also had a look at what was done elsewhere, in other countries. I am proud to introduce a bill which, while increasing the value of our citizenship, ensures that it will always be possible for a newcomer to obtain our citizenship. This means that our country will continue to welcome immigrants. Very few countries give an opportunity to those who are not born there to fully integrate their country of adoption, and to become full-fledged citizens of that country.

Mr. Chairman, that is what distinguishes us, as Canadians. My colleagues will no doubt have comments to make that will help us to improve this bill. I hope that on the eve of the year 2000, we will be able to give Canada an Act which reflects our values and our aspirations.

[English]

This is an important task, one that I know this committee will take seriously.

I am open to your suggestions, Mr. Chairman, and I am ready today to answer some of your questions with some of my officials from my department: Madam Janice Cochrane, deputy minister, and Madam Martha Nixon, assistant deputy minister for operations;

[Translation]

Who is in charge of policy for the department, Ms. Joan Atkinson, another Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Georges Tsaï; Mr. Sabourin, who is directly involved in the citizenship bill, and who is with the Citizenship Branch at our Department; and Mr. Greg Fyffe, Assistant Deputy Minister for policy. That is all.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister.

Before I open the floor to colleagues for questions, I will remind us that we are embarked on this study pursuant to an order of reference of the House dated March 1, 1999, with respect to consideration of Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship and that the order of reference ordered that Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Therefore, as your chair, I shall call clause 2.

Now I shall open the floor to questions. We will go to the official opposition and Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Madam Minister and officials. I'm very pleased to have you here this afternoon.

I agree with you, Madam Minister, when you say that citizenship is something that is very important to people who are either in the process of working towards becoming a citizen or who have recently received citizenship and have become citizens. It seems to be most important to those people, although I think all of us take a lot of pride in being Canadian citizens.

Citizenship itself is important, and the process of achieving citizenship certainly is important as well. Also, the conduct of the department is important, Madam Minister, and the questions that I'm going to ask have more to do with the conduct of the department.

The first thing I want to ask about is a recent situation that has been occurring in British Columbia in regard to Constable Mark Applejohn. It's one that you really haven't responded to, although the media have talked to you about it.

• 1535

When this was covered yesterday by BCTV, your response was to the effect that if your departmental official felt he should make a comment on the decision, then that's what he should do. So you condoned your official from western Canada making the comments regarding the RCMP officer—a very tough censure of the RCMP officer. I would just like to ask you why your department is attacking someone for saying something that's absolutely true.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Madam Minister. I'll allow you to answer the question, but the chair finds the substance of the question difficult.

You refer to a decision that committee members are not even informed about unless we have read the media. Could you be more specific?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Hopefully you'll become more informed as we go along.

The Chairman: Could you be more specific as to the substance before I allow the minister to respond to your question? The chair finds it difficult.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, I'd be willing to—

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): A point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Madam Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what my colleague's question has to do with the Minister's presence here, since she has come to discuss Bill C-63 involving citizenship.

[English]

The Chairman: The chair will rule that the point of order is premature at this point because the chair has not established the substance of the question.

Will you please inform the committee as to the substance of the question?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, my questions are for the minister. I would say that any question regarding how the minister runs this department is in order because I think how she runs the department certainly reflects, in a very important way, on the citizenship legislation that is now before the House.

My question is in regard to the minister's actions and the department's actions about a specific incident in British Columbia.

The Chairman: The incident relates to what issue—citizenship or immigration?

Mr. Leon Benoit: If the chairman would just let me ask my questions he would find out.

The Chairman: You posed your question and the chair is unclear as to the subject matter, as to whether it is citizenship or immigration.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, my questions are to the minister. She understands the question very well.

The Chairman: Yes, but the chair has a duty to maintain order and clarity for the benefit of all members. Can you answer the question very simply? Is the question about immigration or about citizenship, because the Department of Citizenship—

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's about both, Mr. Chair. It's in regard to the department and the way the department is run.

The Chairman: The department has two components: citizenship and immigration.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Doesn't want to answer the question—

The Chairman: Can you pose the question more clearly?

Mr. Leon Benoit: This has a direct connection with citizenship, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Can you please pose your question more clearly?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

Did the minister understand my question?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I did not understand the link with the citizenship bill—not at all.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The link with the citizenship bill is irrelevant, Madam Minister—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Leon Benoit: When we come to committee—

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

Mr. Leon Benoit: —we have a right to ask the minister any questions that we choose to ask.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: —Mr. Benoit has clearly established that he's going to be asking a question that is outside the scope of this bill. Mr. Chairman, this is an act that as a committee we should be celebrating—

Mr. Leon Benoit: This is not a point of order. This is a—

The Chairman: Could you come to the point of order, Mr. Telegdi?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chair, it is imperative that we talk about issues contained in this bill. I just advise the chair that when we took this bill through the House at second reading all we got was issues and questions and comments related to immigration and refugees.

The Chairman: The chair has heard your submission. I would like to indicate that the chair rules that the question is out of order because the member himself admitted that it is irrelevant to the subject matter at hand.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I did no such thing, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: You just mentioned that it's irrelevant.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I said that I certainly could... It is a clear rule—

The Chairman: The chair rules you out of order on that question. Can you pose another question?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the question is very much in order according to Bill C-63. If you look at page 4, at subclause 6(1) of the bill, it states, “The Minister shall, on application, grant citizenship to a person who”, and then paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) follow.

• 1540

The honourable member is asking you a question about citizenship in reference to the word “who”, because the minister will grant citizenship to a person “who”, and the definition of “who” is in the four paragraphs in the bill. The honourable member's question is very much relevant because he's talking about “who”.

The Chairman: The chair has heard your submission.

Can you relate your question to that clause of the bill, please?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. Mr. Chair, certainly you recognize that when we're asking a question on legislation, the operations of the department and the operations of the minister certainly play an important role in how this legislation will be applied. My questions are in fact in regard to how the department is run generally and how the minister conducts herself as the elected official that runs the department.

The Chairman: Madam Minister, would you like to comment on that question? Is the question clear to you, Madam Minister?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: What is the question, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, could you please repeat the question?

Mr. Leon Benoit: The question is in regard to the recent episode in British Columbia when Constable Mark Applejohn was told by your head of western operations that he shouldn't be commenting in public on the problem with Honduran drug dealers in that area. In your response yesterday, you said something to the effect that if your departmental official felt it was appropriate to respond, he should have responded.

I would just like to ask you, Madam Minister—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't think that we're in the process of granting citizenship to Honduran drug dealers, and I would ask all members, Mr. Chairman, to refer to the order of the day that's before us, which clearly says that “pursuant to an order of reference of the House dated March 1, consideration of Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship” should be dealt with at this committee. The minister is appearing to answer questions.

I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the role of the opposition is to probe, but it seems to me that in the documentation on the Citizenship Act we have been provided with, there's enough to probe without us trying to either ask questions that we were unable to get in at Question Period through our caucus or to deal with individual issues that all of us have in our ridings.

Coming from Mississauga West, I can assure you that I have a full-time staff person who does nothing but immigration, Mr. Chair. Immigration is not what this is about; it's about citizenship, about the birthright, the oath and all of the issues that the minister has put before us. I wish that members would put their questions in those areas.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Benoit, please continue.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, what's completely clear here is that the attitude of that official in his comments to the RCMP officer regarding the RCMP officer, his attempt to use that heavy-handed approach to keep the RCMP officer quiet, is also alive and well in committee here.

Mr. Grant McNally: That's absolutely right.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The members opposite aren't even allowing me to ask the minister my question, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Grant McNally: Hand us the talking points—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would like it if there were no interruptions—

The Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Grant McNally: —and we can ask the questions you want us to ask.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Because your caucus won't let you ask it in the House, you try to get it in here.

The Chairman: Order, please. The committee members are now engaged in debate and ought not to be. We have a witness before us.

I can see that you have one minute to go.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, Mr. Chair. I haven't even asked my question yet. The members opposite won't allow it. That certainly is not my time that's being used in that debate.

The Chairman: The chair rules that you are out of order in that question. May I read to you—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, if you—

The Chairman: May I read the question to you?

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): It's time to have law and—

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's for sure.

The Chairman: The committee is bound by the decision of the House. So Mr. Mahoney is right: we should be bound—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, my question—

The Chairman: —to follow the order of reference.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —refers to specific parts of this citizenship bill. If you look at that subclause 6(1), it says, “The Minister shall, on application, grant citizenship to a person who”, and in paragraph (b)—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Can we ask our colleague to put his question to the Minister? If the Minister doesn't want to answer it, he will ask another one. We must all have an opportunity to speak. I would recommend that my colleague ask questions because we all want to do the same. He is entitled to ask questions on whatever subject he wishes, and the Minister has the right not to answer. But we should get going because we have better things to do than to witness this. If she doesn't want to answer, then she need not answer, but we must respect the time.

