CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 11, 1999

• 0910

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. Pursuant to our order of reference, we'll resume consideration of Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship.

Before us this morning from the Mennonite Central Committee Canada are Mr. Janzen, director of the Ottawa office; and Mr. Henry Bergen, documentation worker. I would invite the witnesses to make their opening remarks, if they have any. Thereafter, we will proceed with a question and answer period.

You may proceed, Mr. Janzen or Mr. Bergen. Who will begin?

Mr. William Janzen (Director, Ottawa Office, Mennonite Central Committee Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. We would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to come and make a presentation regarding our understanding of the proposed legislation. As indicated, my name is William Janzen. I work here in Ottawa. My colleague, Henry Bergen, works in Aylmer, Ontario, which is near London, and he does documentation work there.

The organization we represent, the Mennonite Central Committee Canada, is probably best known for its international relief and development work. Most of our $22 million budget is used for those purposes. That includes about $3 million from CIDA. We acknowledge that with gratitude. So our brief to this committee deals with only a very small part of the general work of the Mennonite Central Committee. My opening remarks here will deal with only part of our brief.

There are five areas of concern in the brief, but I will limit my remarks mainly to two of them.

The first area of concern deals with a rather particular segment of Mennonite history and Mennonite reality. At several points earlier this century there were groups of Mennonites from Canada who moved to Latin America in order to follow their particular way of life. They settled in Mexico, Paraguay, Bolivia, and some other countries. For some of those people things have gone well, but a number have become very poor, impoverished, so they have wanted to come back to Canada. Our organization has some programs in Latin America to try to help them with their social and economic development in those communities, but we have also tried to help those who were coming back—not to encourage them but to help them if they were coming anyway—to get secure status and to make the various social and economic adjustments that are needed.

Mr. Bergen, my colleague here, is himself a living example of that. As a child in the 1940s he went to Mexico with his family. A few years ago he moved back to Canada with his children. Now he works with our organization in Aylmer, Ontario, as noted. He may say a few words about that after my remarks.

How does this intersect with citizenship legislation? This movement back to Canada has been greatly helped by two provisions in the existing citizenship legislation, paragraphs 3(1)(e) and 5(2)(b). Those two paragraphs in the existing law have provided the door for many of those who have come back. It's not as if they had made everybody eligible, but they have made a number of those people eligible for citizenship—that is, those who were born abroad before 1977 and their subsequently born children. For that category of people these paragraphs are crucial. Their importance cannot be overemphasized.

For that reason, our first concern is that they seem not to appear in the proposed legislation. Unless we seriously misread the proposed legislation, we have to say that this has drastic consequences. It closes the door for a segment of people. Our strongest plea in our brief is that those two paragraphs be retained.

Why should they be retained? You're probably looking for a rationale. We cannot say there is a United Nations convention or an international law that says Canada is obligated to retain them. We cannot say you must, but we hope you will.

• 0915

There are several rationales. One is a simple one. In our opinion it helps Canada. I don't think it hurts Canada. Admittedly, when people come back, there are some social adjustment problems. That's reality, and our organization does try to work with that. But often over these last 20 years the demand for these workers has exceeded the supply, particularly in agriculture for tomato fields, cucumber fields, and other fields elsewhere. So that is one rationale that might be used. They work, and after they've been here a while, they start businesses and go into professions just like other newcomers to Canada.

A second reason that provides a certain rationale would be a response to a question. You might say that surely these paragraphs were not meant to go on indefinitely. We cannot quarrel with that. In every citizenship legislation there have to be provisions whereby people who were born abroad eventually cease to be citizens if they do not establish connections with Canada. Those cessation provisions are legitimate. We do not quarrel with them. It would not be logical if people could remain outside of Canada generation after generation after generation and retain Canadian citizenship. So we do not quarrel with the cessation provisions in this proposed legislation, nor do we quarrel with the cessation provisions in the existing legislation. They have essentially the same principle. The principle is that for the second generation of born-abroad Canadians, they must establish substantial connections with Canada if they are to retain Canadian citizenship.

Now, the way those substantial connections are defined is a little bit different, but we don't quarrel with that. The difference between the existing cessation provisions and the proposed cessation provisions, as we understand them, is that in the proposed cessation provisions in the new legislation the clock would start ticking one generation later. Do we object? In a sense the clock would start ticking for those born under the existing act, that is, 1977 and later.

I hope this doesn't get too technical here. That would be generation one. If a person was born abroad of a Canadian parent in 1977 or later, that person would remain a Canadian for the rest of his or her life.

That person's children—logically, they might be born in 1997 if they were born at age 20 of the parent—would cease to be Canadians at age 28 unless they established substantial connections with Canada. With a little calculation you can see that age 28 could fall in the year 2025. So under the proposed legislation it is extremely unlikely that anybody would cease to be a Canadian until the year 2025, because the clock started ticking in 1977.

Under the existing legislation the clock starts ticking one generation earlier. There are two categories in the existing cessation provisions, but I'm talking now about the one that would affect many of our people. If you were born abroad in 1977 or later but of parents who were already born abroad, then you are the person who will lose citizenship at age 28. The clock has started ticking earlier so that the person born in 1977 would lose citizenship in the year 2005. That's 20 years earlier. So in that sense this proposed legislation gives a very generous gift to a future generation because it starts ticking later. It says that a person born in 1977 will remain Canadian for the rest of their lives even if they never set foot in Canada.

We don't really argue with that gift. If the Government of Canada wants to give that gift to those people, we will not say please don't. We don't see a great need for it. We don't see a strong compelling humanitarian or other reason that gift should be given.

• 0920

Our quarrel with it is that it seems like such a sharp contradiction to give such a generous gift to a person born on February 15, 1977 or later, but take away all eligibility for those born one day earlier, on February 14, 1977 or earlier. What we are submitting is that we see it as a contradiction between the generosity of the cessation provision—you don't cease for a long time—and the removal of certain vital eligibility provisions for people born before 1977 and their children who may be born later.

Our plea is that we believe, frankly, there would be more integrity for that whole body of Canadian citizenship law—meaning the future, the present, the past—if these eligibility provisions are kept as they are; in other words, the door for the pre-1977 was not closed quite that categorically. But then let the clock start ticking earlier so that if they are born abroad, second generation, they do indeed cease in the year 2005 rather than 2025. If that were installed or reinserted in this provision, we are not saying it would help tens of thousands of people. It would help several thousand, and for them it would mean an enormous amount. We would be extremely grateful if that could be done.

There is a third rationale to put on the table. This is a bit of a different kind of rationale, and I can only believe this must be an oversight. But if we understand the proposed legislation correctly, then applications that have been submitted under these paragraphs that I've been talking about, paragraphs 3(1)(e) and 5(2)(b), duly submitted, sitting on the desks of citizenship officials, would die on the day this legislation comes into force. So there's no phasing-out period, no transition period for them. The fact is that these particular applications often take over a year to process, because the status of the parents, and sometimes the grandparents, has to be confirmed. It takes a long time. If this new legislation comes into force in, let's say, September 1999, then it's highly unlikely that applications that are being submitted today will ever be approved.

What we are saying as our third rationale is that if those two provisions that we have talked about must be dropped, then we beg for a phasing-out period. We would prefer at least a five-year phasing-out period, or something like that. To let applications die after they have been duly submitted is somehow not the way Canada deals with people, unless there are very strong reasons for doing so.

There are some other points I could talk about. Earlier in Canada's legislation there was a born-in-wedlock requirement, which has significant implications. Across Canada, born in wedlock meant church marriages. In Mexico, it meant civil marriages, but people didn't know it. For a while, even Canadian officials in the embassy were not aware of it, so people didn't go and have civil marriages. When it was learned that they needed that, they proceeded. It's not as if there was a religious objection to civil marriages, but the result was that many people were born out of wedlock technically, even though they had church marriages in their communities and they were born in wedlock for all practical purposes.

We could talk about that a bit and about some other things, but the main point I want to make here is that those two paragraphs would retain a little eligibility for some of those people born before 1977.

• 0925

The other point I want to talk about does not deal with these Mennonites from Latin America; it deals with the oath of Canadian citizenship, the proposed oath. In some ways this is a rather small point, but it is felt widely enough that even though it's not a grievous problem, we want to mention it. You probably know, and it's fairly widely known, that historically Mennonites have been conscientious objectors to military service. The law in Canada has recognized that for over 200 years. The first Parliament in Upper Canada passed a law recognizing conscientious objection to military service. In World War II there were about 7,500 Mennonite young men who served in an alternative service program set up by the government. So it's not that we want to be exempted from all service, but military service has been a historic principle.

The new oath of citizenship does include the words “to defend”. Well, there are different ways of interpreting the words “to defend”, but they can quite readily be interpreted as meaning military defence. I think the oath would sit more comfortably, not only with us but actually with a broad range of people, if the word “defend” was either deleted or maybe replaced with a word like “uphold”.

Let me take that a little bit further. If we think of military defence, thank God, military defence is a very rare occurrence for Canada. We all want it to be that way. Everybody wants that. But actually the task of upholding democratic values, laws, and so on is an ongoing task. It can apply to everybody, young or old, whether you are of military service age or not. If the government appointed citizenship commissioners to go across Canada to nurture the value of Canadian citizenship, this oath of Canadian citizenship would probably be recited in schools and communities across Canada, and we would respectfully submit that words like “to uphold” our democratic values would be more in keeping, would sit more comfortably, not only with us but with a fairly broad cross-section of people, than the words “to defend.”

I'm sorry, I've talked a little longer than I meant to. I would like to leave a few words for my colleague Henry Bergen. He will talk only for a minute, and then it will be open.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Janzen.

Mr. Bergen.

Mr. Henry Bergen (Documentation Worker, Mennonite Central Committee Canada): I'd like to add a few words to what has already been said by Mr. Janzen.

My parents moved to Mexico in 1949. I was nine years old at that time. I lived in Mexico for 43 years, and as the doors were opened, as already mentioned, with paragraphs 3(1)(e) and 5(2)(b), I had a possibility to have all my family, children and grandchildren, registered as Canadian citizens. They are presently very thankful for that, and I appreciate that very much. All our children and grandchildren are now in Canada and enjoy living here very much.

What I would like to add to that is, if there were a possibility to keep that door open, I'm sure more families would be very grateful for that and would really consider it a great opportunity or even a privilege.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you so much, Mr. Bergen.

