CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 15, 1999

• 0911

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): I would like to call the meeting of this standing committee to order.

I have an indication of a point of order from Mr. Ménard. Before I proceed with that, I would just indicate that we are here in pursuit of the study of Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship.

Before us today is Judge Agnès Jaouich, a senior citizenship judge.

On a point of order, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, in accordance with our Standing Orders, which call for 24 hours' notice, I want to give notice that at the next meeting, I would like to our committee to study the motion that I am about to read out and then table:

That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute documents received only when they have been translated in both official languages and that the committee not be allowed to sit until the translation is prepared in both official languages.

Consequently, I have given notice and tabled this motion, and at our next meeting, I will have an opportunity to explain it.

Secondly, after my point of order, I would like to say that I hope that during the next meeting, you will also report back to us on when the Minister will be appearing. You made a commitment to ensure that the Minister appear as quickly as possible so that we could discuss past and future appropriations. "As soon as possible" is starting to drag on.

[English]

The Chair: I would just like to briefly respond with a point of information, not to debate the motion. You have given notice of it and it will be debated later on.

The Clerk of the Committee: I would just like to let the hon. member know that no documents are ever distributed unless they are in both languages and have been translated. They never go out from my office or even here in committee. If I get a document only in English, it's not distributed to the members until and unless it's translated. I just want to bring this information to the member.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Absolutely not. Quite often, only the English version of the briefs are distributed to the committee members.

[English]

The Chair: I cannot allow debate on the motion. As you said, it is notice of motion. She just gave a point of information.

On that note, I would like to again welcome our witness this morning. Judge, you may proceed with your opening remarks. I am sure you know that on the right side are the members from the government; on the left side are the members from the opposition; the research staff, Margaret Young; and Santosh Sirpaul, the clerk of the committee.

You may proceed, Judge.

[Translation]

Judge Agnès Jaouich (Senior Citizenship Judge): Mr. Chairman, honourable members, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today on behalf of Canada's citizenship judges.

• 0915

As the senior citizenship judge, it is my role to coordinate the areas of responsibility of the citizenship judges and to act as their spokesperson. Certainly the advent of a new Citizenship Act generated enormous interest and discussion among the citizenship judges. They were consulted on several occasions, by me and by departmental staff, to obtain their views on the elements of Bill C-63 that pertain to new responsibilities. My remarks today, therefore, should be regarded as reflecting the views of the entire panel of seven full-time and 15 part-time judges from across Canada.

Before addressing the bill, I would like to take a moment to describe the current responsibilities of citizenship judges. Under the current legislation, the primary responsibilities of citizenship judges are to: preside at citizenship ceremonies and administer the oath of citizenship to new Canadians; review and approve citizenship applications; or conduct hearings to ascertain whether knowledge, language and residency requirements have been met or whether any criminal prohibitions apply.

The new legislation modifies the role of citizenship judges by removing some of these responsibilities while adding others. Citizenship judges have expressed their support of Bill C-63 and welcome many of the changes which the bill will bring about. They are especially pleased that some of the recommendations to the Minister have been incorporated into the bill.

I will now deal with the issue of residency. In response to the immigration legislation review, the citizenship judges wrote to the Minister in March of 1998 to recommend that this issue be clarified in the new legislation. The amendment contained in Bill C-63 that clarifies the residency requirement is therefore particularly welcome. The current legislation leaves too much room for interpretation, and it does not define what constitutes residence. Over the years, this led to inconsistent and widely divergent interpretations by both citizenship judges and federal court judges. The current state of ambiguity and unpredictability has resulted in numerous problems. Citizenship judges' decisions are constantly open to appeal, no matter how well considered and reasoned they may be, because there is no certainty as to the state of the law. Permanent residents also face the problem of not knowing how to comply with the law. The citizenship judges therefore support the provision of Bill C-63 which stipulates that a permanent resident must have accumulated at least three years of physical presence in Canada within a five-year period preceding his or her application for citizenship. The definition of residency as requiring a physical presence will introduce a level of consistency, fairness and integrity to the decision-making process that is presently absent.