[English]

An hon. member: It's irrelevant.

The Chairman: Order, please.

Can you please proceed with your line of approach, Mr. Benoit?

• 1545

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have just a point of clarification first, Mr. Chair. I would just like to ask how much time I have. All I was allowed to do was to ask the question. Then I was interrupted. Do I have 10 minutes left, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: No. You have four minutes left. If I were to track everything that we had used otherwise—

Mr. Leon Benoit: So if I interrupt others with points of order then you're going to just shut us down. You're not going to allow them to speak?

The Chairman: I was keeping track. When you posed the first question, you were at about three minutes. You posed it again and you were at about two minutes. About five or six minutes passed. I excluded the debates on the points of order. The chair is fair.

Proceed, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Madam Minister, are you prepared to answer the question or not?

The Chairman: Pose the question, please.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So I'm going to pose the question a third time and you're going to call that another three minutes and I'm not going to be allowed to ask a question! The minister will have no time to answer, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Madam Minister, are you—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: It's irrelevant, Mr. Chair. I don't think he has the right to ask it.

The Chairman: Order, please. I would suggest that before committee members take the floor they refer to the chair, please, so that we will have order.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I think that will be helpful, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Okay. You posed a question. The minister heard it. I have ruled that it is out of order, but if the minister would like to comment, she is free to do so.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, this event happened in British Columbia yesterday, and it is related to immigration matters. It was an action taken by one of my officers there in front of another officer of the RCMP because that RCMP officer made public comments about our legislation. My manager in B.C. took appropriate action, and it was in the newspaper yesterday. It was about immigration matters.

Having said that, I think that my assistant deputy minister responsible for operations could go into more detail—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Madam Minister, are you saying—

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: —and would like to.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —that the action you took—

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, excuse me, please. When the chair intervenes, can you please respect the position of the chair?

Are you willing, Madam Nixon, to add to the answer or not?

Ms. Martha Nixon (Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): I'm willing to answer if he's willing to—

The Chairman: Would you like to hear from Ms. Nixon?

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, I would not. The question was for the minister, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Pose your question again, for the second time.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Madam Minister, on the same question, why do you and your department insist on attacking the RCMP rather than attacking the problem? Everyone knows that the problem with Honduran refugees exists in British Columbia—

The Chairman: Order!

Mr. Benoit, you are exhausting the patience of the chair. The chair rules that you are out of order. Unless you change the question, I will proceed to our next colleague.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I was asking a follow-up question, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: The follow-up question is out of order.

Mr. Leon Benoit: My second question, Madam Minister, is about this: when the refugees come to the country they're fingerprinted upon entry, but there's no standard procedure in place for those fingerprints to be cross-checked with Canadian law enforcement officers or law enforcement agencies from other places in the world.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a question. What part of the word “citizenship” does Mr. Benoit not understand?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Many of these refugees—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What part of the word “citizenship” do you not understand? You're bringing up fingerprinting of refugees. That could well be an issue for the minister to appear about in front of this committee with some future legislation. It is nowhere, sir, in this bill!

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, could I respond to that?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Many of these—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's tiny talent time here.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would think that the honourable member would recognize that most people who apply for refugee status intend to become citizens.

Mr. Grant McNally: That's right.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's all part of the same process, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Grant McNally: It sure is.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I am shocked at the way I am being censored here by the members opposite—and by the chair, quite frankly.

Mr. Grant McNally: That's the way they do it. They don't want the question.

The Chairman: You are not being censored.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I am, Mr. Chair!

An hon. member: Out of order!

The Chairman: Proceed.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd just like you to review this later.

Again, my question: although refugees are fingerprinted upon entering Canada, there's no cross-check done with other law enforcement agencies in Canada or abroad, and I'd just like to ask the minister why that isn't done.

The Chairman: Madam Minister, you have 30 seconds.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, again, this is not a matter related to the bill we have in front of us, but I'm ready to answer if you want to discuss immigration matters this afternoon.

• 1550

As we know, asylum seekers who come to our country have fingerprints done at the front end and they are cross-checked in our database.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, you have the floor.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But Mr. Chair—

The Chairman: Order. Mr. Ménard has the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have two pieces of good news for the Minister and five questions.

First of all, I would like to tell the Minister that we will be supporting the bill. Secondly, as Quebec sovereignty is inevitable, we fully understand the significance of citizenship.

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: This is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Chair. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But I don't expect her to share my enthusiasm, obviously.

I will ask five brief questions in sequence and you may answer them afterwards.

You will remember that in December of 1995, we adopted in the House of Commons—I don't remember whether you were with us then—a resolution dealing with the distinct society and the specific nature of Quebec. Can you tell us how this resolution is reflected in the bill that you are sponsoring?

Secondly, representations were made to you by Ministers Boisclair and Rochon concerning international adoptions. They fear that this will short-circuit the foreign adoption process, since, as you know, in Quebec, a court must recognize the adoption. Can you tell us what stage you have reached in your talks with your provincial counterparts in Quebec?

Thirdly, people in Quebec have said that the knowledge of French should not be subject to an evaluation. Should there not be some specific assessment of the knowledge of that language for future Canadian citizens who wish to settle in that province? Is that something that you have considered?

Fourthly, I would like you to further explain the matter of the commissioners. How will they be appointed? Will they come under the Public Service Employment Act? How much will they be paid? We would like to have all of the information that will allow us to better understand this new role.

This is my last question. In the oath of allegiance, why is there no specific reference made to Aboriginals and the distinct nature of Quebec, since it is a nation?

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you agree that Quebec is a nation?

Ms. Folco, you are hurting my feelings.

[English]

The Chairman: Please, if you would like to take the floor, I would appreciate it if you would please refer your request to the chair.

Madam Minister.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: I will link questions one and five, since both questions deal with the distinct society.

Quite clearly, the bill we have before us in no way affects the motion adopted by the House of Commons. I don't remember whether the Bloc voted for or against, Mr. Chairman; it probably voted against. The Bloc voted against the motion and now wants me to comply with it. That strikes me as rather strange but nonetheless it is quite clear that the government does recognize Quebec as a distinct society.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Where is that to be found in the bill?

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear that in the oath of allegiance an attempt was made to emphasize the values and beliefs of greatest importance to Canadian citizens. After a great deal of consultation, study and analysis, we know that what is dearest to the heart of Canadians are the democratic values of our country and the freedoms we enjoy.

Our purpose then was to have this oath of allegiance reflect allegiance to Canada, its democratic values, respect for the law rather than a description of the various characteristics of the country, such as, for example, the distinct society, the Aboriginal peoples and all the cultural communities. So it is not a list describing the characteristics of our country but rather an oath of allegiance, that to which we are swearing allegiance. This was the spirit in which the oath was drafted.

Secondly—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Excuse me. Before turning to the second subject, could you answer my first question? You are too nice to do that kind of thing. Here is my question. The content of the motion on the distinct society must find some echo in the legislation adopted by the House of Commons. Tell me where such a reflection of this resolution is to be found in the bill. That is what I'm asking.

• 1555

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that each of the bills presented to the House of Commons must necessarily contain a specific reference to the distinct society. That is not what I said.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But where is this to be found in the bill? I don't want to interrupt you because I know that you don't like it, but is there not a failure to follow through with the adoption of such a motion since no echo of it is to be found in the bill? I don't think that you were present here at the time, although I felt your presence was necessary. You cannot maintain that Quebec is a cultural community like the others. That cannot be your position. So if we are a nation, would it not have been preferable for the legislator to recognize this both in the oath of allegiance and in the bill?

Could you please refer me to the appropriate section? I'm not like the member of the Reform Party. I intend to stick to the bill, and you know that.

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to remind the Member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve that I was elected in February 1995 and that I voted for the resolution on Quebec as a distinct society whereas he voted against it.

Secondly, I'd like to say that the bill we have before us is perfectly compatible with the motion on the distinct society although there is no specific clause in the bill that refers to it.

Mr. Réal Ménard: In what way?

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: In general terms.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Don't get angry. Explain it to me.

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: No, no. Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that the bill we have before us is for all Canadians, including Quebeckers, Albertans, Ontarians, the Aboriginals, in other words for all those who are Canadian citizens.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But why the failure to say so, Madam Minister? I very much enjoy having an exchange with the Minister. She didn't quite answer my question and I am enjoying my exchange with her. Why was this not specifically stated? There may be a reason that escaped me. I know you are a gifted teacher. If you explain it to me, I'll understand. Why was it not felt necessary to speak of this country that you describe as being made up, among others, of a distinct society forming a nation with its own history and specific institutions? If you explain the reason to me, I'll understand.

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, let me repeat for the last time...