I thank you for your very careful and thoughtful presentation and, as well, very specific proposals to help address the concerns you have identified.

I will now start the question and answer session. Mr. Benoit, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, gentlemen.

I'd like to start with the oath and ask you whether you presented this proposal for change to the minister as she was developing the oath.

Mr. William Janzen: This is our first occasion.

Mr. Leon Benoit: My question is, why didn't you present your proposal to the minister when she was developing the pledge? She has indicated that quite an extensive public consultation went along with it. If such a change is so important to you, I'm surprised that you wouldn't have proposed the change to the minister. Had you heard what the proposed oath was, and had you heard there was an opportunity for input?

• 0930

Mr. William Janzen: The answer is no, I didn't, but that may not be the fault of government officials. We have a small office here, and there are a lot of issues to try to follow. I know I do not do justice to all of them, and I obviously missed this one.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's good. I just wanted to ask that. Quite frankly, I hadn't heard the process was going on either, so I'm not surprised. But I'm not going to dwell on this.

I know you've expressed your concern—and I understand that concern—that the oath does say “to defend our democratic values”. It is a pretty general kind of statement. I would imagine that you wouldn't argue that citizenship is something to be taken very seriously, and that there should be certain commitments made with citizenship?

Mr. William Janzen: We strongly agree. In fact, I would hope that if a person is conscientious about objecting to military service, that person is extra conscientious about making a contribution to society, to community. In my opinion, that would be mandatory. I definitely agree that people who become citizens have to take seriously a commitment to the country, to the society, to the well-being of other people around them.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, and I'm pleased you brought that up.

Again, regarding the seriousness of the commitment, I think we all agree that to be granted citizenship is something important. It's not something that should be frivolous, and you've expressed that very clearly.

In regard to just what the rules should be, you referred to paragraphs 3(1)(e) and 5(2)(b) of the old Citizenship Act. Your concern was that those parts of the act weren't enshrined in the new legislation in any way. I guess it really comes down to a matter of just how seriously you do take a commitment to citizenship, to some extent. You're saying that these categories you're looking at here are very narrow and wouldn't be used by very many people, maybe a few thousand people. Is that the case, that those particular paragraphs of the old act weren't used by many people? They wouldn't have been.

Mr. William Janzen: There are at least several hundred who become citizens under them every year. It might be close to 1,000. Personally, I think 1,000 is definitely high, but I'm guessing. We don't have exact numbers, but I would say it may be between 200 and 800, or something like that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: With the explanation you've given for why you think those should be maintained, why do you think they weren't being put into this current legislation, the new proposed act? Do you think there's a philosophical difference between you and the minister, or is it just something that you believe was overlooked? Have you talked to the minister about it, or have you talked to departmental officials about it?

Mr. William Janzen: The answer is no. We made some inquiries about having discussions like that, but somehow they didn't materialize. Maybe we didn't get to the right people. Just this morning, I have entered into discussion with key officials and we will have those discussions, so that may just be an oversight.

If I'd had a clearer understanding of why those paragraphs might have been dropped, I would probably have taken this occasion to address those reasons to see if there were counter-arguments.

• 0935

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm certainly not trying to be critical. Please understand that. What I'm trying to get at is that I'm trying to figure out for myself why these were left out. These changes had not been brought to my attention before, so I'm just trying to get an idea of why the changes might have been made. I guess I have no idea, and you don't yet either. Hopefully you will find out through your discussions with departmental officials, and hopefully we'll find out through the questions we ask of the departmental officials. Maybe that will solve this problem. I'll just leave it at that. Hopefully, through both of us working at it from different angles, we might come up with something.

Mr. William Janzen: I want to make one little comment on one point that you mentioned. If I understood you, you said that these older provisions may also relate to the question of how important citizenship is, in a sense.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, but it was more a question than a statement.

Mr. William Janzen: I would say that if Canada can be so very generous with these new cessation provisions, then there should be a little generosity on these early eligibility provisions. To me, those would be in harmony.

Mr. Leon Benoit: They're contradictory the way they are now.

Mr. William Janzen: As I understand them, yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Sure.

I know you want to focus. That's good, because others will have questions on these areas. But besides the things you have brought up today, are there other things in this new proposed act that you're concerned about? Are there things you would like to see changed and improved upon, or things that aren't there that you'd like to see there, as is the case with paragraphs 3(1)(e) and 5(2)(b)?

Mr. William Janzen: I did make a brief reference to this earlier born-in-wedlock requirement. I think the earlier intention of the Canadian legislator has been stymied by an international law principle.

There is another area about exclusionary provisions, but I do not have the expertise to really carefully analyse those provisions. There are stronger provisions here whereby the minister can, in the public interest, prevent someone from becoming a citizen. As I understand it, though, there isn't much scope for reviewing those findings.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's correct. The minister is given an awful lot of power under this new act, and really there seems to be an extremely limited appeal. Now, I understand why the minister has to be given some power, but a lot of people question the degree of her authority given the lack of appeal that is being given. It's interesting that you would bring that up too.

Mr. William Janzen: On the plus side, one can say that if a person is prevented from becoming a citizen, that doesn't necessarily mean the person loses landed immigrant status. In that sense, the practical effect is not quite as drastic as the revocation of citizenship. When citizenship is revoked, the person loses all status in Canada unless some very special measures are taken. Here I am really beyond my depth, but it seemed to me that the revocation was a little broader than in the earlier one. Other people would need to speak about that, though. I would simply encourage you to look at those closely, but I don't think I'm competent to speak on them.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would certainly be interested in hearing what you learn from the departmental officials in your discussions with them. If you find that it was an oversight, I'd like to know that. We can then certainly try to help to deal with it or have a good look at it, have a discussion on it. If we feel something should be put in, we'll then work to do that.

Mr. William Janzen: Thank you very much, Mr. Benoit.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Good morning. I would like you to explain to me clearly what the consequences would be if the two provisions of the Act that you referred to were not renewed. You seem to agree with the general principle that the second generation must show evidence of close links to Canada in order to obtain citizenship. You are not calling into question this principle which, it seems to me, on its face is defendable. But I want to understand in detail what your concerns are regarding the two paragraphs that you referred to.

Mr. William Janzen: Thank you, Mr. Ménard. With your permission, I will answer you in English. I apologize for that.

• 0940

[English]

The practical consequence is that these people would not be able to come to Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We're talking about people who obtained Canadian citizenship, that is, those to whom provisions of the 1947 Act, which were included in the 1977 Act, applied. We're talking about people born before February 14, 1977, right?

[English]

Mr. William Janzen: Both them and their children. Some of Henry's children were born in 1975 and 1976, in years before the current act. They and their children, men or women born in the 1970s, could have children now, yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You are afraid that the practical consequences for these people will be the loss of citizenship. In your brief, you stated that these two paragraphs had enabled many hundreds of Mennonites, referred to above, to obtain Canadian citizenship year after year, without their application being made under a formal process because, according to my understanding, the legislation did not authorize this.

[English]

Mr. William Janzen: Yes, I think I should distinguish between several things here.

For those people born before 1977, it is not that they are Canadian citizens and are in danger of losing citizenship status. It is that they are presently eligible for citizenship and would lose that eligibility. That is the crux of it.

Earlier, there was a—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Excuse me, but I want to make sure I understand correctly. You're saying that individuals born before 1977 were eligible for citizenship and that under the current bill, they will lose that entitlement.

[English]

Mr. William Janzen: Pursuant to the current bill, they will lose their eligibility.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Will they lose it because of the bill before us, which provides for a deadline for the second generation?

[English]

Mr. William Janzen: No, they will not lose it because of the second generation delay.

I'm glad you are asking these questions, because they are precise questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm trying to understand properly.

[English]

Mr. William Janzen: There are two kinds of provisions here. One is the “cessation” body of laws. The other is the “eligibility” body. For the people I'm talking about, their eligibility for citizenship will be removed.

If a person did become a citizen under these provisions, at a certain point the cessation provisions would begin to take effect.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The people you're talking about were born before 1977 and are eligible right now. Why do you think that they will lose their eligibility under this bill before us? Why would they lose this entitlement if it is not linked to the generation deadline? On what are you basing yourself when you say that they will lose their citizenship? Is it because an extraordinary provision of the former legislation will not be renewed? Is this what you're alluding to when you ask that there be transitional measures put in place?

[English]

Mr. William Janzen: In clauses 3 and 4 of the bill there are provisions about who is a citizen. This current bill does not use language pertaining to who is eligible for citizenship, it covers who is a citizen. If I understand it correctly, this legislation starts with February 14, 1977. That can be a little confusing.

• 0945

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But in the definition itself, in the first introductory clauses, there is no reference to the people you're talking about right now. This concept of eligibility is only referred to after February 1977.

[English]

Mr. William Janzen: Yes, I believe we now have the same understanding.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's exactly the kind of details we're seeking. If the officials and the Minister reappear before us before we end our work, we can ask them whether your interpretation is correct. We've dealt with the first category of individuals, which clauses 3 and 4 of the bill do not affect. We both agree on that.

You stated that two distinctions had to be made. What would you like to say about this second category of individuals?

[English]

Mr. William Janzen: Are you thinking of how I distinguish between eligibility and cessation provisions?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Oui.

Mr. William Janzen: On the cessation provisions, there we do not really object to this bill. We are surprised by the generosity of this bill. For example, if a person was born in 1977, even if that person is a second-, third-, or conceivably a fourth-generation born-abroad person, in 1977 that person will remain a Canadian for the rest of his life, even if that person never sets foot in Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I want to be sure I understand you correctly. What was explained to us was that the automatic nature of citizenship would no longer be transmitted from generation to generation. There will now be effective residency requirements. Starting with the second generation, an application would have to be made. You yourself alluded to the age of 28. In the case of the third, fourth or fifth generation of children of Canadian parents living abroad, this automatic mechanism would not apply. Do you agree with my interpretation?

[English]

Mr. William Janzen: The question is, when does the clock start? As I understand it, in the proposed legislation the clock starts in 1977. So from then on, if a person is born in 1977, then the second generation... But that first generation, the person born in 1977, will remain a Canadian. That person born in 1977 could himself or herself already be second- or third-generation born-abroad. We do not object to that generosity. If that is what the government wants, fine. We would like to be on the side of generosity generally.