[English]

With respect to the knowledge and language requirements of the bill, these are viewed as being essential in order to give immigrants every chance to integrate themselves successfully into Canadian society before becoming citizens. They will afford them the right to participate fully at the social, political, and economic levels of Canadian society.

The requirement that basic knowledge of one of Canada's official languages is required for citizenship is felt to be an important one. However, there is frustration among several citizenship judges that some applicants have not demonstrated their commitment to their new country by acquiring a basic language proficiency. Such proficiency not only eases their integration into Canadian society, but it is also imperative for new Canadians to be able to communicate even the most basic information in emergency situations.

It is important that measures be taken to reinforce the message to recent arrivals that a basic proficiency in either English or French is a requirement of Canadian citizenship. It is important to deliver this message to recent immigrants when they obtain landed immigrant status in order to encourage them to work toward obtaining language proficiency well in advance of applying for Canadian citizenship. The citizenship judges would also convey this important message through their promotional activities.

• 0920

The new title of citizenship commissioner is viewed as being more reflective of the citizenship judge's new role, as specified in the legislation. As long as citizenship judges were responsible for independent decision-making, the title “citizenship judge” was appropriate.

The new legislation removes these responsibilities while emphasizing the promotional, ceremonial, and advice-giving policy roles, which nonetheless require a title that reflects the dignity and solemnity of these important functions. However, the citizenship judges recommend that the complete title of citizenship commissioner always be used, so it is clear that the role of commissioner relates directly to the citizenship process.

Regarding the new duties, one section of the bill is the cause of some concern among citizenship judges. Paragraph 31(7)(c) lists one of the citizenship commissioner's duties:

(c) to provide, on the Minister's request, advice and recommendations about

(i) citizenship applications referred to the Citizenship Commissioner,

(ii) the exercise of the Minister's discretion, and

(iii) appropriate methods to evaluate citizenship applicants about their knowledge of an official language, of Canada and of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship;

The wording of this paragraph is felt to be vague, as the extent of citizenship commissioners' involvement has not yet been defined on such matters as the evaluation of knowledge and language proficiency and the approval or non-approval of applications.

The department will have to find ways for citizenship commissioners to be regularly involved in such issues if they are to be in a position to provide appropriate and well-reasoned advice and recommendations to the minister. Otherwise, they may be asked to advise on issues about which they have no first-hand experience.

With the removal of the independent decision-making function comes the opportunity for citizenship commissioners to advise on the development of citizenship policy. As long as citizenship judges exercised independent decision-making powers, they operated at arm's length from the department. The advent of this new legislation frees the citizenship commissioners to provide advice on policy matters from their own experience and by reflecting the views expressed within their communities. It will, however, be important to evaluate the ongoing performance and impact of this new legislation in order to provide a basis for the minister's advice.

On the subject of the ceremonies, the citizenship judges also support the new legislation affirmation of their role in presiding over citizenship ceremonies. Clause 33 of the bill refers specifically to the importance of the ceremony as a milestone in the life of new citizens.

It also conveys the responsibility of citizenship commissioners to ensure the oath is taken with dignity and solemnity. Ceremonies are seen as opportunities to promote a strong sense of civic pride, including respect for the law, the exercise of the right to vote, the participation of citizens in public affairs, and a sense of mutual respect and understanding between Canadians. The citizenship judges agree it is only through preserving the solemnity, dignity, and inclusiveness of citizenship ceremonies that these objectives can be met.

The new citizenship oath is felt to be a better reflection of Canada today. The oath contained in the current legislation has not been changed since 1947, except for minor technical changes. The swearing of the oath by new citizens is the centrepiece of the official ceremonies at which new citizens are presented with their certificates of citizenship.

The citizenship judges feel it is fitting that new legislation include a modernized oath that not only better reflects contemporary values, but also clearly expresses loyalty toward Canada.

[Translation]

Citizenship judges are equally pleased that the major role they play in promoting citizenship is recognized in the bill. Most citizenship judges get involved in outreach activities through such means as reaffirmation ceremonies and speaking to school groups and community organizations. They welcome the opportunity to promote citizenship and increase civic-mindedness as a result of their efforts. They caution, however, that conducting promotional activities, such as staging citizenship ceremonies in the community, at schools and community centres, requires logistical support and appropriate funding to ensure that dignity and solemnity are maintained. The Department will have to ensure that adequate funding and dedicated resources are provided to support the effective delivery of promotional activities outside the citizenship offices.