[English]

The Chairman: Before I allow the minister to proceed to answer your question, let me say that it's a very innovative approach that you have adopted, Mr. Ménard. I am trying to relate it to the bill. I was listening carefully, so I have not interrupted you yet. You were asking why something is not in the bill. I'm a little afraid that could create a precedent, that we will be discussing something that is not relevant to the bill by just asking why it is not in the bill. I think—

Mr. Grant McNally: Well, what can we ask about?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I warn you not to intervene in a manner incompatible with your role. Allow me the privilege of asking questions. The Minister is old enough to answer herself and I am quite confident that she will find her way and provide the answers she wishes. So I'll listen to her answer.

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Minister.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, the bill we have before us, entitled An Act respecting Canadian Citizenship, is first and foremost an Act setting out the conditions under which citizenship will be granted. How is Canadian citizenship recognized in this country? You understand that it is not an Act that describes Canada as a whole along with its specific characteristics. It is an Act that sets out the principles for the granting of Canadian citizenship to newcomers who wish to join our community. I repeat then that the legislator did not intend to describe Canada and its characteristics, one of which being the fact that Quebec is a distinct society. That is why you do not find a specific clause relating to the distinct society.

May I now move on to the second question?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Madam Minister.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, Madam Minister, proceed.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: The second question deals with international adoptions. Mr. Chairman, as a result of my visit last week to all my provincial counterparts, including my counterpart from Quebec, a number of concerns were raised. I think that they all agree on our aim of narrowing insofar as possible the gap between natural children and children adopted abroad. The application of this principle may give rise to certain problems. As you know, adoption is a provincial responsibility and Quebec in particular does have legislation on international adoption requiring all adoptions to be finalized directly in Quebec. This creates a problem with respect to application. At the present time, officials are engaged in discussions, not only with Quebec, in an attempt to solve this problem of application but also with the other provinces to try to settle the matter of the medical assessment of the child. We would of course like Canadian adoptive parents to be well informed about the medical situation of the child before they decide to adopt. I think we can all agree on that. Once the Canadian adoptive parents are made aware of the child's state of health, if they decide to adopt a sick or disabled child, that is their right. We are working on the method of applying this principle with the provinces.

• 1600

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could you answer my third and fourth questions?

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Excuse me. Then there was the matter of knowledge. Should there be a requirement for...

[English]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It has not expired, has it? I cannot believe that.

The Chairman: It has expired. I am guided by a digital clock.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Let me have a look at it. Good enough. I'll come back in the second round.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Martin, you have the floor. Five minutes, please.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Minister. I'll try to limit these questions specifically to Bill C-63—

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Pat Martin: —just to be novel. There are three quick questions I'd ask you to answer.

First of all, with respect to the test for citizenship being conducted in one of the two official languages, I actually went to some of the touring task-force hearings that you held across Canada over a year ago and witnessed speaker after after speaker vigorously arguing against this, so I'd ask you to rationalize or justify that somewhat. In one of the criticisms that I've heard recently, it is being likened to the Jesse Helms law in the U.S., which was specifically designed to keep Hispanic citizens out of that country. There's some very harsh criticism currently being levied about that in the advocate community.

Second, the Canadian Council for Refugees criticizes the abolition of the citizenship judges and putting those powers in the hands of bureaucrats. Again, I'd ask you to expand on that.

Third is the oath. In many of the articles leading up to Bill C-63, you were quoted as saying you were going to introduce an oath for the new millennium, an oath that might promise pledges to our northern landscape or to each other or to our country. Yet in the oath that was tabled, we see, specifically referenced and named, the monarchy and the Queen of England. What happened to the logic leading up to the new oath for the millennium and what bound us to the existing pledge to the monarchy that we've always had?

The last question, which I'm asking on behalf of another member of our caucus, is this: for any reference to spouse in the bill—I believe clause 43 make reference to spouse—will the definition of spouse include same-sex couples in your interpretation of clause 43 in the future?

The Chairman: Madam Minister.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Who asked that?

Mr. Pat Martin: A member of our caucus.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the first question about the test for official languages, about whether the person speaks one of the two official languages and the reference to the consultation that I had last year, I want to note a difference here.

Last year, as you remember, we had the report from an advisory committee about legislation on immigration. One of the recommendations of that advisory group was to have as a basic criteria in the selection of immigrants the ability to speak one of the two official languages. It means, according to their recommendation of last year, that even to come here as a landed immigrant you should know the language in advance. I refused that recommendation.

• 1605

It's a plus to know a language when you come here as an independent immigrant. You integrate more quickly into the community and the labour force, of course, but I do not want that criteria to be a bar to entry to our country. This applies to coming here as a permanent resident. It's possible that a permanent resident will come here who doesn't know the language.

But here we are speaking about citizenship. It's after three years or five years that you're in the country. It depends on what you choose yourself. The requirement is to be physically in the country for three years; you are already a permanent resident, but now you want to go further and take another step and become a citizen of the country. Here is the requirement, which is already the case in the current Citizenship Act: if you want to become a citizen of this country, you must have a knowledge of the language in order to be able to communicate with other fellow citizens. It's already in our current act. Here we reinforce it. This is the philosophy of why we maintain that obligation in the Citizenship Act. It's one thing to be a permanent resident; it's another to want to become a citizen of the country.

With respect to question two, we changed the role of the judges and gave the power of decisions to the officials because we've succeeded in clarifying the residential requirement. In our current legislation, we require three years of residence but we do not define what residence is. In the new act, it will be clear: three years of physical presence in the country. It's very easy to apply. It's an objective criteria, and because you have an objective criteria, I think that officers from the department can make the decisions. That's the reason.

The Chairman: Madam Minister, I do regret it, but—

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: With respect to question three—

The Chairman: —I have to interrupt your answer at this time. I'll proceed to Mr. Doyle.

You have five minutes, please.

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): The minister can finish if she wants to.

The Chairman: On your time?

Mr. Norman Doyle: Yes.

The Chairman: Madam Minister.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Question three was about the oath, Mr. Chair, about keeping the monarchy, the Queen, in the oath. Wasn't it?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes. Why keep the Queen in the oath?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: As you've seen, we've decided to add our country, Canada, and pledge allegiance to both: to our country and to the Queen because she's the head of state. Let me say very clearly that I didn't want to have the debate on the monarchy system in our country through the oath of allegiance in the Citizenship Act, because this is not what it is about. The day we have a debate like that in the country—if one day we have it—we'll have it, but this is the Citizenship Act. Right now we live in a system that is a monarchy. The head of state is the Queen, so we keep the Queen and we add Canada. We pledge allegiance to the country, Canada, and to the Queen. This is the reasoning.

The last question, Mr. Chair, is about the definition of spouse. Let me clarify something very important here, because this is not the first time I've received this question.

The basic principle of that act is that the citizenship decision is made on an individual basis, so if you live as a couple—you're married, you're not married, you're common-law partners, you're same-sex partners—and you're both permanent residents and you live in the country, each of you can apply and get your citizenship. It has nothing to do with the link of the couple. Let's be clear about that.

• 1610

The only exception that you will find in this new Citizenship Act—immigration will be another matter—is in the cases where you're a Canadian and you're a public service officer, une fonctionnaire, an official, a civil servant or in the forces armées of Canada and you live with a spouse and because of your job you're going abroad. The exemption here is for the spouse, who will not require the three-year residency in the country because that person is the spouse of the Canadian living abroad for his job. This is the only exemption. Here what we are saying is that the definition of the spouse will be in the regulation, it will be pre-published, it will be discussed publicly and the final decision will be taken by the government at that time.

The Chairman: Mr. Doyle, you have two more minutes.

Mr. Norman Doyle: I think I have time for a couple of brief questions.

Madam Minister, with respect to the three-year requirement for an individual to be in the country on a continuous basis, how will we keep track of the time actually spent in the country for citizenship? One of the problems we've been talking about on an ongoing basis here is how difficult it is to keep track of people in the system. How do you propose to keep track of an individual to ensure that he is in the country for three years? People have been known to apply with just a mailing address in the country. How do you propose to keep track of that?

My second question deals with the fact that children born in Canada—except children of foreign diplomats—automatically become Canadian citizens. What happens, say, in the case of a person who is entering Canada and files a refugee claim or a citizenship claim and gives birth? What if the claim is refused? What if a person is ordered deported after giving birth? What about the child, who is now a Canadian citizen? Would the child have to leave too? Reasonably, can the child be left behind if the parents are deported?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the first question about the proof for the three-year residency, we intend to proceed on document proofs. That means the person could bring different documents in front of us. It could be passports.

Mr. Norman Sabourin (Registrar of Canadian Citizenship, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): It could be tax returns.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It could be school records from the kid. We want evidence on documents. Right now we're looking at other countries that have exactly that requirement, and it works.

Let me tell you that we consider most of the people who apply to become citizens of this country honest people. Our approach is this: from different documents, prove to us that you were in the country for three years.

If you want more detail on that, my director, Mr. Sabourin, is here and is ready to answer in more detail.