Our difficulty with it is why not apply a little bit of that generosity to the eligibility criteria for those born a little sooner. Then—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Don't you think that retroactivity is the issue? The 1977 legislation contained the provisions of the 1947 Act which meant that citizenship could be transmitted up to the second generation. Essentially, doesn't this follow a principle of law that says that a law cannot be retroactive? Obviously, we cannot withdraw citizenship to people to whom we've already granted it. We could discuss this issue with the Minister and the senior officials. I now understand your views on clauses 3 and 4. It's important that all members of the committee be aware of this.

I will ask one last question regarding the oath, if I have the time. You say that you are conscientious objectors and that you do not believe in military action by any country, and certainly not by Canada. It's a point of view with which I fully agree. But you interpret the word "defend" which is found in the oath of allegiance, in a way that could link it to a military meaning, although we could also talk about defending something by promoting values, either verbally or interactively. It could refer to transmitting values that are not necessarily military.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Janzen, briefly.

• 0950

Mr. William Janzen: We agree that the word “defence” can have the interpretation you suggest. Our view is that it is a word that lends itself to more than one interpretation. We believe that a broader cross-section of Canadians would be more comfortable, not only us, with a word like “uphold”. You are quite right, it can have—

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Janzen.

I now yield the floor to Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I'm not sure what to ask. On that point, by the way, sir, thank you for your presentation. I might add by way of interest that we heard from your group a couple of weeks ago in Calgary, I think it was, with regard to youth entrepreneurship, and they're doing fabulous work with the young people. I wanted to thank you for that.

On the issue of “defend” or “uphold”, I'm a little curious. We defend and uphold our democratic principles, our values, every day in the House of Commons. Some might think that looks like military action but it's generally harmless. I wonder if that would really solve the problem. I think the minister and the staff can come back to you, but to “uphold” democratic values could mean military action as well as does “defend” democratic values if a war were to break out or we were to be attacked.

I want to try to understand a little better, as Mr. Ménard did, and your dialogue with him helped a little bit. But is the real issue here that a certain group of people, whom you have identified, will lose their automatic right to citizenship as opposed to their international right to apply for landed immigrant status or to return to Canada and then go through the process that's outlined here, whether it be a residency process or whatever, to obtain citizenship? Is that what it really is, that automatically these people should be allowed to be Canadians without a commitment to the country?

Mr. William Janzen: There's a lot of truth in what you say. In one respect I'm embarrassed to... not embarrassed but—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Don't be embarrassed.

Mr. William Janzen: It's not that they would lose citizenship, but they would lose the basis upon which they can now apply for citizenship, their eligibility.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have to understand that more. They can apply for citizenship if they meet the criteria that are outlined in here. I assume you've seen that clause, and the three years out of five residency in the country.

I tend to have some concerns too about how that's proven, by the way. Some members have raised that in here. I'm a Canadian citizen, born here. But no one knows if I leave the country for six months, I would assume. Some may not even care. That aside, the issue of someone born abroad...

Maybe what would help me is if you could take me through the process. Johnny Jones is born in Germany of Canadian parents. Would you take me through a case study and help me understand if it is just because of the fact that he reaches the age 28—or his son reaches the age 28, I guess is what it would be—that automatic right to Canadian citizenship would cease. But at age 30, that individual could apply for entry into Canada and then establish the criteria outlined in the act and apply for Canadian citizenship. I don't see how it...

It's very disturbing, by the way, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: May I have order in the room, please?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm trying to understand a very complex thing and I don't need people talking.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Mr. William Janzen: Yes. I would like to begin with two comments. One is, yes, if the proposed legislation goes through in its current form—in other words, if these two paragraphs we've talked about are not reinstated—it means these people could still apply for landed immigrant status like anybody else in the world. But the fact is they wouldn't make it.

• 0955

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Why?

Mr. William Janzen: The criteria for getting landed immigrant status are pretty high. A very substantial proportion of people born in Canada would not make it. Also, they fluctuate—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sorry, you say a substantial number—

Mr. William Janzen: A substantial proportion of Canadian-born citizens, if they were born outside and had to apply to get landed immigrant status for Canada, would not qualify. You have to have language proficiency. You have to have skills that are needed by the Canadian economy. And the way that is defined is also quite striking, because these people make a pretty significant economic contribution, but they do it at the low end of the economy when they first come. And those things are not measured well in the point system of the immigration criteria. So essentially, yes, they could apply to get landed immigrant status but they're not going to make it.

Our organization works to help refugees come to Canada, and our motivation for helping them is more or less the same except that here the legal criteria are a little different, and we're asking if these legal criteria could be kept open.

The other point I want to mention is—and in this one I hope I'm not misunderstood—I really don't want to make an argument that these people should be able to apply for Canadian citizenship and get Canadian citizenship and continue to remain outside of Canada generation after generation. That's why I think the current cessation provision is actually preferable. Let them be eligible, but let them run into that cessation provision where they make up their mind. Let that be the time rather than simply wiping out eligibility.

We are not arguing here that thousands and thousands of people should be able to live outside of Canada generation after generation and hold Canadian citizenship. Sure, we're sorry when they lose it at a personal level, but we cannot make that argument, no.

Thank you for helping me to make that point a little clearer.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: On the issue you raised that a five-year phase-out could be an option, given that if you go through this rather complex process it will take a number of years anyway, what does a five-year phase-out do for you?

Mr. William Janzen: At a practical level, we as an organization would try our best to get the word out and say, you have one window and that window will close, and if you don't want to apply after this the window is closed and we as an MCC will not be your advocates; we've done what we could.

So in one sense I think that even if these two provisions were kept on a permanent basis, with the passage of time the number is coming down. It's not as if it is simply keeping a door open; people get older and so on and so there is a built-in sunset process. But if we build in a legislative sunset process of five years, that's certainly a lot better than nothing.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But there is a period regardless of an official phase-in or a legislative phase-in where that information could be shared.

Mr. William Janzen: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Also, on page 5 of your presentation you make reference to being a little kinder and gentler, you could say, on any citizenship documents, certificates that were issued in error. Do you have examples of why that's a problem? Is that widespread in your community, and have you had problems with it?

Mr. William Janzen: Yes, we have.

• 1000

Mr. Steve Mahoney: How would you determine what kinds of errors there were? Maybe you could just give me some examples of that.

Mr. William Janzen: Suppose there is a person in Mexico who would like to move to Canada. He says the poverty is too severe, etc., and he wants to pick cucumbers in Ontario and try to start a new life there with the family. Through the grapevine he may know his mother was never a Canadian or never had any Canadian papers, but if he can show his father was born in wedlock, he would be eligible to apply. That means he would have to get a marriage certificate for his grandparents—his father's parents.

So he would go to a local registry office and say “I would like a marriage certificate for Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so”. The person would say “What date would you like on it?” He would tell him the date and it would be stamped, approved and finished.

With all due respect to Mexican officials, there are some who hand out stamped, signed, blank certificates to people to fill in their own names and dates. We have a very good relationship with Canadian officials—our own workers. They don't know what to do with this because you can't work with false documents, but what's false? It's hard to know where to start measuring what's false. That would be a way of getting around it. As a matter of principle, if we see that a document has been tampered with, we will not handle an application.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney, at this time we will proceed to the five-minute question period. Mr. Martin, then Mr. Bryden and Mr. McNally.

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

Thank you both for being here. I know quite a bit about the Mennonite Central Committee, coming from Winnipeg. You have a very large representation there; of course, Manitoba has a large Mennonite population. We certainly all appreciate the work you do in the third world. You sort of treat downtown Winnipeg like the third world situation it is and you're very active there, so we appreciate that as well.

I know a bit about the history of the waves of Mennonite immigrants who came to Manitoba, funded by Tolstoy. It's a fascinating history. They certainly made a big impact on the business community of southern Manitoba—one of the most stable business communities in the country by virtue of the industrious nature of the people who settled there.

But having said that, the very issue you raise is quite a sore point in Manitoba. A lot of people have brought to my attention that they don't like the idea that people left Canada by choice because they had better opportunities elsewhere or liked somewhere else better and stayed there for 40 years, and now that the situation has turned sour in many of those places—I know a lot of the returnees are from Peru—they want to come back and start as if they had never left. During that 40-year period, people like my parents paid their taxes and built the social welfare state we all enjoy today. These people are coming back 40 years later when they need a great deal of medical attention.

They've also raised the point that some people misuse the Mexican connection to keep women from being educated. Girls are sent away at age 12 because some of the Mennonite families don't want their women educated beyond that point. They are brought back when they're 18, when it's legal not to make them go to school any more.

Those are terrible things that certainly nobody in this room would endorse. I'm sure the more progressive people in the Mennonite community don't agree with that, but that expatriate movement lent itself to that kind of abuse.

• 1005

How do you respond to criticisms like that? In light of that, how do you sell the automatic certification to critics like that when, as Mr. Mahoney pointed out, all they're really losing, if these two paragraphs are taken away, is the automatic right to citizenship? Nothing would preclude them from making application like any other person who now chooses to become a Canadian, rather than as a citizen of convenience who chooses to be Canadian when it's convenient and takes off for greener, warmer pastures when it isn't convenient. Perhaps you could deal with that, please.

Mr. William Janzen: Thank you. Those are certainly questions out there in the society and I'm glad they're on the table here. I'd like to make a number of comments.

Number one, when these people come back, the economic fit on the whole is not bad; the social fit is much more difficult.

Mr. Pat Martin: It's cheap labour for some of the manufacturing sectors in Manitoba.

Mr. William Janzen: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: They are often paid lower than minimum wage, which disrupts the economy somewhat. They are always getting busted for taking less than the minimum wage required by law.

Mr. William Janzen: I cannot challenge that, but there is an economic demand for those workers, I think.

Mr. Pat Martin: There may be a demand for them to pick cucumbers in southern Ontario, but not really in the wood manufacturing sector—Loewen Windows, Schmidtke, Palliser Furniture—all the Mennonite businesses that employ thousands of people. They bring in rafts of people from Peru and Mexico with really questionable employment relationships. It has caused quite a lot of hard feelings among other people looking for work in that sector. They see waves of people automatically jump the queue and take those jobs.

The Chair: Mr. Janzen, do you have any comment on that?