• 0925

There has been concern expressed regarding the transition period, when approximately 150,000 applications for citizenship are expected to be in the system on the date that the legislation is proclaimed. The Department is developing options as to how these applications can be processed fairly and expeditiously. However, it is already clear that the transition period will be a challenging one, as people who applied at a time when one piece of legislation was in force will be evaluated in accordance with the new legislation. The citizenship judges are aware of the ramifications of this issue and have offered to the Minister whatever assistance is required in order to help the Department manage the applications process during the transition period.

And finally, the citizenship judges appreciated the opportunity to provide their input to the development of the legislation. They are equally up to the task of providing continued input and advice, based upon their experience on the front lines, as the bill moves through the legislative process and beyond, and as the details about its implementation are further defined. The citizenship judges take this responsibility seriously, they have voiced their commitment to continue this process in the months and years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Judge.

Mr. McNally has the floor.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for coming, Your Honour.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: You don't have to call me Your Honour.

Mr. Grant McNally: Whenever I'm before a judge I always say Your Honour.

The Chair: You have been before courts?

Mr. Grant McNally: I have a few questions for you. First of all, you mentioned at the beginning of your presentation that there are definitely some changes to your responsibilities. I think you mentioned some of your responsibilities are removed while others are added.

In a briefing we received earlier in this committee, one of the comments was that current citizenship judges, headed by a chief judge, would be replaced and their substantive duties taken over by public servants acting under the delegated authority of the minister in clause 44. I wonder if you could just add a little more information as to what the judges see as their operational duties—which ones are going to be removed and which ones are going to be added, in terms of the actual nuts and bolts of your job.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Thank you, Mr. McNally. As I mentioned in my remarks, paragraph 31(7)(c) needs to be elaborated on because the nuts and bolts haven't yet been worked out. Certainly, because of the functions, judges will not be independent decision-makers as they have been in the past. They also could be delegated decision-making powers under clause 44, because under clause 2 of the bill they're also defined as citizenship officials.

There could be functions delegated to them because it will be important for them to be involved in the day-to-day activities in order to able to provide advice to the minister on different issues, complex issues or questions, especially as the new act comes into effect.

So I agree with you, the nuts and bolts of paragraph 31(7)(c) need to be defined, keeping in mind there are delegated powers, and because judges will be providing advice, that means they will also be able to provide policy input. Now, because they are at arm's length, they cannot interfere with policy; they are there only to apply the policy. It has been frustrating for some judges who see there are some things that could be done differently, but that's not their role now. So in this new definition of their role, they would be able to participate in the policy-making through their advice.

• 0930

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you. Are there some specific recommendations you would suggest be added to this bill, in terms of clarification in this area, that would be helpful for us to consider?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Certainly the judges have discussed their need to be involved in having contacts with the applicants. So whichever way there would be the possibility for them to continue to have some hearings, be there, hear and have that contact would be very important.

Mr. Grant McNally: Do you have some specifics as to what you might like to see in paragraph 31(7)(c) to help clarify—as I'm interpreting from you, maybe I'm wrong—some of the ambiguity as to how that section will be applied?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: We were hoping the department would be able to define what this section is supposed to mean for the new commissioners—what is being foreseen under that section. That's what we would like to find out ourselves.

Mr. Grant McNally: So you would like the department to maybe more clearly articulate their vision of paragraph 31(7)(c).

Judge Agnès Jaouich: That would be helpful.

Mr. Grant McNally: That will definitely impact your job.

Switching over to another topic here, you mentioned that several citizenship judges have experienced frustration that some applicants have not demonstrated their commitment to the new country by acquiring a basic language proficiency.