The Chairman: Perhaps, Madam Minister, you might proceed to the second part of the question, because the time is just about up.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Okay. The child born in Canada receives automatic citizenship in the current system and we do not intend to change that with the Citizenship Act that you have in front of you. You are right in saying that if somebody comes here temporarily—an asylum seeker, a student, a foreign temporary worker—and has a kid during the time that she is in the country, the kid is Canadian.

If we have to remove that person to the country of origin, the kid is Canadian and the parents are not, so there are some problems when we make that decision. We have to take the whole situation into account. Let me tell you that right now we have a case exactly like that in front of the Supreme Court. We'll wait to see what the orientation of the Supreme Court will be. Right now the parents choose to leave their kids here in the country or to bring the kids with them to the country of origin.

• 1615

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister.

Mr. Doyle, I allowed a few minutes since you shared the sentiments of the previous questioner.

To Madam Folco, ten minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: First of all, I'd like to congratulate the Minister for presenting Bill C-63 on Canadian citizenship and thank her for coming to present this bill to us as our first witness. You can be sure that in the committee we will have all the time we need to discuss all the clauses, including certain ones that members of the opposition would like to add.

[English]

I think, or certainly hope, everyone around the table agrees that immigration has brought more than a positive contribution to the creation and building of this country. Access to citizenship certainly must remain linked to the respect of Canadian values, and this is something I've seen in the law.

[Translation]

The great generosity of Canadians is well known. Some years ago, the Canadian nation received the Nansen medal. It is a proof of this generosity. We also know that there are individuals who come to the country and attempt to take advantage of the generous system offered here.

What I think I can see in this bill is the responsibility of the government of Canada and your responsibility as Minister, not only to those newcomers who wish to have access to Canadian citizenship, but first and foremost to Canadian citizens of long standing.

I'd like to turn to the clauses in the bill relating to loss of citizenship, that is clauses 13 to 18. I don't enjoy discussing the negative aspects but I do think that some attention should be paid to them since our purpose is to protect the people of Canada. In the old Citizenship Act, reference was made to revocation of citizenship. Bill C-63 refers to the Minister's power to make a citizenship annulment order, as I understand it.

I have two questions for you, Madam Minister. First of all, can you explain to us the difference between these two terms, "revocation" and "annulment order" and the concepts they refer to? Secondly, would you explain to us why you made this change to the bill? Thank you.

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, that's a very interesting question. I'll ask Mr. Sabourin to give you an explanation.

The Chairman: Mr. Sabourin.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to answer the question.

There are indeed two ways of losing citizenship under the bill. The first is also found in the present law, that is revocation of citizenship. In order to revoke citizenship, the government must prove that the person obtained citizenship by fraud. There was a slight change in the terms of the power allowing for the revocation of citizenship in order to reflect the jurisprudence of the Federal Court relating to the person's degree of intention. In the past 20 years, the citizenship of no more than 30 persons was revoked because of the extreme difficulty of the evidence required by the Federal Court in order to take such a step. That is the first power. It remains in effect under simplified terms with respect to application.

The second power is a new one. It is the power to annul citizenship, a power granted to the Minister and to be exercised within a five-year period. At first view, this power may seem rather excessive but it is based on objective criteria. Annulment of citizenship may take place only if the person has obtained citizenship by using a false identity or in contravention of the criminal prohibitions in the Act. Under the Act, the Minister shall not grant citizenship to persons who contravened the criminal prohibitions and, of course, the Minister must not give citizenship to someone making use of a false identity. It can therefore be claimed that the person should never have received citizenship in the first place, not being entitled to it, and that legally the person is not a citizen.

• 1620

That, generally speaking, is the extent of the two powers to be found in clauses 13 to 18.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you for your answer. I'd like to put another question. It concerns the citizenship commissioners and, more particularly, the citizenship ceremony.

I know that there is not much detail on this in the bill and I do not think that that is the appropriate place, but how do you see the role of citizenship commissioners as regards the ceremony itself? We feel, and I feel myself, that that ceremony should be an important moment in the lives of people becoming Canadian citizens and that it should be carried out with respect for Canada and for those participating in the ceremony.

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a very important question. As members of Parliament, we often have an opportunity to attend citizenship ceremonies and we understand how important the ceremony is for those obtaining their citizenship. It is often a very emotional moment, since these people have waited for a long time. It is almost their life's dream to become Canadian citizens. It is true that we hold the citizenship ceremony to be very important, for both its symbolism and its meaning to the individuals involved. In the old Citizenship Act, there was no mention of the ceremony, but it is so important that the new legislation, in clause 33, provides that those taking the citizenship oath do so at a ceremony and it indicates the purpose of the ceremony: "to heighten the awareness of new citizens", etc. Clause 33 is new and did not appear in the old legislation. The ceremony is included in the bill in order to indicate its importance.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Madam Minister, clause 33 states:

(2) In order to heighten the awareness of new citizens to the responsibilities and privileges associated with citizenship [...]

Personally, I am very pleased to see a clear statement of the balance that exists between the privileges conferred on new citizens and the responsibilities that these new citizens must assume as Canadian citizens. There is a balance being sought. I find that in subclause 33(2) and that makes me extremely happy. I believe that this is what the Canadian public wants us to do, to talk about the responsibilities as well as the privileges that come with Canadian citizenship.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

We will now proceed to Mr. Telegdi for five minutes.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, I think the legislation before us is both important and relevant. Approximately 5 million to 6 million Canadians were born outside of Canada. Out of 301 members of the House of Commons, 47 were born in another country, and I think of the committee, five were born outside of this country.

As you know, our number one citizen is former Prime Minister Mackenzie King, which makes the Citizenship Act about 52 years old. I might remind everybody around the table that his boyhood home, Woodside historical park, is located in Kitchener-Waterloo, which happens to be my riding. I invite everybody to come and visit us.

• 1625

Minister, one of the things that characterizes us as Canadians is that we are a mixture, coming from someplace else at some point in time, coming together in this country. We have many mixed marriages and families across this country—a building block to a nation, really.

The question I put to you is something I tried to answer for my daughter. She asked me, “Are Canadians a people?” My wife comes from Ireland a number of generations back, and I come from Hungary. I said to her, “You are a Canadian. I am a Canadian. We are a family. Yes, we are a people, a nation.”

Would you care to comment on that?

Mr. Grant McNally: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, how does that relate to Bill C-63?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Very simply—

Mr. Grant McNally: Which clause was that, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary? I don't see that in the bill.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Let me clarify that for the member of the Reform Party. It relates particularly to the role we have assigned to citizenship commissioners. One of the roles they have is to educate Canadians as to the meaning of citizenship and their history. In that way, it relates very much to the bill. It's very much the soul of the bill.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Madam Minister, would you like to comment on that question/comment?

[Translation]

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: With pleasure, Mr. Chairman. I think that the member has clearly demonstrated to his own daughter that the Canadian experiment is a happy and successful one.

[English]

He himself demonstrated that in front of his daughter.

That is why I think so many people around the world would like to become Canadian citizens. It's because of that, and because of the equality of citizens in this country. When somebody becomes a citizen, he becomes a full citizen of this country. Whatever his background was before, he has the same rights and the same responsibilities. That is what is so wonderful in our country.

I must say, that is what the success is as well. The fact of the matter is, Canada is one of the countries that considers diversity a strength and not a problem.

Sometimes you take it for granted when you live in this country, but when you travel around and compare it with other nations of the world, you realize what you have here. Sometimes we take our citizenship for granted, but when we compare with other experiences, I think we realize what we have here in our hands.

I think that's why the Citizenship Act is so important, not only to new citizens in this country but to all Canadians.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We now go to Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to have you here, Madam Minister. Things always get a little more exciting when you're in the room—no disrespect intended to my colleagues when we're here on our own.

I would just follow up on some of the comments made by my colleagues.

Mr. Sabourin, you mentioned criminals with false identity papers who become citizens, or who later become citizens, who should never have become citizens in the first place.

Madam Folco, you mentioned individuals who take advantage of a generous system. I would like to follow up on that a little bit.

Madam Minister, you made a comment—and I believe this is a direct quote from your opening statement—that you believe in preventing “statelessness”, which I think is addressed in the bill, just in case a point of order comes my way any second here.

I just wanted to relate that to the bill, just to let the honourable parliamentary secretary know that this is where this question is coming from.

I do want to talk about some individuals. Of course, people have to get here from somewhere before they can become citizens—surely we can all agree on that—whether they come through the economic class or the business class entrepreneurs or the family class.

• 1630

As well, refugees come here from other countries for the protection of our country. Those, of course, who are here legitimately, we want to open our arms to, and let them come into this country and offer them the protection of our great country.

I do want to talk briefly, though, about an abuse of the system going on. Mr. Benoit tried to mention that. Of course, individuals have to come from somewhere before they can become citizens. I'm going to ask about individuals coming as refugees who aren't actually refugees but individuals coming under false pretences to this country, who then might later apply to become citizens. I'm going to ask whether or not they would be able to apply as citizens under this bill.