Mr. William Janzen: Our organization is working on that sort of thing as best we can. We did a little book about our program in Ontario over the last 20 years, which addresses a broad range of social things if people want to look at that. But as an organization, we're working hard on those issues.

On the question of whether the proposed legislation will stop that movement back to Canada, I submit it will not. It will change it a little bit, but it will not stop it because the secession provisions are so much more generous. All of the people born in 1977 or later will be able to come back and forth for the rest of their lives, and their children will have status if they want to establish it.

So in that sense, this legislation will not deal with the freedom of flow; it will only hinder those people born before 1977 from getting access to it. Those born later will be able to move back and forth their whole lives. That's why I think the criticism you raise would be better addressed if the existing secession provisions were kept. That means they will run into the law when they have to make up their minds. They will run into that sooner, whereas under the proposed law that is moved back.

The Chair: At this point, Mr. Janzen, I regret to interrupt you. I have allowed an extra minute or two. But since you are repeating the same point you made earlier and it's in the record of the committee, I would now like to go to Mr. Bryden.

Mr. William Janzen: Yes. Sorry.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): It's only just by happenstance that I'm here today, but I'm very happy to be here so I could hear the testimony of the witnesses and ask a few questions.

• 1010

First of all, on the point you raised about the clauses that you are concerned about, this would appear to be something that perhaps is oversight in the drafting of the legislation. I'm sure those clauses will be addressed in due course by the committee and others.

My questions are going to be more along the line of the oath that you mentioned and the conscientious objectors, as I understood it, in the Mennonite community. Can you give me an idea of what that means in the context of a national emergency like a war? What happens to Mennonites? It's simply that they cannot pick up arms, but I take it that they will do other things.

Mr. William Janzen: In World World II, there were thousands of Mennonite young men who served in different ways. The majority served in an alternative service program that was completely outside of the military, although some served in a medical corps under military auspices. The church generally endorses the importance of service. At that time, the church leaders made it clear that we did not want to shrink from that, or even shrink from danger and risking our lives.

Several of you have mentioned the service programs that our organization carries on. One of the motivations for these service programs, which are fairly extensive in Canada and abroad, picks up on that service idea. We don't want to do something that we believe is destructive, but the obligation to make a contribution, to serve in ways that we can believe in, is mandatory whether there's a war or not.

Mr. John Bryden: So it's in this context that you prefer the word “uphold”. That really does mean that, in every sense, you are upholding Canadian values.

Mr. William Janzen: We'd like to.

Mr. John Bryden: It's only in the sense that you cannot take up arms.

Mr. William Janzen: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay, thank you.

Next, you raised a very interesting thought, and that is the suggestion that the oath of citizenship, if suitably crafted, could be something that is said in schools. Can I ask you what you see as an oath's meaning? What do you think of when you think of the concept of an oath?

Mr. William Janzen: I think of it as a solemn commitment, a pledge. Maybe that word is a little weaker in a legal sense, but I guess I would see it as a commitment that is as deep as any commitment one can make.

Most of us in the western tradition would say that we owe loyalty, but never totally unqualified loyalty. There are countries where we now say that if more people had said false allegiance... There is a sort of moral requirement to object to some things when some governments do them. But, yes, I generally do see it as a serious commitment, so maybe you want to elaborate on that.

Mr. John Bryden: In that context, in about 1973 the reference to God in the oath was dropped, and it hasn't existed in the oath since that time. That's very unusual. I think we're the only country in the world that doesn't have some kind of evocation to God in the oath. Would you feel that some reference to God—maybe not “so help me God”, but some other reference—in the oath would contribute to its solemnity, to its meaning?

Mr. William Janzen: I would be sympathetic. Personally I would support that, but I realize that many factors have to be taken into account in a country like Canada.

• 1015

Mr. John Bryden: I have one last question, then.

You say that in country like Canada other factors must be taken into account. In your mind, what are those other factors? Is God not God, regardless of what religion we're talking about, whether it's Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, the Mennonites? Is there some consideration, some difference in the word “God” that perhaps you perceive that I don't perceive that would make you cautious on this?

The Chair: Mr. Janzen.

Mr. William Janzen: No, I don't think I have a quarrel with you on that.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Then I'd like to proceed to Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming, and thank you for all your work you do as the MCC.

I'm well acquainted with the work you do. I was fortunate enough to find my wife in southern Manitoba, in Altona. She is Mennonite. So I have a little bit of an insight into some of the concerns you're raising here today.

I want to go back to what Mr. Mahoney was saying and then reflect some of the comments Mr. Martin made as well.

Are you saying, then, that with the dropping of these provisions that are in the current legislation, your belief or your very strong concern is that those individuals who are coming back from Mexico and other countries are not going to be able to become citizens through the provisions; they simply won't meet those standards?

Mr. William Janzen: Right.

Mr. Grant McNally: Basically what you're saying is that those folks are out of luck.

Mr. William Janzen: That's right.

Mr. Grant McNally: There's no way they're going to be able to either enter Canada or even go through the process to become citizens?

What do you envision when someone's coming back? Let's say the bill goes through as it is without amendment in this regard. If families are coming back from Mexico or other countries and they get to the Canadian border, what do you see happening then?

Mr. William Janzen: Some of them might get visitor status or something on a temporary basis, but they would not be allowed to stay.

Mr. Grant McNally: So they might get a six-month visitor's visa?

Mr. William Janzen: The main point is that they would not be able to get permanent status in Canada. For a while there would be a few who would be able to hang on as spouses of somebody, or something like that, but for some people, not a very large number, it would simply be that the door is closed.

Mr. Grant McNally: That seems quite strange, and perhaps it was just an oversight in the drafting of the bill, because there are other provisions for other people from other countries who come here under other legislation to say the word “refugee” and they're here. They could be here for a very long time and have no connection at all to Canada. Their parents weren't Canadians, they have absolutely no link back to Canada. Those individuals who take that route and abuse the system—those who abuse it, not those who are actual refugees and in need of our protection—have the opportunity to stay here. There are lots of reports of individuals who have done that and have committed serious crimes and have still been able to stay here.

So are you saying, then, that if this bill isn't amended, individuals who have a linkage to Canada through their parentage are going to be cut from being able to be eligible, in your opinion, and have trouble, first of all, entering the country and, second of all, starting along the citizenship process? They're going to be excluded even though they have a link to Canada.

Mr. William Janzen: Yes. Obviously the proposed legislation still keeps a door open for those born after 1977 whose parents were Canadian at the time of their birth. For them the door is not closed, but for those born a little earlier it is closed.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay.

You also briefly mentioned the point of—and I want to try to clarify this—individuals who already are abroad, and maybe they're second generation or third generation already. What was it you were saying? Was it that you're not sure whether they would now be defined as first generation or second generation? When did it kick over? Was that unclear in this clause?

• 1020

Mr. William Janzen: Yes, I did say something about if a person was born in 1977 or later, even if that person was second, third, conceivably even fourth generation. How could that be? Let's see if I can paint a scenario.

Let's say a person was born in Mexico in 1930. Let's say that person's parents had been born and married in Canada. Then that person, let's call them person A, in 1947 would have been declared a Canadian citizen because he was born in wedlock and of a Canadian father. That person would then have been a Canadian until 1954.

Suppose that person had a child. Let's call that person person B. Let's say the father is 20 and the child is born in 1950. That child was born to a Canadian citizen father. So if that child was also born in wedlock, or at that time alternatively if that child was born out of wedlock and of a Canadian mother, that child born in 1950, person B, could be a Canadian.

At that stage it wasn't automatic, but the person was eligible to apply. That child might, in 1970, have another child. So that would then be generation three.

Then we come to the fourth generation. That child in 1970 could still claim Canadian citizenship, could apply for Canadian citizenship. That child born in 1970 could have another child in 1990 and that child born in 1990 would be a Canadian for the rest of his or her life without ever having to set foot in Canada.

Under the existing legislation that child born in 1990 would come up against the cessation provision at age 28.

The Chair: I should interrupt at this point. I think you had made that point earlier.

Madame Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would like you to continue at this point. It seems to me, Mr. Janzen, that this is exactly what that article in law addresses, the fact of a third-generation Canadian born outside of Canada. So I'd like you to continue with what you were going to say, if you don't mind.

But the other thing I wondered if you would do—I know your time is precious and you have a lot of dossiers—is some kind of a flow chart, a comparison flow chart between case A and case B. I'm a very visual person, and it seems to me that the question has gone around this table and it's been the same question every time.

If you could do a flow chart for us that shows the difference between A, under the old provisions, and B, under the new provisions under this new bill, what would happen through the generations in a visual way, it would be appreciated very much.

It seems to me, and I'm repeating myself here, that the same question has been asked by practically every member, no matter what side of the House they sit on. So this is an important point.

One other thing I would like to say is that I'd like to thank you for your presentation. Unfortunately, I arrived late and I apologize for that, but perhaps the way in which your presentation was made had a soothing effect on the members of this committee. And it was very pleasant to be able to listen to it. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Any questions?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: My question was, could he continue on with the answer he was giving.

The Chair: Yes, can you please proceed, on her time.

Mr. William Janzen: Yes.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: You had got to that point, so keep going.

Mr. William Janzen: I would be glad to provide a flow chart in writing if the committee members would like that.

The Chair: That would be appreciated by the committee.

• 1025

Mr. William Janzen: But I will make those few additional comments because we were getting to generation four, born in 1990. I was saying that under the proposed legislation, the generation four person remains Canadian for the rest of his life. Only generation five, let's say the person born in 2010, runs into the cessation provisions at age 28, which would be 2038.

Under the existing cessation provisions, they would start biting one generation earlier, at age 28. But I will be glad to—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I am completely confused. In this five-year transition period you want, from what I understand of what you've just said, in fact it's only in 10 or 15 years that this system is really coming into effect. So why do you want to add another five years to that?

Mr. William Janzen: I'm sorry. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify that.

When I talk about a five-year phase-out period, I'm talking about the eligibility provisions, not about the cessation provisions.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: All right.

Mr. William Janzen: On the cessation provisions, if anything, I'm saying you're being a little too generous. It's on the eligibility provisions that I would like that generosity balanced out a little bit. I will try to explain that point in a—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Something very simple, if you don't mind. Something very simple, very skeletal, just to—

Mr. William Janzen: It took me several years to learn this, and citizenship officials who were patient with me in explaining and re-explaining, so that I could explain to these people who's eligible and who's not eligible. It takes a while.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you.