How might that work, in your own experience, in terms of individuals coming before you that maybe have gone through the process and not demonstrated proficiency in one of those language areas?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: I have had the privilege, because of my position, to move from region to region across the country and sit in hearings with the sitting judges. I also get to do hearings myself. I don't think new immigrants have grasped—some of them, not all of them—the need to try to learn one of the official languages upon arrival. Sometimes it's left a little too late to get ready to apply for citizenship. They say, “Well, you know, I'm going to try to see how I can pick up some information and knowledge so I can pass.”

You have to understand as well that the applicants the citizenship judges see are the ones who have failed the written test. We don't see them all. We only see those who have failed and get a second chance at an oral hearing. We see those who have not prepared well enough. That's why we're suggesting there needs to be more emphasis put on it as soon as they arrive.

The future commissioners would like to have a role where they would be able to talk to communities, go out and speak at events to newcomers who haven't been here very long, to stress the importance of picking up one of the two official languages, not just six months before they go to sit for the test. That's the preoccupation.

Mr. Grant McNally: Of course this is an issue that was hotly debated when the proposal was first mentioned—language requirements. It is interesting to get your perspective on that. Thank you.

Just to switch topics again, you say toward the end of your brief that citizenship judges are aware of the ramifications of the issue of transition from the old act to the new act and have offered to the minister whatever assistance is required in order to help with that transition. Are there some specific operational ideas to help with that? Of course, as you said, that's going to be a tremendous challenge.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: It's the volume. What criteria will judges be given by the department to look at individuals who have put in their applications prior to the act coming into force? We hope very clear criteria will be provided by the department for this transition period. I would think during the transition citizenship judges will have to help out until all applications are dated after the new act.

If individuals will be asked to update their applications, or if there will be some way of being able to give a fair chance to those who have put in their applications before, we will be looking at the department to provide us with that input.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. I appreciate the fact that you're hoping there will be some clear criteria. We all hope that.

• 0935

I wonder if you have indications that there are any actual concrete ideas, either coming from the department or in the system at all.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: We haven't, sir.

Mr. Grant McNally: So you're saying, right now, as far as you understand, there are no clear, concrete plans for this transition period?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: That's right. We haven't heard what the plans would be.

Mr. Grant McNally: You haven't heard.

The Chair: I would now like to yield the floor to Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I join with our chairman in welcoming you. I would like to discuss three aspects with you. Would it be possible to send to the committee members who would like to have it—I would like to have it—the documentation that you give to new citizens when they take the oath? Moreover, while listening to your preliminary comments this morning, I thought it might be interesting to attend a ceremony myself. I know that some of my colleagues have done so, but I have never had the opportunity.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: You have missed a great opportunity.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I know, but you know that time flies. Anyway, I would very much like to attend a ceremony, and especially to see what the new citizens are given.

Secondly, when new citizens take the oath or when they are told about Canada, is it true that very little is said about Quebec? You know that there is a wave of opinion along those lines. I don't know whether Ms. Folco would share that point of view, but I think that she might be interested since she is so open-minded.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): My open-mindedness is limited however.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Not that much. I feel that it is quite broad. Would it not be a good idea for those who reside on Quebec soil, when they take the oath, to receive a copy of the Elections Act, a copy of Bill 101 and a copy of the declaration that Mr. Bourassa had adopted on inter-community relations which had received the consensus from the National Assembly? Would it not also be possible to speak about the specific nature of Quebec during these ceremonies? That is my first question, that you may answer before I put the other two.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: I can simply say that we try to make very general comments when we welcome new citizens and we don't necessarily deal in specifics. We talk about their arrival and inclusion in Canada. That is what our role is limited to.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's fine, but would it be possible for you to send me the documents?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Certainly.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Secondly, I would like to deal with the evaluation of linguistic competence, which is both important and controversial. It is obviously not a simple matter. Am I right in saying that it is possible that permanent residents of Quebec who wish to become citizens may take an oath as Canadian citizens without any knowledge of the French language? Are they required to speak one of the two official languages, without taking into account the residence criterion? Might we find ourselves in a situation where permanent residents living in Quebec for at least three years may take the oath without knowing how to speak French?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Anyone applying for citizenship can sit the written and oral exams in the language of his or her choice. No distinction is made.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But is the scenario that I have just described possible? If tomorrow you and I were to attend a ceremony in Quebec, would it be possible for a permanent resident who was to become a Canadian citizen to take the oath without being able to speak French even if that person has lived in Quebec for three years?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: That is possible.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay. Let's deal with the evaluation of linguistic competence. You said that you had not met anyone who had failed the written test that is given at the first stage. Do you think it would be useful for the committee members to have a copy of the test? Do you have a copy?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: No, but I can tell you that the questions are taken from the document called A Look at Canada that is given to permanent residents when they apply to become Canadian citizens; they use it to study and acquire knowledge about Canada in preparation for the test. At the end of this document, there are 197 questions from which some are taken for the exam. I would be happy to send you a copy.