I want to refer specifically—and this is also with regard to the topic Mr. Benoit mentioned—to the Citizenship and Immigration official who did respond to an RCMP officer who had questions about the citizenship and immigration system. He wrote a letter on behalf of an RCMP officer who simply spoke out against...well, not “against” anything; they simply said, look, we have to do something with the system.

First of all, I'm wondering whether or not you agree with your official—whether that's the appropriate action to be taken—and secondly, whether individuals who would come under this category should be allowed to become citizens as it relates to Bill C-63. There are two parts to that question.

I can gladly read the letter—I'm not sure if you saw it—from Chris Taylor, your regional director. He said:

Further to our conversation this afternoon, I am writing to officially complain of the action taken by Constable Mark Applejohn to be taped...and shown on two shows this week on BCTV regarding the Honduran refugee claimants. I consider these comments to reflect breaches of the Code of Conduct and the Oath of Allegiance. Transcripts of the two shows are attached.

Constable Applejohn has confirmed with my staff at Douglas Canada Immigration Centre that he indeed was the RCMP Immigration Undercover Officer who appeared on the show. I can only assume that he did this without support or direction from his superiors.

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

I'm wondering if this is the kind of action that Citizenship and Immigration is going to be taking when somebody talks about an abuse of the system—that is, rather than addressing the problem with the system, going after the person speaking out against the problem in the system.

The Chairman: Madam Minister, Mr. McNally is using the same document his colleague used earlier, which we ruled out of order.

He did develop some imagination—

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: —and therefore, on that basis, the chair will allow the question to prosper.

Madam Minister, can you respond to that question to the best you are able?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, of course all those matters are related to immigration legislation. Having said that, if you want me to answer, I would be pleased to answer, and to say that I think that my regional manager took an appropriate action.

Now that you've permitted that question, however, I would really like Mrs. Nixon, my assistant deputy minister responsible for operations, to add some comments.

The Chairman: Mrs. Nixon, you may proceed if you can relate it to citizenship.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: There's no link. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but there's no link, and if you put my assistant deputy minister in a situation like that...

We will answer on the side of immigration matters.

The Chairman: The chair will listen.

Ms. Nixon.

Ms. Martha Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do think the link with citizenship is extremely tenuous, but I do respect the member's creativity in trying to make the bridge.

The matter in which he has asked the question I think needs to be put in the context of what is going on with the long-standing relationship we have in British Columbia between our people and the RCMP and indeed others engaged in the very serious activity surrounding the issue you've mentioned.

I think it's important that people understand that Citizenship and Immigration officials have been working really closely with both local and provincial enforcement agencies in Vancouver to try to deal with this issue, which has been going on for a very long time.

I think we make a very conscious and strategic effort to ensure that when we work together as agencies across a number of different departments, we agree on strategies in terms of some of the raids that have been happening, and it's important that we support each other in this effort.

• 1635

I think our regional director general was in a sense trying to say, okay, we're working together on this problem, so let's work together. I think his action was undertaken in that spirit. Working together is indeed how we expect to continue in this issue.

So when you look at the letter, I think it was the result of the conversation that was had with the RCMP. The letter was solicited. I think it was entirely appropriate.

In our department, we very much appreciate the support the minister has offered in this affair.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Grant McNally: But the second part of the question was whether those individuals would be eligible for citizenship as it relates to Bill C-63.

The Chairman: I will allow that question during the next round, as has happened with the others.

Mr. Ménard—unless Mr. Ménard is willing to share.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have four short questions for the Minister. After analyzing your bill, an observer wrote the following, and I would like to know what you think about it:

As is often the case in federal legislation, the bill does not provide for any special application in Quebec. Thus, with respect to the citizenship requirements relating to language knowledge the bill does not take the extra step of specifying, as is done in some multilingual countries such as Switzerland and Belgium, that potential immigrants to Quebec must know French.

I would like to hear your views on that statement.

Second, I would like you to elaborate about the commissioners: their role, their appointment, their salary and everything we need to know as parliamentarians to have a clear understanding of this position.

Third, when Quebec becomes sovereign in a few years, will you recognize dual citizenship if you are still Minister?

Fourth, do you believe that Quebec is a nation? It is important that we understand each other.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, there are no grounds for a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Ménard.

What is the point of order being raised?

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I want to raise a point of order.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I hope that there is some basis for it.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I do not believe that the status of Quebec as a province or a State is part...

Mr. Réal Ménard: That is not a point of order. Members have a right to ask the Minister questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Order.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The questions were about the status of Quebec, and I have a right to know if an elected representative thinks that Quebec is a nation. I will respect her answer, but I have a right to ask her. If that does not suit you, get the hell out of here!

[English]

The Chairman: Order.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Don't ask questions to prevent members from speaking. We are elected members and we have a right to ask questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Order.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Let her answer the question!

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, when somebody raises a point of order, the chair listens to the point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That is not a point of order.

[English]

The Chairman: Allow the chair, if you will, to make a ruling.

Can you please complete your point of order.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Not only will I complete my point of order, Mr. Chair, but I would also like an excuse from the member across the table, who has used—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, there will be no apologies.

[English]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: —language in regard to me that is not acceptable at this meeting. I have the right to be sitting here. I am an elected member of Parliament, as is everyone else here, and I have been asked to leave.

The Chairman: Order.

Madam Folco, can you please focus on the point of order.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: My point of order, Mr. Chair, is the following. I have said in French before, and I'll repeat in English, that the status of Quebec, whether as a province within Canada or not, is not relevant to the Citizenship Act, which we see before us.

That's my point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That is not a point of order.

[English]

The Chairman: Order. Just a minute. Let me give my—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That is not a point of order, and you show a lack of respect for your colleagues when you do not allow them to ask questions. I you do not agree about Quebec's status, that is your right. I have always had a lot of respect for you, but this is the third time this afternoon that you have tried to shift the focus of the debate. Citizenship is linked to the question of nationhood. I am sorry.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Whether the Minister believes that Quebec is a nation or not, I will respect her opinion, but you will not prevent me from asking her the question as a member.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chairman, I...

[English]

The Chairman: Order! Please!

The chair rules it is in order as a question. The minister may proceed to answer the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That is an example of democracy.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I asked something else.

[English]

The Chairman: On the same point of order?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I also asked specifically, Mr. Chair, in English, for an apology from the member across the table who said, in French, crisse ton camp si tu n'aimes pas ça. In other words, he has asked me, in very impolite language, to leave this room.

I have asked for an apology from the member.

The Chairman: The chair has difficulty in that I did not hear the translation, and therefore cannot make the ruling. We can review the evidence, and at the appropriate time the chair will make the ruling on that one—unless the member will say that he did say it.

Did you say what she claimed you said?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I respect Ms. Folco because she is a woman of integrity, but three times this afternoon she has tried to prevent her colleagues from expressing themselves by raising points of order. I cannot accept that.

• 1640

It is possible within the House of Commons to disagree on certain issue connected with the constitutional debate. Citizenship has a connection with the constitutional debate, and my party will vote in favour of this bill. I am fighting for support within my party for this legislation because Canada has the right to have a Citizenship Act. But I also have the right to ask an elected representative how she sees and defines Quebec. If you cannot live with that, then there is a lack of democracy on your side.

[English]

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Ménard, you have said your piece.

Madam Minister, you may want to proceed to answer the question he posed about dual citizenship and the status of Quebec.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I heard four questions, Mr. Chairman, the first one being about the knowledge of French.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that there is a very clear distinction between the immigrant selection process and the process followed once they decide to become Canadian citizens. For the selection of immigrants, Quebec has a different system from the other provinces for assessing language knowledge, since Quebec is responsible for its own selection. It allocates a different number of points for knowledge of French.

Once you are a resident of Quebec and you decide to become a citizen of Canada, where there are two official languages, the requirement to know one of the two official languages is completely reasonable given the mobility rights of citizens in our country. New citizens who live in Quebec and speak French may easily decide to relocate to a French-speaking community in Manitoba or elsewhere. Everyone has mobility rights. I therefore feel that it is reasonable to require knowledge of one of our two official languages for the purposes of citizenship.

That said, Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to tell you that the integration of immigrants in Quebec and their acquisition of French-language skills is going very well because of the integration measures being piloted by the Quebec government. The results are conclusive.

The second question dealt with the commissioners. I think that it is very clear in the bill that the commissioners are chosen on the basis of their qualifications, meaning that they must already be very much involved in their communities, be recognized by the communities in which they are involved, have received the Order of Canada or a provincial order of merit or some other distinction, be community leaders recognized for their involvement. These people will be appointed by the Governor in Council; they will not come under the Public Service Employment Act, but will be appointed by the Governor in Council.