Mr. William Janzen: Thank you.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'd like to pose a few questions. Our next set of witnesses is here, and I'd like a very brief answer, please. Why did you suggest a five-year phase-in period? Is it just an arbitrary figure that you have captured or is it based on a rationale?

Mr. William Janzen: There are actually two places in the brief where I talk about a five-year period. The first place deals with these eligibility provisions I've talked about.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. William Janzen: Ideally, we would like to have those retained.

The Chair: I know that. Please don't repeat what you have said before; just come to the question. Why the five-year period and not a three-year or two-year or ten-year phasing out period? Why a five-year period?

Mr. William Janzen: The processing takes a long time. To communicate to people and get them to understand it takes time. It takes time before some of them can get all of their documents ready from parents, grandparents and so on.

The Chair: You indicated that were we to retain the existing provisions, those from before 1977, you would have accommodated all of the emerging eligible applicants by the year 2005. Is this correct, that it would end at the year 2005?

Mr. William Janzen: What I'm saying is that some of those whose citizenship is dependent on people born abroad before 1977 run into the cessation provision in the year 2004. It would cease.

The Chair: Yes. I was thinking that it may be the basis for the five-year phasing out. It has nothing to do with that?

Mr. William Janzen: No, it doesn't really. It could be connected with it, but, no, that had nothing to do with my rationale. No.

The Chair: One question the research staff have suggested to me, which I would like to pose to you, is this: If the oath remains in the present form, do you see any difficulty on the part of your faith community or group community in pledging this oath?

• 1030

Mr. William Janzen: I'm sure there will be considerable reluctance.

The Chair: Knowing that the rule of respect for conscientious objectors is already entrenched in Canadian tradition, in Canadian understanding, and even in the Canadian judicial system... The reason I pose this question—and I'm glad the research staffers suggested it to me—is because in our discussion you indicated that to use the word “defend” may mean military; if you delete the word “defend”, it may mean that we can uphold democratic values short of using the military. In other words, another interpretation could emerge that means we can never invoke the use of our military in defence of democracy. So there is a potential danger.

Anyway, we will leave it at that, and the committee will study your submission with care and diligence.

At this point I would like to thank you for your presentation, which was certainly very thoughtful and careful. You have specific proposals for your observations, and that will be very helpful to the committee. I thank you both.

Mr. William Janzen: I thank you, each member.

Mr. Henry Bergen: Thank you.

The Chair: I would now like to invite the members of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council to the table. In light of the remaining half an hour or so, I would like to now formally welcome Mr. Jonas Ma and Mr. Salvador Cabugao of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. If you would like to make opening statements you may now proceed.

Mr. Salvador Cabugao (Executive Member, Canadian Ethnocultural Council): Bonjour. On behalf of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and the Chinese National Council, I would like to thank this committee for inviting us.

[Translation]

I thank you for inviting us to appear before your committee today. My name is Salvador Cabugao et I'm president of the National Council of Canadian Filipino Associations.

[English]

I'm also the treasurer of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council

[Translation]

and member of the executive committee.

[English]

Our president, Emmanuel Dick, sends his regrets.

I would like to introduce my companion here, Jonas Ma, who is with the Chinese Canadian National Council and who was instrumental in preparing our submission. Mr. Ma is on the justice and equality committee of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council.

For your information, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council is an umbrella organization of national ethnocultural organizations, including our National Council of Canadian Filipino Associations. May I state at the outset that to obtain Canadian citizenship has been and continues to be for most newcomers to Canada a defining moment in our lives. Those of us who have gone through the citizenship requirements will remember the taking of the oath of citizenship as one of the most memorable and positive events of our lives. It is worth noting that the sheer number of newcomers who go on to obtain Canadian citizenship is a firm indication of the level of loyalty and respect newcomers have for this nation and their collective desire to become full participants in the development of a Canadian identity.

Each year approximately 200,000 newcomers become Canadian citizens, about the same number of individuals who immigrate to Canada annually. Our own National Council of Canadian Filipino Associations is currently holding a series of community or town hall meetings. We had one in Toronto in February. We will be having one in Ottawa and Montreal this weekend to discuss Bill C-63. We expect to complete our consultations by the end of this month, at which time we will submit a written position to this committee.

The members here of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council echo this feeling of loyalty. Although we come from diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, we all share in our common heritage of being proud Canadians.

• 1035

While the CEC supports different aspects of Bill C-63, there are some areas that we feel need to be amended. At our last meeting of the board of the CEC that was held in January 1999, we took the opportunity to review Bill C-63. My colleague Jonas Ma will speak about some of our concerns.

The Chair: Mr. Ma.

[Translation]

Mr. Jonas Ma (Member, Equality & Justice Committee, Canadian Ethnocultural Council): My name is Jonas Ma and I'm a member of the Chinese Canadian and National Council, a national organization with 30 chapters across the country. Our mandate is to promote fairness in law and full participation by Chinese Canadians at all levels of society.

I'm very grateful to have the opportunity to participate in these consultations on Bill C-63. You perhaps received the document that we submitted a few days ago, but it has been updated since then following comments we received after it was printed. I will indicate the changes we made to the text in a few places.

[English]

I should also mention that the speedy process by which the current legislation has been dealt with left many communities unaware and with little time to respond. Many communities, in fact, want to be here to share their views on the new legislation. Unfortunately, they cannot. I feel a great responsibility on my shoulders as one of the few who were chosen to speak before you today.

As I mentioned, a few days ago we submitted some changes to the text, and I will mention those during my presentation. Primarily those changes are with regard to citizenship by naturalization and language requirements. I have added a few comments there. The second change is under citizenship process, and that is the first point in the text. The last change is with regard to refusal and revocation of citizenship, and it's the second point.

Many communities support and are relieved that children who are born in Canada will continue to have automatic citizenship rights, as they currently do. If we were to limit those automatic rights, it would create basically a two-class citizenship. We do not want to see Canada become one of those nations that continue to deny citizenship rights to certain ethnic groups because they belong to those ethnic groups.

According to the bill, the second generation of Canadians born abroad will be required to apply to retain citizenship and to meet the residency requirement before age 28. The onus is on the individuals to apply. If for any reason they were not informed or were unable to apply, would they become stateless? Will there be discretionary consideration for individual compelling situations? I think we need the nuance and room for discretion. I can think of Canadians who work overseas for NGOs and who have to travel a lot. Their children may be born overseas, and their children may give birth to children overseas as well. When they return to Canada, they may not know they have to apply to retain their citizenship.

We believe there's wide community support for granting citizenship to adopted children without the child having to meet medical or permanent residence requirements. I think it would make eminent sense.

Under the part on citizenship by naturalization, the proposed requirement of physical presence in Canada for three years out of five years may aim to discourage flagrant abuse of the current provisions. However, it does not take into consideration the situations of individuals who are very much attached to Canada but who are compelled to travel abroad frequently for a number of reasons, including professional and business immigrants who are facing daunting and even insurmountable barriers to integrate into the local economy and need to seek economic opportunities elsewhere to support their families in Canada. I understand the Canadian Bar Association made a presentation yesterday in which they made that very clear. It also includes students who have to travel outside of Canada to study, as well as family members who have to take care of a member of the family who is sick.

• 1040

Last but not least are refugees who spend years waiting for refugee determination or permanent status but cannot count these years toward the three-year residency requirement, thus prolonging their stateless status. As you know, without citizenship and without access to a passport, they basically cannot travel because they are stateless. It will further delay their contact with family from which they have been separated, which in some cases is for many years. For such cases we need to have enough flexibility and discretion in the system so that people in situations I have just mentioned would not be denied their citizenship.

I would like to talk about the language requirement. Many communities feel that the new requirement for citizenship applicants to communicate their knowledge of Canada in one of the two official languages without using an interpreter is unfair and counter-productive and delays their integration into our society. This will have a disproportionate impact on seniors and homemakers, who face greater difficulties in acquiring the language and accessing ESL services, which already have been severely cut. This is especially true for women or men with sole child care responsibility. It will also affect low-income families who work long hours in order to support themselves and their families. Other groups that will be penalized are the disabled, survivors of torture, and other severely traumatized people, who may have greater difficulties in accessing or learning a new language. Standardized language tests do not take into consideration these individual situations. It can also lead to the alienation of new immigrants or Canadians who are already marginalized.

I should like to turn to the citizenship process. According to the new bill, the decision-making powers are transferred from citizenship judges to citizenship officers, who will review and make decisions on applications based on the “straightforward” criteria of physical presence and language requirement. This will lead to a loss of flexibility. In the bill the possibility of humanitarian consideration may exist, but the problem is that it is not clear how people can get access to these considerations. It is the experience of the community that civil servants applying guidelines are much less likely to be flexible than independent decision-makers.

I have described some of the very human situations by which, for reasons beyond their control, applicants may not be able to meet the criteria even though they're very much committed and attached to Canada. The other problem is that the only recourse for applicants who are denied applications would be through Federal Court judges and the judicial review process, which many applicants won't have the resources or the ability to access.

Lastly, I'd like to speak on the refusal and revocation of citizenship. The new bill provides the cabinet with new power to refuse a citizenship application if it is not in the public interest for the people who are applying to become citizens. Even though the new bill suggests that the authority will be rarely used, many communities feel that this is too broadly defined and it can open the door to highly politicized denials of citizenship. I can think of countries that perhaps the UN has sanctions against, but these can be a political rather than a human rights consideration.

Many communities have grave concerns with regard to the minister's new power to cancel the citizenship of an individual in the case where it is clear that citizenship was obtained on the basis of false identity or where the individual was not entitled to citizenship because of a criminal offence. This can lead to the creation of second-class citizenship for naturalized citizens. Even a mistake in the original application, made unknowingly, can lead to the loss of their citizenship, with very limited rights of appeal. The children may also be included in the revocation order.

• 1045

The accompanying notes state this will depend on the circumstances of the case and the principles of international law governing statelessness. The government may assure us this is their intention, but unless the provisions are narrowly defined in the law so that only the intended cases can be affected, we must be seriously worried that in practice in the future, individuals other than those the government says it wants to target will be affected and will have no recourse.

It is important that factors such as the actual length of stay and ties in Canada, severity of crimes involved, and periods of rehabilitation must be taken into consideration.