• 0940

Mr. Réal Ménard: Wonderful. I would appreciate you sending it to me along with the rest of the material that they are given. So the candidates are given a test in the language of their choice. Do you have statistics on the failure rate? Are failures an exception or are they fairly common?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: I would say that in general, 95% of candidates pass.

Mr. Réal Ménard: They don't fail because the questions are relatively general and because they have been able to prepare for the test. The candidates who fail are called to an interview where they are given an oral test.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: That's correct. The law does not require residents to be literate. They don't need to know how to read and write to become Canadian citizens. Those who cannot take the written test are given an opportunity to have an oral test.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Will the new provisions of the Act change that?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: No, not to my knowledge.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Can they use the services of an interpreter, for example?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: That is another question. At this time, during the language knowledge test, the interpreter is not involved. There are two parts to the interview, the first one being an examination of linguistic knowledge. Even if the interpreter were present in the room, he or she would not be allowed to intervene.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Fine.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: In the second part, the knowledge of Canada is evaluated, and the interpreter may interpret the question asked by the judge as well as the answer given by the candidate.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay. I believe that the Minister also wanted to change that and bring amendments to the present Act.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Those are two separate things.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I thought that the Minister wanted to prohibit the use of interpreters, and I believe she is right.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: I must admit that we often find ourselves in rather peculiar situations with interpreters. I know that in principle, they are there to help the candidates, but the questions that we ask in order to evaluate their knowledge of Canada are very basic questions. For example, we ask them what are the three levels of government in Canada. This isn't a very complex question.

I must tell you that when I recently asked a candidate what province Toronto was in, an interpreter translated my question and said that the candidate had answered "Ontario", even though I didn't hear the person say the word. The interpreter maintained that the candidate had given the answer in his own language. You must understand that is not acceptable.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's like a mild linguistic interference.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: As far as we are concerned, residents must have a minimum level of knowledge. It is important to be able to answer “Ontario” in such a case. Our questions are truly very basic. We don't think they need a bachelors' degree in order to determine their rights as Canadian citizens. We ask them simple questions that prove that they can carry on a conversation.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I am truly anxious to obtain this information in case more room is given to Quebec in the ceremonies. You are perhaps not the best person to discuss this with.

My third question deals with your understanding of the new role. When the Minister appeared before us—and I was in complete agreement with her—she said that the role of the judges would have to be reviewed because at this time their involvement is simply routine, since the Citizenship Act is not terribly complicated and its administration is rather simple. It might be more rational for some of their responsibilities to be delegated to citizenship officers and that the judges be given a more important role, not only in terms of promoting citizenship, but also civic values. Even though, in some people's minds, this would allow for possible propaganda, I am not among those who think that way. You know that after all, these are strange times. I would like to know what you would include in a civic outreach program.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: I would first of all like to answer your question on presiding over ceremonies and then move on to the outreach program. As I said during my presentation, the ceremonies are very important events and I look forward to your attending one. You will see the tears and you will feel the emotion in the room. It gives you goose-bumps.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: It's when they become Canadians, Mr. Ménard, that they feel this wellspring of emotion and tears. They are happy to become Canadians.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like Ms. Folco to be with me when I experience it.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I have already attended one in... [Editor's note: Inaudible]... I am—

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Ms. Folco, make sure you are there when I am so that we can experience these emotions together.