With respect to their salary, Mr. Chairman, there is a transitional measure that provides that the current citizenship judges will automatically become commissioners. I feel sure that those judges will keep their present salary. The salaries of new appointees will be assessed by the Privy Council on the basis of their responsibilities.

The third question involved Quebec separation. I will repeat what I said at my press conference when I tabled this bill. In that eventuality, God forbid, we would have a whole different debate. Citizenship issues would have to be negotiated. It is worth recalling the Supreme Court opinion to the effect that those negotiations would be very complex. So this aspect would be part of those negotiations. The bill before us is for Canada in its present form, as we know and love it.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Réal Ménard: —

[English]

The Chairman: I will give the floor to Mr. Martin, should he wish to seek it.

If not, I will go to Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for being here with us. Thanks as well to your officials.

• 1645

As a proud Canadian citizen, I appreciate the direction of the bill, but I'm also very conscious of my constituents and those NGOs and other organizations that work with individuals, helping them to get through their citizenship.

There are three items I'd like to ask you and your officials to address, simply because they are concerns that have been hovering around and that have been brought to my attention.

One is the lengthened residency requirement for citizenship. The critique that's made by people in the field goes something like this. Applicants for citizenship will no longer be able to count time in Canada before becoming permanent residents, and before becoming permanent residents, there is a three-year residency requirement. I think the thrust is really that when people spend a long time here waiting on status, etc., that is not counted as residency.

The second critique I've heard has to do with the issue of discretion, or loss of discretion, in decision-making, looking at the fact that decisions about citizenship will no longer be made by a citizenship judge; you put this in the hands of civil servants or bureaucrats. That reduces the ability to use all of the humanitarian circumstances, etc.

The third critique speaks to the cabinet powers to refuse citizenship; it's too broad, etc.

Those are comments that have come directly from people who are working with immigrants, with refugees, generally critiquing Bill C-63.

We have to respond to them as members of Parliament, and we have to get out there and educate our constituents as to the content of the bill. How do we answer to those, then, and can you cite the places in the bill that would refute the arguments put out?

The Chairman: Madam Minister.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: These three questions are very good ones, and I think you will have the opportunity perhaps to discuss them among members of the committee.

Let me emphasize here what was the basic orientation, and why we've chosen to have these requirements in the bill.

First, about the residency requirement, let me remind members that in the last legislation, twenty years ago, it was the intent at the time to ask for three years of residency in our country to get citizenship. It was, and still is, considered very generous, because as you know, in different countries they will ask for five years.

So it was the intent at the time to ask for three years, but because of that confusion about the definition of residency in the bill, we had different interpretations.

To me, asking a person for a three-year residency is a minimum if you want to give value to citizenship. When we give citizenship to a person, if it means something, if it means that person knows the country, shares the values of this country, and develops a sense of belonging to this country, she cannot develop that sense of belonging if she's not in the country. That's impossible—impossible. You have to convince me if you think it's possible. It's just impossible. You have to be here, to live here, to know your fellow citizens around you, and to live in your community.

We wanted to clarify what was not clarified twenty years ago. The intent was three years, so let's have three years. If you're not three years in the country, then wait a longer time before asking for citizenship.

We know that as permanent residents, people have a lot of rights and responsibilities in our country, but if you want to become not only a permanent resident but also a citizen, prove to us that you have a commitment to this country by being here.

• 1650

Let me tell you, I was shocked when I looked at certain files I had. I appealed these, by myself, as a minister, after citizenship judges decided to give citizenship to people who were in this country for only a few months. I said, “This is not possible if there's a value there.”

So this is the intent here. I would perhaps encourage the member to look at other countries and their legislation. You will see that even with that new requirement to be here in the country for three years we are generous to give citizenship after three years.

Two, the fact that it's not the citizenship judge any more but an officer means there will be a loss of discretion. Because we decide using an objective criterion now, or the three years of permanent residence, the discretion is narrower.

Let me tell you, more than 90% of the cases right now in front of the judge are very simple cases that could be decided right away. I don't see why we would keep that old system if we have objective criteria. That was the intent.

Three, on the decision by the cabinet to revoke citizenship in the public interest, I don't think it's too broad. In our country under the current act, if the person meets the basic requirements, you have to give citizenship, despite the behaviour, the attitude, or whatever the person is doing. You have to give it. You don't have any choice.

I think we've seen some exceptional cases, but it's happening, and it has happened. In a certain way, I think we need to have that power. If there is somebody who, really, all Canadians think shouldn't become a Canadian citizen, that becomes a really important reason.

The Chairman: At this point, I'd like to interrupt the minister and proceed to Ms. Sophia Leung to pose a question.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank Madam Minister and her colleagues for joining us to explain some of the details on this bill.

As the MP for Vancouver Kingsway, which is a most diverse community, I fully appreciate this bill. It's trying to focus more on the current needs and changes we have.

I have a couple of questions. First, regarding the knowledge about both Canada and language, I fully really appreciate that. We do need that as a basic requirement.

Now, with regard to paragraphs 6(1)(c) and (d), I'd like to know how you measure whether the applicants have adequate knowledge or are adequate in language. Do you have a test as before, a point system with a score? You must have a new system, and I'd just like to know a little bit about it.

Second, you have now a citizen commissioner with regard to the delegation of the minister's power, in clause 29. They are mainly for ceremonial and other purposes, I guess; you do have the civil servant, as my colleague mentioned earlier.

Again, what is the new mechanism you're using to assess and approve the citizenship—i.e., adequate or refused? I'm sure you have a system, a score or whatever, and I'd like to know a little bit more.

The Chairman: Madam Minister.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, about the testing of people on their knowledge of one of the two official languages, and their knowledge of Canada, as you know, in the current system we have a written test, for those who choose to have the written test, on knowledge of Canada.

• 1655

If they are able to answer all these questions about the written test they have in front of them, in English or in French, we conclude that they also know the language.

Some people, however, ask not to write the test but to go in front of the judge. When the person is in front of the judge, there are two tests asked by the judge. One is for the knowledge of Canada and the other is for the knowledge of the language in itself.

For the knowledge of the language in itself, the judge will ask the questions to the person in English or French. For the knowledge of Canada, she will permit an interpreter to be there.

What we are saying here is let's simplify the language we use with newcomers. We are saying here “adequate” knowledge of language. We are not speaking about an expert in language, or a perfectly bilingual person.

Do you know what I mean? It's a knowledge of the language whereby you are able to go into your community and speak with people in terms of basic services and all that. So let's simplify the language we use at these oral tests. We don't need an interpreter to be there.

We will look at the work of the committee on that. I'm sure my officials, when you come to clause-by-clause, will answer in detail what our intentions are for applying these tests.

Two, Mr. Chair, I think my colleague came back to the same question about the role of the commissioner and the fact that the decision on citizenship will now be taken by citizenship officers.

I want to point out that in subclause 31(7), where you have the role of the commissioner, there's a possibility here for the minister to request advice from the commissioner. So here, on what your other colleague asked about discretion, if we have a very complex case in front of us, not easy to decide, I could ask a commissioner to look at that complex case before making the final decision.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you very much.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, even though my colleague did not get answers to the questions he asked, I will still extend a courtesy to the minister and her staff, who have taken time to come to the committee. I welcome them to the committee.

I have two brief questions. First, reading through Bill C-63, I find out that this bill very well signifies that the minister has increased power for herself to make closed-door decisions without oversight by Parliament, particularly in clause 34 of the bill with reference to the citizenship oath.

There was no public input on the content of the new oath. This was not debated in Parliament to determine what the wording of the oath should be.

The redefinition of “family”, particularly the definition of “spouse” for the purposes of the act, and the relationship of parent and child—I didn't hear any public input on that. I think the minister is leaving it up to the courts rather than to Parliament to decide what the definitions should be. I think the minister has given enough power to the courts to make law and to complicate the situation, which they already have been doing.

My point is that the intent of the bill is either left to the courts or it's left to the regulations, which we have never seen.

Has the minister prepared the regulations to Bill C-63, and if she has, is she prepared to table them with this committee?

The Chairman: Madam Minister.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, Mr. Chair, when the member says the oath was designed behind closed doors, I do not agree. Let me tell you, there was discussion about that publicly, all over the country. There was consultation and research, and there were studies and polls.

More than that—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Would the minister—

The Chairman: Please allow the minister to finish.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I heard the answer, Mr. Chair. My next question will help the minister to answer it better.

• 1700

Would the minister be prepared to table those results she just now talked about?

The Chairman: I will respond to that question when the minister completes her answer.

Have you completed it?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No, I didn't finish.

More than that, I said—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I'm sorry for interrupting.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: —the bill is now in front of the committee, in front of Canadians. You will discuss that publicly. I think you will have hearings on that, too. This is the place to have public debate—Parliament. So I think that's an open process, through legislation.