The bill does not address the meaning of citizenship. To the world, Canada is a democratic and compassionate multicultural and multiracial society that is a champion for social justice and human rights. That is how we would like to see ourselves. But in the new bill we do not see any emphasis on promoting these values. If these are the values we cherish and want to be more proactive in promoting, one of the first things we need to do is help new immigrants integrate into our society. Creating barriers for already marginalized groups, such as refugees, the elderly, and homemakers with sole child care responsibilities, to become citizens runs counter to these objectives.

The Chair: Mr. Ma, I may have to cut you off there—you can get your submission to us in writing—to allow for questions and answers. There may be no time left.

I would like to start with Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming today.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Could I have just another 30 seconds? I just have three lines.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Thank you.

By broadening the process by which citizenship can be revoked without clear definition, we may inadvertently create further alienation and marginalization of affected groups. Citizenship is too important a concept for the future of Canada, as increasing numbers of Canadians are naturalized rather than locally born.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ma.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much, gentlemen. I'm just going to start at the beginning of your presentation with citizenship by birth. You made a comment there regarding citizenship at birth, and said if that weren't in the legislation, certain ethnic groups might become second-class citizens. I'd like you to explain what you're getting at there. I can't understand how that would be.

Mr. Jonas Ma: If we are born here, our citizenship rights cannot be revoked and we don't have to worry about that, but if we are naturalized citizens and our parents made false application originally, that can be defined as a criminal offence and can be a condition for revocation of citizenship. It would include their children as well. Why would locally born and naturalized citizens be treated differently on this account, for example?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I was interested in your comment that certain ethnic groups may become second-class citizens.

Mr. Jonas Ma: I didn't mean certain ethnic groups. I meant naturalized citizens may become second-class citizens.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you for the clarification.

You made a comment again, under citizenship at birth—your third point—that there is a wide community of support for granting citizenship to the adopted child without the child having to meet medical tests. You said this makes eminent sense, and I'd like you to explain that.

Mr. Jonas Ma: I wouldn't say they shouldn't have to meet medical requirements. Under the Immigration Act, family class, people are supposed to be able to be reunited with their families even though they may have medical conditions that would make excessive demands on our system. The applications are usually granted on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. So it would make eminent sense to also include adopted children in the family class, in the way the family class has been treated.

• 1050

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're saying that even if someone wants to adopts a child that has severe medical problems that could cost our health care system a lot of money and a lot of time, that shouldn't be taken into account in the process.

Mr. Jonas Ma: I think the act suggests the parents should know. But if they know about the medical problems and still want to adopt the child, I don't think we should deny the right of family reunification. This is one of the founding principles of our immigration policy.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Shouldn't Canada as a country have the right to say we won't allow the child to come to Canada? It really doesn't have to do with citizenship, though, does it? Well, I guess it does in this case. Shouldn't the country have a right to say the demands on our medical system will just be too great, therefore we can't allow this to happen?

Mr. Jonas Ma: You are raising questions that actually should be addressed within the Immigration Act as well. Right now, as I mentioned, it is allowed. Unless we want to change that concept—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. So you're just saying it should be applied in the Citizenship Act in the same way as it is in the Immigration Act.

Mr. Jonas Ma: It should be applied in the same way, unless we don't want to see adopted children as part of the family and make them a second class of family members.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd need some more explanation on that, I guess. I don't get it.

Mr. Jonas Ma: If a child is born here and they have a serious medical condition, we do not deny them access to health services. Why should it be different for an adopted child who is going to be a member of the family?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I guess the difference is that when a Canadian citizen decides to adopt a child abroad, they would understand ahead of time that if they do there will be a great demand on our health care system, and that should be taken into account.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Most definitely, but this should be the decision of the parents, as it would be in the case of Canadians who, through genetic counselling or tests, know their child will be severely handicapped. They can make the decision whether or not to keep the child. That's the decision of the parents.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, I understand your position on that.

In terms of citizenship by naturalization, you're talking about the physical presence—three out of five years. I think you're saying you don't agree with this requirement of physical presence for three years out of five. Is that the case?

Mr. Jonas Ma: We ask for flexibility in consideration of those situations where we have—

Mr. Leon Benoit: But if there's more flexibility built in, wouldn't you have the same thing you have now, in effect? It depends on the degree of flexibility, but right now there's enough flexibility that in certain cases people who may spend virtually no time in the country are allowed citizenship. It doesn't show a lot of commitment to the country. You must agree that citizenship is a privilege to be granted, and you should show a commitment to the country.

Mr. Jonas Ma: I agree with that. I'm saying in some cases their absence from Canada is not a demonstration of lack of commitment. I would just enumerate some of these cases.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You've used the example of someone who may be abroad to attend to an ill family member, or something like that. Is it unreasonable in a situation like that to still have the requirement that there be a physical presence for three years out of five? We're not denying this person access to the country; we're denying citizenship. So would it be so wrong if the requirement were still there that they be physically present three years out of five before the granting of citizenship?

Mr. Jonas Ma: We're just saying the concept of demonstrating commitment by physical presence may not be the most reasonable one, if I can use that term. I agree with you that in some cases where people have no commitment or tie to Canada we should not give them citizenship. But in a number of situations, physical presence may not be a demonstration of the fact that they are not attached to Canada. They may want to be here but cannot for any of the reasons we have mentioned. So in those situations there should be discretion and consideration. It shouldn't be a blanket treatment of all cases.

• 1055

Mr. Leon Benoit: In the same vein, I think you were saying you preferred the citizenship judge route as compared with what's been proposed in the legislation because the judge has more flexibility. They would consider the individual situation more than would a departmental official who is bound by definite rules.

Mr. Jonas Ma: No, we are not saying citizenship judges are not going to be bound by those rules. We're just saying there's an independent decision-making process that can take into consideration all the factors that may impact on the case, on that application.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You don't think the departmental official, who is highly trained and well informed on the system, would take all these factors into consideration as part of the process in the department?

Mr. Jonas Ma: If the experience in the committees is true, officials and officers have other considerations that they highly value, such as cutting down costs and having more efficient operations, which I understand seem to be the driving force behind a lot of these changes. But an independent decision-making process will not be bound by those considerations; it will be bound more by what are our criteria for citizenship. It will be bound not by those administrative considerations but by having an independent decision-making process.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How do you respond then to the argument, which I've heard from many people, that in fact one of the advantages in moving this citizenship determination to the department is that there would be consistency and that definite rules would be adhered to, that there wouldn't be this flexibility, which is perhaps abused by citizenship judges in some cases under the current system?

Mr. Jonas Ma: I think it's a very delicate balance between consistency and enough flexibility to not have so much rigidity that you will not be able to take note of those very human and complex situations that people do have to go through.

Mr. Leon Benoit: One other thing I wanted to ask about—and I just can't find it right now—had to do with political considerations. You were concerned that political considerations might come into play more if it were departmental officials who were determining citizenship. I just can't find where it is right now.

Mr. Jonas Ma: It's in the last section.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. I've had the comment that already that happens—there are quotas in all the various offices around the world when it comes to immigration, certainly—and that these quotas are put in place in the immigration system and there are political concerns. If there are UN sanctions, well, that is a consideration in how many people are allowed from certain countries. So you're afraid that same kind of political consideration will come in under the citizenship—

Mr. Jonas Ma: Definitely. It may not be a quota, but what we mean by that is that a citizen from a certain country will be totally denied access to citizenship because they belong to a country against which the UN has a sanction.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first of all like to warmly welcome the two representatives of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and to tell them how pleased I am to be working with them once again.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Folco, before you proceed with your question, I'd like to inform the committee that no other committee is using the room, so the chair has decided to extend this for half an hour, at most, if there is the permission of the committee. Others, of course, may feel free to go.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'm not sure I'll be able to stay until the additional half-hour, but I'll ask my question anyway, Mr. Chairman.

Actually, I'd like to ask two questions, that are intended for Mr. Ma in particular. The first has to do with the three to five years that the new bill gives residents to prove that they are really involved in Canadian society. We have heard from other groups, and I myself have spoken to all kinds of people, that have described the difficulties that this could cause, especially for business people who are required to travel constantly between Canada and another country. I have several arguments to put forward on this matter.

The first is the fact that the government has already demonstrated some understanding of the difficulties these people experience by extending the period during which the total number of days can be calculated.

• 1100

In the second place, I've heard stories—which may not be completely true—regarding business people who came to settle their families in Canada. According to these stories, they settled their children or teenagers aged 13, 14 or 15, while one parent, the father, returned to his country of origin, leaving behind the children, with or without their mother. Of course, this is an unusual situation and the system is being abused. As far as you know, how prevalent is this type of abuse of the system in Canada? I've heard about such cases mainly in British Columbia. I'd like you to give me some more information on this subject. Lastly, what suggestions can you make regarding this problem? It's a contentious issue, to be sure, and several people and groups have talked about it in a negative way. I'd like to hear some proactive suggestions—you have that reputation, Mr. Ma—as to what the government should do about it. That's my first question.

You said that, as far as citizenship is concerned, there is nothing in the bill to promote Canadian values. I'd like you to make recommendations to us in this area. Thank you.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Thank you, Ms. Folco. I have the pleasure to be here to discuss this subject which is very dear to me. Your first question had to do with the matter of physical residence here, in Canada. I know that there are cases of abuse and I prefer not to discuss them. I unfortunately have no concrete suggestions to make to you to settle this problem, but I would recommend you consult the communities.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it does happen that families are very attached to Canada and wish to stay but must leave because of economic problems that they face here in North America. Those people have a lot of problems finding work or setting up shop here. What other choice do they have? They brought their money here with them, but they had to spend it, over the years, just to survive. So you shouldn't say they went back to Asia because they had no attachment to Canada. We have to be extremely sensitive and avoid treating those people as people who lack commitment or who abuse the system. There are different situations and we should have a consultation process allowing us to establish mechanisms that are equitable and that don't penalize people who really want to establish themselves here.

Your second question had to do with the significance of Canada. I think we should first establish some integration services. For some years now, there have been a lot of cuts to integration services. The access to language courses is very limited. Business people can't integrate into the Canadian economic system because there are no programs to help them. There were some programs, but they were all eliminated because of budget cuts. That would be a first step to be taken.