• 0945

Judge Agnès Jaouich: I would like to tell you that there are some 3,000 ceremonies per year in Canada, all of which are very moving and full of dignity. Citizenship judges are present and preside over these ceremonies. In most cases, we are fortunate enough to have an RCMP officer in uniform present. The Canadian flag is unfurled. Finally, this is an event full of emotion that is attended by the friends and family of the new Canadian citizen. Photos are taken. This aspect of our work will not change.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you invite members of Parliament to attend?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Absolutely.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, that's great.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: I'm sure some of you have been invited.

[English]

The Chair: I will interrupt and give the floor to Mr. Telegdi.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Ms. Jaouich has not finished answering my question. Give her 30 seconds more, because she has almost finished. It would be impolite to cut her off. Her comments are too moving; we should not interrupt in this way, Mr. Chairman. I will not ask any more questions.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: The question—

[English]

The Chair: I am not cutting off the witness, but if there are interruptions when the witness is answering, we are delaying time. We have agreed on an allocation of time. I will permit the judge to complete her answer.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I will not ask any other questions.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: I've already spoken about the ceremonies, and I will now move to the question about promotion. That is not necessarily a new role, but one that will be slightly more developed. As we said earlier, judges do have some routine work, because they have to sign all the 180,000 applications, even if they are not properly completed. The idea is to eliminate this very administrative aspect of their work.

Since the issue of residence is a little clearer, we will not have to intervene as much. We hope that our role in the community is first and foremost to stress the importance of knowing one or the other of our official languages, to prepare people to assume their role and responsibilities as Canadian citizens, and to tell them about their rights and help them integrate into the Canadian community, by explaining the process they will have to follow. This helps us to bring together people newly arrived in Canada and those who are already here. That is an important part of our work.

We also want to stress an extremely important Canadian value—voluntarism. As you know, Volunteer Week will begin on April 18. Over 7 million people do volunteer work in this country. We strongly encourage new citizens to get involved in the community and to work as volunteers.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you very much, Your Honour, for your presentation and certainly for the brief you provided us.

As you probably know, in my area, Kitchener-Waterloo region, we have a very good judge, highly respected Judge Somerville. He seems to be somewhat overworked. He goes out to British Columbia at times to conduct citizenship hearings. That's how short we are of judges at the present time. He certainly brings great dignity to the court.

I might tell Mr. Ménard, if he were to come to my community, I would invite him—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: —because the ceremony that Judge Somerville conducts is in both official languages. It brings real value to the ceremony to have that happen. It's very touching to see new Canadians in the Waterloo region saying the oath both in English and in French.

I'm quite excited about paragraph 31(7)(b), which talks about the role of the commissioner, which is to promote active citizenship in the community. I have always felt that this was one area in which we could be much more active.

Many times in the citizenship court you will see people come from the former Yugoslavia, and as you hope that they bring the best their former country has to offer, you also hope that they understand the realities of Canada and leave the baggage behind.

I think that is critical—race relations—as well as to go out into the community and talk to Canadians about their history, about citizenship and what this country is about, with the two founding nations, the native people, and all the other people who came afterwards. I think that's a critical role that would no doubt eat up the time of the citizenship commissioner but would fulfil a very vital function that has been lacking. Could you please comment on that?

• 0950

Judge Agnès Jaouich: It is certainly a role that the judges highlighted to the minister in March 1997. At that time they indicated they would like to see that aspect of their role elaborated a little more.

Up until now, they have been so tied down with the hearings and the signing of the routine applications that it unfortunately has been an element of the function they've put aside. With the changes in the balance of the work that future commissioners will have, there will be more time to do this promotional aspect of the job, which helps the integration of newcomers and helps the communities understand each other better. So they are looking forward to doing that.

It also helps the citizen understand what goes with becoming a citizen and the values Canadians have, and again we stress the voluntary sector, because as you probably have seen in Kitchener-Waterloo, and in many other cities as well, after the ceremonies there are organizations that provide, free of charge, a little reception on a voluntary basis. This is also an example to new citizens of the values we hold.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: The whole issue of making sure our diversity continues to be a source of strength to this country can be really well served by the commissioners, and I think this is an opportunity for the committee, for the community, to seize upon that and make the point very strongly that this is a vital function of citizenship in this country.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Let me add that under subclause 31(6), to be eligible for appointment they would have to be individuals who, as citizens, would have demonstrated an understanding of the values of good citizenship and be recognized for their valuable civic contributions. So we would hope to have role models there who can speak to their own communities and make them understand what it's all about.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll pass my time on to Madame Folco.