During the time you will be working on the bill in committee, we will be working on the regulations, as we are right now. If there's any will to look at where we are with the regulations, we would be pleased to discuss it with you.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you.

I'd like to go to my second question, Mr. Chair.

My constituency of Surrey Central is one of the largest constituencies in Canada in terms of population, and I have more immigrants than registered voters in the riding. It thus becomes very important that I really look into the issue of immigration, along with citizenship.

Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, I will cross over the bridge, built by colleague already, between immigration and citizenship. I am still on Bill C-63.

I have some constituents who came to my office and who want to take Canadian citizenship. Those people have been in this country for ten years, and they want to embrace Canadian citizenship.

The point they are making—and I would like to get the answer from the minister so that I can tell my constituents the answer—is how can they embrace Canadian citizenship? They have been in the loop, in the system, for over ten years, and their fate in Canada is not yet decided because of the mess in the immigration and refugee system.

Why did the minister choose to address citizenship first and immigration and the refugee system later? What answer should I give them? When will their immigration status be processed? When will their status be confirmed so that their families can reunite?

Think, Mr. Chairman; they are people, as you mentioned earlier. They are people, and they have been living in this country for over ten years, without their families, under the fear of how their families are treated.

One of my constituents told me his brother-in-law was killed in India through police brutality, and his family tortured.

What answer should I give them? When will they get citizenship once their status is processed?

The Chairman: Madam Minister, that's an administrative question, but it's related to citizenship. Please proceed.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Oh, now, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Because if I answer only with regard to citizenship, I would say the average time to get your citizenship, if you're a permanent resident and you meet all the requirements, is around one year, not ten.

I think that's what the member is referring to. This is not a case of someone who perhaps doesn't have official status in the country. I do not know specifically about the case, but if it takes ten years to get an official status in our country, it means it's a very complex case—a very complex one—and there's some concern in the case.

That's all I can say, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, I had a few different questions.

The Chairman: Excuse me, but your time is up.

Before I yield the floor to Mr. Ménard, the chair, with the permission of the committee, would like to follow up on one question about annulment and revocation.

Through the minister to Mr. Sabourin, is the basic distinction the period of time, following the application of citizenship, when you revoke it or when you annul it? It appeared to me that when you were giving your answer, fraud could be the basis for both. I wonder if the distinction then would be that when it is beyond five years, it ought to be through the process of revocation, and within five years, annulment.

Did I hear you correctly on that?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Mr. Chairman, you're correct. The power to annul citizenship is, in a sense, a subset of the power to revoke citizenship. The power to annul citizenship could only be exercised within five years after citizenship is acquired, and the power to annul citizenship could only be exercised if the person became a citizen while they were subject to a criminal prohibition or if they used a false identity.

• 1705

So if the person acquired citizenship otherwise—perhaps they lied about being in Canada—or if the person acquired citizenship while they were subject to a criminal prohibition, but it is discovered five years after the fact, then only the power to revoke citizenship could be exercised.

The Chairman: I have one supplemental, then. Now, revocation is that all acts committed by the citizen, before revocation, as citizens, of course remain valid, while in annulment, all acts committed by that individual, following annulment, would be deemed illegal. Because if those acts, such as voting, were only to be committed by a citizen...

Do I have the same understanding?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I think that's correct, Mr. Chairman, although obviously I'm not sure you could take action against the person for having acted while they believed in law they were citizens and it's later found that the status has been annulled. But you're correct in your analysis.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I would like to point out to the minister, for her information and for the record, that I have more than 35 cases like the one I explained.

The Chairman: That is comment.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is not a question but a request for information. I would like to know if it is possible for your officials to send us the following two documents: the list of countries that currently recognize dual citizenship and an overview of how citizenship is granted elsewhere, so that we as parliamentarians can make comparisons.

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Of course, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: You're done, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would not like to take more than my share of the time.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you so much, Mr. Ménard.

The minister has indicated to me that she may be able to stay until about 4.45 or 5 p.m.

Are you still okay with that time, Madam Minister?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay.

Madam Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to do this in front of the honourable Minister, but I asked you earlier to request the Bloc Québécois member across from me to apologize for the language he used with respect to me a few minutes ago. He used rude language which I found insulting.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, you have heard the request from your colleague. I did not hear the actual translation. Could you please respond?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I will say two things. There is one thing that is unacceptable in our work, and the member for Laval-West is guilty of it. That is not allowing her colleagues to do their work as MPs by using their prerogative to question the Minister on topics that they feel are relevant, particularly within her sphere of responsibility. The member opposite has done this a number of times in the past. Up to today, I have never been subjected to this treatment. I would not have accepted it if she did this to the Reform Party either. As the member opposite knows, I certainly do not share the opinions of the Reform Party. On a philosophical level, she and I are not far apart. However, I will not accept her using stalling tactics to prevent her colleagues from expressing themselves. If there is anyone who deserves an apology today, it is yours truly. I will not apologize because you acted in an unparliamentary fashion and I am sorry for your sake.

[English]

The Chairman: I think I should put an end to the issue at this point. The chair would like to review the remarks in the transcript.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Very good.

The Chairman: At the next or subsequent meeting of the committee, when appropriate, we will deal with that issue.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I would like to make sure, Mr. Chair, that this is dealt with absolutely and that it is put on the record that the MP from the Bloc used gross and impolite language toward me. He asked me to leave this room. I would like this to be discussed at the next meeting and I would like this to be put on the record.

The Chairman: The chair has noted your submission. We will proceed to the question.

Madam Folco, do you want to pose some questions or yield the floor?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Those are my questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: We will now go to Mr. Benoit.

• 1710

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start by following up on a question Madam Augustine asked the minister that I don't think was really answered.

The question had to do with people applying for citizenship who are slowed down, or who have been interfered with, by bureaucratic slowness in the system such that the delays caused by the bureaucratic breakdown in the system will penalize these people in terms of calculating the time they are considered to have been residents of the country.

As the system is now, if the bureaucracy slows down the process when one is applying for permanent residency or for landed status, then part of that time—half of that time—will still count as residency in Canada. That's being taken away by this bill.

So I think the member asked a good question—namely, why are these bureaucratic delays being held against the person applying for citizenship?

The Chairman: Madam Minister.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, if I understand well the question in terms of the residency requirements, as I said, the law clarifies the concept of residence in that now you need to be three years in the country. But what is new, I think—and perhaps it refers to this, I'm not sure—is that you cannot count the time you were in the country under other status.

I mean, if you were a student in this country for three years before becoming a permanent resident, we wouldn't take into account the time you were in the country as a student; only the time you became a permanent resident.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What about the time between when someone applies for permanent residency and the time they're actually granted it? That's the time that's of concern here.

The Chairman: The chair would like to understand the question.

I think, Madam Minister, you can help the committee. As I remember, in the bill it indicates that if you are in the country on a non-legal basis, it is not counted, but if it is legal, then of course it is counted.

Is that not the case in the bill?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No, no, Mr. Chair—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would hope the minister would understand the question, Mr. Chair. I imagine she's read the bill, and I think she understands what I'm asking about. So I'd like her to answer that.

The Chairman: Would you like to answer the question, please?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, I will stay calm. I'll try. I will ask the member to also be polite. I'm trying to get at where he is, which he clarified at the end.

The question was, if somebody applied to get permanent residence and had to wait a year for that permanent residence, will we take into account the time he waited for that status? The answer is no. The clock will start when the person receives the official status of permanent residence.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Even if there is a delay caused by the bureaucracy, the person applying will be penalized. Is that what you're saying, Madam Minister?

The Chairman: You are making a conclusion out of an assumption. That is why the chair finds it difficult, Mr. Benoit. You're assuming there is a bureaucratic delay.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, does the minister not understand the question? Is that the problem?

The Chairman: How do you understand “bureaucratic delay”?

Mr. Grant McNally: It takes a long time, an inordinate amount of time, say, for the application to be processed. I think that's what he's saying.

The Chairman: The minister has answered the question—I thought I heard it—that it is not considered until such time as the person has become an immigrant.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, but that wasn't the question. The question was, why is that in the legislation? Why is the minister penalizing the person applying for citizenship due to delays in the department, delays for which the department may be to blame? It may be no fault at all of the person applying for citizenship, and yet they're penalized.

My question is, why? Why should people applying for citizenship be penalized for delays in the department?

• 1715

The Chairman: Madam Minister, have you answered the question?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, when you apply to become a permanent resident, of course there will be a delay. There will be a bureaucratic delay. Why? Because we have to check if the person meets all the requirements. We have to check the background of that person. We have to do a security check. We have to ask for a medical examination. We have to ask all that. So there is a delay.

What I'm saying is that the time will be counted for citizenship only after the person receives the official status in the country. I don't see how we can objectively have other criteria here, and to say, “This one, the delays were reasonable; this one, we're not sure; these ones, it's the department's fault.”