Secondly, you have to look at all the barriers that the immigrants, the vast majority of whom are part of our visible minorities here, must face in this society.

So you have to look at at least two things: integration services and measures to combat prejudice and discrimination towards visible minority immigrants.

• 1105

These are the values for which Canada is known and it's something I'm very proud of.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: As we have very little time left, I'll give the floor to someone else on the Liberal side.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Sophia Leung, you have four minutes.

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

I just want to make a comment. I know CNC and CEC have done a very fine job through the years. Thank you for coming.

Now, I have a couple of questions. You suggest there's inequality in treatment for citizens by birth and naturalized citizens. I don't quite follow that. I don't see that there's really a visible mistreatment or inequality. Would you like to expand on that?

Mr. Jonas Ma: All right. Thank you.

I think the comment was made in reference to how citizenships are revoked and how citizenships can be taken away from, for example, children of a parent who becomes a citizen and in whose file we later find there's some misrepresentation. According to the new legislation, we can take away that citizenship right. For the children who are here—maybe they came as children—they would lose that citizenship right as well. The locally born would never lose their citizenship right, whereas for immigrant children of naturalized parents that right is not guaranteed. There's a risk of losing that right.

Also, the only way they can appeal the decision is through the Federal Court judicial process, which is very costly, and not everyone can have access to that. So for low-income families it would be difficult to have access to that appeal process.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Mr. Ma, if both generations, the parents and the children, receive citizenship through naturalization and if there is false representation by the parents, then the parents are at fault. It should not apply to the children.

Mr. Jonas Ma: That's what we think too. The new legislation says they would consider that, but it's not clear in what situations it would be granted and in what situations it wouldn't be. So it's not clear.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Now, you did express some concern regarding the requirement of the official language, and that has also been voiced by some other groups. There is a necessity to make adjustments to live in this country, and language is the basic one, so how would you think this could be remedied? We already have a lot of settlement programs being given in different provinces; we know there are ESL classes. Would you like to comment on that—the basic, very elementary sort of requirement?

The Chair: Mr. Ma.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Thank you. I want to make just two comments.

First, what is proposed in the new legislation is that there will still be some basic language tests, but the second part of the test, which is the knowledge of Canada, will change. In the past, people could bring an interpreter with them to answer some of the questions about Canada. It is not easy for people to understand what is the role of the Senate or what is the role of the standing committees. Even among locally born Canadians it's a hard question.

Mr. Grant McNally: And politicians too.

Mr. Jonas Ma: To ask someone like my mother those questions without my being there would be very difficult.

You're right about services, but they have been cut back. Maybe the ESL classes were available on weekends and at night. I'm not saying all cities are the same. Some cities have more than others, because each province has its programs.

• 1110

I just want to mention one thing about my mother. She came here about ten years ago and she became a citizen about five years ago. I accompanied her to the citizenship test, which gave her a lot of reassurance. Of course she doesn't really speak that much English or French, but she was given the citizenship right.

Now, she was still considering whether or not she wanted to return to Hong Kong, but three years ago she told me, “I want to buy a piece of land where I will be buried, here in Montreal.” We were living in Montreal. I think that's a very good indication that she belongs to Canada and she's very attached to Canada. She may not pass the test, but I don't think it's a demonstration of her lack of attachment to Canada.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Leung.

The chair would like to qualify something before going to Mr. Martin and then Mr. Bryden and Mr. McNally. You are not objecting to the requirement for a basic knowledge per se. Is that right?

Mr. Jonas Ma: We are saying that we are not objecting to the two requirements.

The Chair: Yes. Please answer my question directly. You are not objecting to the requirement for a basic knowledge of English, which is separate from the requirement for an interpreter for the examination. Yes or no?

Mr. Jonas Ma: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you. But you're suggesting that there be an interpreter.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Yes.

The Chair: Yes. For greater clarity, I would like to be focused. Okay?

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much. Actually, that was my opening question, so that helps me.

The Chair: It saves you one minute.

Mr. Pat Martin: That saves me one minute.

One of the groups I heard actually speak to the minister when the minister did the touring task force in Winnipeg, which is my riding, is the Philippine Association of Manitoba. Clearly that's one of the groups that made a very strong representation that they thought having the language as a factor in the test was one more barrier on the road to citizenship and, at the very least, sent the wrong message. Rather than a welcoming message, it sent the message that we're going to be putting any number of barriers to trip you up. So I'm glad it was raised, and I'm glad it was clarified.

I very much enjoyed your representation here, and I find I can agree with virtually all of the items you've raised. Our party has made it clear—I'm with the NDP—that we won't vote for Bill C-63 until or unless a number of these things are corrected by amendment. I'd ask for your input on two of the things that bother us that I haven't seen in your comments.

One is the loss of citizenship at the age of 28. One of the questions we have, and I'd like your input on it, is what would be the status of the person who loses citizenship under that type of provision? If they happened to be living in Canada at the time they reached age 28, would they automatically revert to being a permanent resident, or would they find themselves stateless and being kicked out of the country? Maybe you wouldn't mind commenting on that.

The Chair: Mr. Ma.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Thank you.

I would hate to see them kicked out of the country because they hadn't made that application. I can see the value of having the residency requirement if they had been away for a long time. But if they have been in the country for virtually most of their life, I think it is a very unreasonable requirement. At least they should make sure that these people who are affected by the new legislation are informed of the requirement to apply, so they would not be in a situation where they find they have no status in Canada.

Mr. Pat Martin: If we put forward an amendment that a person in that situation would revert to being a permanent resident and then could, I guess, make application through more conventional means for citizenship later on, would you be satisfied with an amendment to that effect?

Mr. Salvador Cabugao: Well, what we could say is that he is a citizen, is he not? I don't understand a 28-year-old suddenly losing his citizenship just because of this law. He is a de facto Canadian citizen already. So maybe there are mechanisms by which he could be informed that by this time he would be losing his citizenship. Adequate knowledge or adequate information is one solution, but that's not all, because there may be other circumstances that prevent him from knowing. But in 28 years I think he would have a fair knowledge about this.

• 1115

Our other concern is, why impose that on naturalized citizens when it is not imposed for Canadian-born citizens? In other words, what is the difference between naturalized and natural-born Canadian citizens?

That is our concept of citizenship. There should be no naturalized or natural-born Canadians; we are all Canadians. That is really the premise of all these presentations.

As to knowledge of Canada, if you ask a native French Canadian, do you think they know where Vancouver is? They don't know where Vancouver is. I have seen people from all walks of life, and they do not know more about Canada than my own children, and yet they are citizens and they have no fear of losing their citizenship. That's my answer.

Mr. Pat Martin: I see your point.

Do I still have time?

The Chair: You have 30 seconds.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'll be really quick. What do you do with 30 seconds?

We're also critical of the foreign criminal actions, for your information—dealing with the loss of eligibility for citizenship due to foreign criminal actions, because some of the places these people are coming from may be corrupt places. One of the points I made the other day is that Nelson Mandela wouldn't have qualified for citizenship under what they're looking at here because he was a member of the ANC, which was an outlawed organization. Do you have any feelings on that clause?

Mr. Jonas Ma: We agree with you. We also feel that we have to look at the severity of the crime. In some countries it's a crime just to litter; to throw garbage on the street is a criminal offence. Is that severe enough to revoke their citizenship? So I think we need to evaluate those situations and circumstances.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you. I think I'm out of time.

The Chair: Thank you so much, Mr. Martin.

We'll go to Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Does that mean that an oath of citizenship, which you both stressed was very important, is some kind of commitment or contract between the individual and the adopted country? You would agree with that. Then what happens when that contract or commitment is broken?

I'm thinking, for example, of the attack on the Turkish embassy by some members of the Kurdish community, many of whom we would assume had taken the current oath of citizenship. Firebombing the police and throwing rocks and everything in that demonstration run completely counter to the context of the current oath. Canadians do not behave in that way. Well, we see that the minister is seeking new powers to annul citizenship. Would you not say that the minister would be justified in annulling citizenship when people have broken the contract of their oath in such dramatic fashion?

Mr. Jonas Ma: Again, we want to bring up what we said earlier about the differentiation between naturalized citizens and natural-born citizens. When local-born citizens behave like that, they will be charged with criminal offences. I think that should be the same treatment for naturalized citizens. If they did something wrong, punish them, if that is the law of the land.

Mr. John Bryden: But they committed themselves to an oath. They swore a solemn contract to uphold the laws of the land, to respect the rights of Canada, the rule of law. You don't feel that in breaking that contract they should have any consequence because they swore an oath that they didn't keep?

Mr. Salvador Cabugao: I can answer that also.

It seems that the contract you're speaking about is the citizenship oath. I think natural-born Canadians have much the same contract, even if it is not written. So they should abide by the law, be governed by the same act, and if these are criminal acts, they should be punished the same way as the Kurds—you gave that example. They should be punished as Canadians. I don't know if they should be deported; Canadians can not be deported anywhere.

Mr. John Bryden: Of course, what we're worried about here is the importation of ethnic conflict into Canada and Canada being a battleground for historic conflicts. This is what we're really talking about here.

If we accept your rationale, isn't it then very, very important that we ensure that those who take that oath of citizenship realize and appreciate and act upon its solemnity? In other words, the solemness of that oath is very, very important in trying to govern the behaviour of naturalized Canadians. Would that be correct?

Mr. Salvador Cabugao: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: Then the last point is, am I again correct in assuming that the majority of current new Canadians and potential new Canadians that your organizations represent, by and large, are members of some kind of organized religion in which there is a deity, a God? I presume there are very few atheists in the communities you represent—people who absolutely reject the concept of God. Is that correct? The majority are in organized religions.

• 1120

Mr. Jonas Ma: I cannot really agree with you.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay. If that's the case, wouldn't we be well advised to put the word “God” in some form into the oath of citizenship in order to impress upon new Canadians the solemnity of the oath they're taking? Would that be a constructive way of dealing with the type of problem I mentioned?

Mr. Jonas Ma: I would agree only if the applicants believe in that. They can choose to have that faith, definitely. We're talking about very diverse communities.

Mr. John Bryden: But it would only be “God”. When you say “God” it could be Islam, it could be Hinduism, it could be Christian—

Mr. Jonas Ma: I mean that people who are atheists should have access to something else.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay, so they could opt out of using the word “God”. But you would otherwise agree that having “God” in the oath in order to increase it's solemnity might help us avoid the type of incident we saw at the Turkish embassy. Am I correct in assuming that?