I mean, when we have a system, we need basic rules here. What I'm saying is that she receives it from the point at which she is a permanent resident of this country.

The Chairman: I would now like to yield the floor to Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In clause 14 of part 2, on the loss of citizenship, I'm just trying to figure out how we arrived at the age of 28, the time at which the individual has to make application on his or her own. How did we arrive at 28?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think perhaps my officials can answer in more detail on that, but first of all, the age of 28 is already in the current act.

Two, according to our obligation in terms of statelessness, I think we have to be sure that the person has enough time to apply if she wants to. So we need a certain time here.

I don't know, Mr. Sabourin, if you want to add something.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I think that was a very complete answer, Mr. Chairman.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Good.

The Chairman: Any more questions, Ms. Augustine?

Ms. Jean Augustine: The other small question I have is a picky question on clause 7, where we speak about a “minor”. There are all kinds of definitions of both child and minor. When we say, “The Minister shall...grant citizenship to a permanent resident who is a minor”, what is the age of the minor?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The definition of minor is written at the beginning of the bill, in clause 2.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I missed that. Yes, it's, “a person who is less than 18”.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you very much.

I hope my questions haven't been asked. If they have, perhaps you can tell me, Minister.

Mr. Grant McNally: You could raise a point of order.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, that would be fine. But you probably wouldn't understand what that is. It's interesting to me that the same party that in the House of Commons is accusing the people coming to this country of all being criminals or health risks is now concerned about the delay in the processing of their citizenship. However, that's not on topic, so I will get on topic.

Minister, I wonder if you could tell us about the powers in this bill that are granted to you or your ministry with regard to either the denial of citizenship or the revocation of a citizenship that has already been granted.

Were you asked that question?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I was, a little bit.

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I can ask Mr. Sabourin to explain more.

The Chairman: Mr. Sabourin.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Revocation would be the one I would be more interested in.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: The proposal in the bill maintains the current power of the Governor in Council to revoke citizenship when a person acquired it through false representation or by fraud. There is one change, though, that is proposed in the bill before you, and on that point, I did not speak previously. It has to do with the degree of evidence that must be put forward before the Federal Court in order to ensure there is revocation of citizenship.

• 1720

Currently, the degree of evidence or the burden of proof is very high. What the bill proposes to do is to bring this burden to proof to a more reasonable level to ensure that we're able to take away citizenship when there has clearly been false representation or fraud.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: An area I know Mrs. Leung did ask about, but from a different perspective, is the issue of either French or English language skills.

I'd like to know what we're doing as a government to make resources available to these people for lessons in either of our official languages, if anything, in terms of—if you know, Minister—the numbers that perhaps might have been in the budget in this regard, or how someone applying for citizenship would access language skill courses in either of our official languages. Where would they go?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: All the permanent residents, or the immigrants who come to our country, could access “settlement services”, as we call them, to help them integrate in the country. Among the settlement services, of course, there is also English as a second language teaching, or French, all over the country in different places. The budget for settlement services as a whole is around $300 million, although I don't know for the teaching of language.

Mr. Georges Tsaï (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): For language, it is $102 million.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Usually these services are given by NGO organizations that specialize in it, or by school boards, or we contract with people, or people can go there and ask for a course.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So to those people who would criticize the bill for having that requirement in—the ability to, in a reasonable fashion, communicate in either of Canada's official languages—we can say there are courses available; that we're not just throwing an obstacle up; and that in fact we're putting an opportunity before new Canadians to obtain some skills in either official language. Would that be fair?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: That's fair. I also want to remind the member that this is in the current act, in the current system. It is already a requirement to know one of the two official languages to become a citizen of the country.

As I said, I think there's a difference between being a permanent resident and a citizen in that we do not require that for permanent residence, but for citizenship, yes, we require it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chair, do I have time for one more question?

The Chairman: Yes, one short question.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Minister, on the issue you raised at the beginning about someone born on Canadian soil, you said you have no evidence of abuse in this area. My question is, how is your ministry monitoring that? How would abuse of that come to your attention, and how are you monitoring it? Have you had specific complaints or charges, and what have you done about them if you have had them?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: All we have heard about that problem, really, has been through anecdotes from some parts of the country. We've had no analysis of whether we really have a problem here, or of the scope of the problem.

One of the difficulties—and that's why I've said we have to do research with the provinces—is that the registration of births comes under the responsibility of the province. When provincial governments register a birth, they usually don't register the status of the woman who gave birth. They don't register whether she was an asylum-seeker, a student, or I don't know what.

Since they don't register the status, we don't have the data right now. If we do have a problem, I don't know about it. That's why I want to be very cautious with this. This has been a basic principle of our law since its origin. We always have had that principle in Canada, so if we want to change such an important principle, I think we do need evidence in front of us.

The Chairman: Before I yield the floor to Mr. Martin, the chair would like to pose one question, Madam Minister, with respect to the duty, or one of the duties, of the commissioner—namely, to advise the minister on citizenship applications.

• 1725

For greater clarity, does it also imply that the commissioner may be involved in the assessment of individual applications, and if so, under what circumstances?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It could be possible. That's why when you look at the wording of that, it's “Minister's request”. So it could be on complex cases that I will ask the advice of the commissioner. It could be, if we decide to have new tools to evaluate the knowledge of language skills, that I will look for their advice also in front of that, because they have the experience and the expertise. Most of them, at the beginning of the new act, will be former judges, so they are used to the system right now.

So to answer your question, it's possible.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just briefly, one of the biggest issues around the language test is the situation of older people who might find it that much more difficult. I think maybe one of the ways to satisfy this would be to have an exemption for people over a certain age.

Has the minister considered this, or would they entertain that as a friendly amendment? Or has it been dealt with? I'll ask that first, but I'll give you my other question at the same time and ask you to answer both.

It's always been my feeling that the policy of selling Canadian citizenship for a price, to the so-called investors category, at $350,000 or whatever it is, tends to devalue the citizenship of all the rest of us. That's always been my feeling.

Could you tell us where in Bill C-63, if at all, this issue is addressed or satisfied, given that the track record of investor-class immigrants really hasn't been very good, at least in the city I live in? We actually heard from your staff at our last committee meeting in February that there have been some real problems with that category.

Can you tell us where in Bill C-63 that might be addressed, if at all?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: To the first question, in the bill I keep as minister the power for exemption for the test of language. Right now in the current system, we have decided that all senior citizens are exempt from that test. We define a senior as 60 and plus. It is our intention to go exactly the same way with the new act.

So we've kept that power for exemptions. It's written out in subclause 6(3). This is for seniors and also for handicapped people who may have some learning disability.

Mr. Pat Martin: Would that be automatic, Madam Minister, or would it be on application for an exemption? This would be in terms of the age.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: For the seniors, right now this is automatic, but for a learning disability, the person has to prove they have a learning disability.

The other question was referring to investor programs. This is one of our immigrant categories, if I can call it that. This is under the legislation. This is not in Bill C-63. As you know, we have independent immigrants, skilled workers, entrepreneurs, investor programs. So we are on the way to having a new program here.

I've consulted a lot, over three years, with the provinces, to have a good program here. What we're all looking for is not money but people, people who will come and invest in our country. There's a different approach here when you're looking for people first.

So we are looking for a new program, and I hope it will be possible for even April 1 of this year.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's quick.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chairman: I think we have about 30 seconds left of our time before adjournment, and there are still three on the line.

• 1730

Since we have to adjourn at 5.30 p.m., the chair would seek the permission of the committee to adjourn in 30 seconds.

We would like to thank the—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have a very small question.

The Chairman: Ten seconds.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, it's short.

Madam Minister, first of all, I really do appreciate your coming this evening, but I'd like to go back to the question I asked earlier about the rationale behind eliminating the current six-month credit in regard to people applying for citizenship and the process that may have held up their approval of permanent residency. The way it is right now, there is up to a six-month credit given for the delay, and you're removing that.

What I'd like to know is, what is the rationale for removing that?

The Chairman: Madam Minister, very briefly.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think you will have an opportunity to discuss it in detail with my officials, but the rationale here is that with the revision of the legislation, we wanted to reinforce the value of citizenship. That means we wanted also to reinforce the commitment of people to this country before becoming citizens of this country.

Having said that, I think you get your citizenship if you are a permanent resident of this country. If you were in the country as a student or foreign worker at that time, it didn't mean you had a commitment to this country. When you choose first to become a permanent resident, that is the first step toward a commitment to a country.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But when you apply, you're showing some commitment, aren't you?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The second one is to become a citizen. That's the rationale.

Now, on the technical side of it, I would encourage you to discuss that with my people.

The Chairman: On that note, I would like to call the session to order very shortly.

Before I do that, I would like to thank the minister and her officials for their time and stamina before the committee.

On that note, Madam Minister, thank you very kindly.

I also thank all members of the committee for their participation.

The meeting is now adjourned.