Mr. Jonas Ma: It may, but once again we want to stress we should not apply different standards of requirements to naturalized citizens versus those locally born.

Mr. John Bryden: I pick up on that because, of course, someone who is born a Canadian presumably believes in all those things because those values are inculcated from birth, whereas a new Canadian has to adopt those values when they adopt this country, which is why we have an oath.

Mr. Jonas Ma: I believe Canada is a very diverse country. Those locally born have different types of value systems and different types of beliefs. They have been taught that this is a democratic, compassionate country concerned about social justice and human rights, and we respect the law. Those are the things we bother with.

There's no guarantee that they will act according to those principles, but of course they have been given that. That's precisely the point I raised earlier. We should promote the values of Canada to new citizens so they know it's a democratic system, and if they want to express their divergent views, there's a democratic process to do that. They don't need to go to violent means. These are the things we should promote rather than say, okay, you're not acting according to the law—

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ma. I think you have said it already.

Mr. McNally.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

Mr. Grant McNally: I think I'm going to pass on my time. I see we're drawing quickly to a close, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: The chair would like to pose a few questions. The minister made a blanket waiver of the requirement to be able to communicate in one of the official languages for those over 60 years of age. Would that waiver be sufficient to address your community?

Mr. Salvador Cabugao: I think so, because there are some people who are not articulate in expressing their knowledge of Canada. But if you are educated in English, your knowledge of Canada is really what is in your heart; it's not what you speak out. So how would an officer determine whether you really have this knowledge of Canada without the benefit of an interpreter or something in written form? Some people can speak. Some people can write only.

The Chair: Understood.

Mr. Ma, you stated there should not be two classes of citizens for the adoptees and those naturally born, because in adoption there is a need for family reunification. I would like to be clear in my mind. Family reunification means they were families before and now they would like to be reunited. Your statement would only apply if the adoptee were a member of the family to begin with and not from the general community. Am I right?

Mr. Jonas Ma: Yes.

• 1125

The Chair: Okay, I just wanted that point clarified.

Since you admitted that adequate knowledge of English, basic knowledge, is acceptable to your community, the need for an interpreter is a thing that you would like to have amended. Right?

Mr. Jonas Ma: Okay.

The Chair: Is there a level of English that you would like to be available during that examination, using the English language, or French?

Mr. Jonas Ma: I want to go back to the first point you raised and then answer this question.

What I mean by adoption is that at the moment of adoption, the child becomes a member of the family. We're talking about after the adoption, whether the child coming to Canada will become a citizen or will have to go through three years of residency—

The Chair: Under the present proposal, once adopted, you're a citizen, unless it is adoption by convenience. That's in the proposal.

Mr. Jonas Ma: That's why we're saying we agree; we support this.

The Chair: Yes.

Now, I would like to know this from you. The views you have submitted today obviously in part reflect the views of the council and in part reflect your own personal views, the views of your own association but not necessarily of the council. Am I right?

Mr. Jonas Ma: I believe we have—

Mr. Salvador Cabugao: All of these are the council's.

The Chair: Okay. You indicated earlier that you are now engaged in a series of forums in the community to get your views—

Mr. Salvador Cabugao: Our National Council of Canadian Filipino Associations.

The Chair: Of only one community.

Mr. Salvador Cabugao: Yes.

The Chair: Insofar as the Filipino Canadian community is concerned, to date, it is a preliminary consensus; subsequent ideas may still be forthcoming.

Mr. Salvador Cabugao: On this we agreed: as members of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, we are part of all of this presentation. Our own National Council of Canadian Filipino Associations has a separate presentation.

The Chair: Okay.

The last question is this. Does the CEC subscribe to a general principle of some kind that appreciation of Canadian citizenship should be made very clear, with some strictness, because it reflects the soul of our nation, that it should not be made easy, and that money need not be given any more weight than the fundamental requirements as stipulated in the act?

Mr. Salvador Cabugao: What do you mean by “money”?

The Chair: In other words, if you are on business, so-called, and you're only going to be here for a few days, and because you are investing a lot of money, the waiver for residency should be allowed; but at the same time, for someone who doesn't have as much investment, this strict requirement should be required.

Mr. Jonas Ma: I think there's a number of issues raised here. I think we have a little time, but I would just speak on two of them.

On the first one, you mentioned the level of language proficiency. I think the new bill proposed standardized tests. It didn't say whether it was going to be reading, writing or oral. In our understanding, it would penalize people who do not have a lot of education. They may be able to speak fluently and functionally, but they may not be able to read or write, and these tests would penalize people in that situation. So I think that has to be taken into consideration.

Yes, we would agree that citizenship is something that we value, something we should promote, and it should not be taken lightly. But I think the direction the new legislation is taking is more one of controlling, enforcement, and not as much the promotion, in the proactive approach I mentioned earlier, to make the newcomer understand our democratic values, our compassionate and multicultural, multiracial... These are the things that we need to promote more.

The Chair: Okay. Knowing all of that, and that accepted, what do you think would constitute a reasonable period of physical presence in Canada out of five years? How many years? How many days? How many months?

Mr. Jonas Ma: We have not gone into great detail on the actual number of days and how it's being counted. We have only discussed the situation in which the very rigid application of these would put a lot of people in a kind of situation where they cannot access citizenship. So that's the area on which I think we need to consult our membership more, on how many days and within what period.

The Chair: But in general, you agree that three years out of five years of actual physical presence in the country is a reasonable requirement.

Mr. Jonas Ma: That I don't know. We have not consulted or discussed that.

The Chair: You have no position on that at this point?

Mr. Jonas Ma: At this point, no.

• 1130

The Chair: Thank you. And thank you again for making your submission to the committee. It was very thoughtful, and certainly it will be taken into account as the committee makes it deliberations.

We have now concluded our hearing of witnesses.

Mr. John Bryden: I wish to move adjournment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, we have a motion on the floor—

The Chair: Mr. Bryden, what is your point?

Mr. John Bryden: I was going to move adjournment, Mr. Chairman, because I see it is now 10.30 a.m. I didn't want to keep the witnesses.

The Chair: We have a quandary. There is a motion, but the question is whether we have a quorum to discuss the motion at this point.

The Clerk of the Committee: We don't have a quorum. We need nine members.

The Chair: We need nine members.

The Clerk: And Mr. Grewal is not a member. I haven't received a sheet.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): It will come at any moment.

The Clerk: We need nine members.

Mr. Leon Benoit: We need nine members?

The Clerk: Yes. Nine members constitute a quorum.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: So you are one member short.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No. Our quorum is nine members?

The Clerk: Yes. We have 16 members, and it's half plus one. Nine members form a quorum.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Then how could we have just held a meeting?

The Clerk: We can have a meeting to hear evidence from the witnesses. A motion was passed by the committee earlier on just to hear witnesses, so there's another quorum that the committee agreed to. But we do not have a quorum to move motions and adopt motions.

The Chair: Formally, I would like to excuse the witnesses. Thank you again.

Mr. Salvador Cabugao: Thank you very much.

The Chair: I have not adjourned the meeting at this point, from the hearing of witnesses. The clerk has just reminded me that there is no quorum to entertain your motion so—

Mr. Leon Benoit: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I brought notice of this motion at the first of the meeting. I presented it to the clerk. It was agreed that we would hear the motion. We have five opposition members here. Because the government members leave, can we be denied the opportunity to present our motion?

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, you also left the room. So to say that the government members left, they have other obligations—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm here, and I was here at the first of the meeting.

The Chair: Yes, because you left and you returned, right? So do not give the implication that government members left. They left for their own activities. And according to Mr. McNally yesterday, you cannot refer to the absence of any member in this committee.

Mr. Grant McNally: You're right.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Then I apologize for that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I'm glad.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But when does the chair anticipate that he'll have enough government members here so that we can have a quorum?

The Chair: At the first opportunity when we have a quorum... I indicated to you that we would hear your message after the witnesses were heard. But now after the witnesses have been heard we have no quorum. It is beyond the control of the chair, as everybody else moves in and out of the committee. So I need your help to sustain quorum in this committee.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Look, we have five opposition members here, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Would you like to read your motion, to give notice?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, I'll read the motion.

The Chair: The clerk has advised me we can receive notice of motion in the absence of quorum.

Mr. John Bryden: Just a notice of motion.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But the motion is time-sensitive. It's to have the minister here before March 25. We've been waiting for this now since she was here in December. The meeting was interrupted, and she agreed to come back.

The Chair: Can you please read the motion.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I will read the motion.

The Clerk: It's a notice of motion.

Mr. Leon Benoit: As agreed by the committee on December 9, 1998, I move that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be requested to reappear before the committee at the earliest opportunity, but not later than March 25, 1999, to address the performance reviews of the department for the fiscal year 1998-99.

The Chair: But seeing that there is no quorum, the chair accepts—

Mr. Grant McNally: I have a point of order.

The Chair: —the motion as read as notice of motion.

Mr. Grant McNally: I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chair. I apologize for missing the first few minutes of the meeting, but was this motion then entertained when we did have quorum? When it was first brought forward there was quorum, was there not?

The Chair: No. She asked me when it would be discussed. When was this motion submitted?

Mr. Grant McNally: The motion was submitted at the beginning—

Mr. Leon Benoit: At the first of the meeting.

Mr. Grant McNally: —at the first of the meeting, when there was quorum.

The Chair: Yes, there was quorum.

Mr. Grant McNally: So then it was on the table?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: There was quorum?

The Chair: Yes. And I said it could be discussed after the witnesses had left. But the quorum having disappeared, the rule of the committee is that when the quorum is lost there can be no discussion on the motion and no vote can be taken on the motion.

Mr. Grant McNally: Which standing order was that again?

A voice: I'll have to get it.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. I'd appreciate that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Could I just get a commitment from the chair, then, that this motion has been presented? Could the chair commit that the next time we have quorum at this meeting, should it happen ever again, this motion would be voted on?

The Chair: This kind of proposition to the chair is not essential.

• 1135

Mr. Leon Benoit: But the chair denied the other day—

The Chair: The chair did not deny you. The chair is not discussing this motion because there is no quorum. I will be in breach—

Mr. Leon Benoit: At the last committee meeting, Mr. Chair—

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.