The Chair: Madame Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you very much, Mr. Telegdi, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

I would like to welcome you from the Liberal side of the table as well, Ms. Jaouich. I've a number of questions to ask, some of which are short and others long.

All the witnesses we have heard so far and we ourselves think that the issue of residence is a sensitive problem and that we are really not finding any solutions to help us deal with it. Everyone knows this is a problem, and everyone says so, but so far, we have not found a solution to it.

You spoke about it at length as well. It was the first issue you raised, which I think shows how important you feel it is. I would like you to tell us about the problems caused by the issue of residence for citizenship judges, and what improvements we could make to the clauses in the bill that deal with this.

I would just like to mention in passing that yesterday we heard from a former citizenship judge who recommended that we provide that a resident who was absent from the country continuously for six months does not meet the residence criteria, rather than taking into account the number of days a person was absent in the last three, four, five or six years. I would like to hear what you think about this.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Thank you very much, Ms. Folco. I will start by trying to describe the problems we face. As I said in my statement, since there is no definition of the word "residence" it is extremely difficult to be fair to everyone, because there are a tremendous number of different interpretations. Even though citizenship judges try as far as possible to maintain some similarity in their decisions, once the case is before the Federal Court, the judgements are so different that there is no continuity or stability.

• 0955

All the Federal Court judges and citizenship judges confirm that in order to reside in Canada, people must establish and essentially lead their lives in Canada. However, some judges maintain that the length of absence is not a crucial point, whereas others say that a prolonged absence makes the residence requirements pointless. These are the different interpretations given to an unclear Act. We will eliminate this ambiguity by defining residence as actual physical presence.

In some cases, people who have been in the country for only a few days become Canadian citizens. How could they have become attached to our country in that time? How can they understand our values, become part of the community and contribute to it? How can we give such people the right to vote? Ultimately, that is what we give them—a passport and the right to vote. I'm sure this is a right you all consider very important, but how can they exercise it intelligently, without knowing what is at stake, without having lived in Canada and without understanding the various aspects of our democracy?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: These people represent Canada when they are abroad as well.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: You are quite right. When such individuals exercise their right to vote, they have an impact not only on their own future, but on the future of all of us. We want these people to understand what is involved when they decide to become citizens by meeting certain criteria and getting the right to vote. These are the difficulties we face. I must tell you that it is very demoralizing for citizenship judges at the moment to try to make the best-considered decisions possible, when in some cases, depending on which Federal Court justice hears the appeal, the decision may go either way.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I have some other questions.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: The new bill clarifies the definition.

I have difficulty understanding the approach of the judge you mentioned. We think individuals should be present in Canada most of the time.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: She suggested that we provide that when individuals have been absent for six months of the year, that is half the year, they no longer meet the criteria you have just outlined.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: For all the years since—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: She did not specify that.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Well, that is what is unclear. If we are talking about a six-month period, her recommendation is in keeping with the Act, which provides that it is not necessary to be physically present for five years, but rather only three. If the requirement is six months a year, that is different.

[English]

The Chair: I will yield the floor to Mr. Doyle.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I have run out of time?

The Chair: The combined time is consumed at this point.

Mr. Doyle.

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): I want to get back for a moment to the language requirement and how stringent that might be.

I'm wondering about an individual, for instance, who may not have the aptitude, if you will, to learn even the most basic parts of English or French. What would happen to that individual? Would they be denied citizenship because of it? Some people really don't have an aptitude to learn any language, other than their native tongue. I'm one. I'm wondering what would happen to an individual like that.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: The bill provides for discretion, so there will be methods by which individuals could be exempted from the requirement. That's my understanding.

Mr. Norman Doyle: So you wouldn't be sent back to your place of origin. You would be accepted into the country and—

Judge Agnès Jaouich: That's a very good point you raise, because when we turn individuals down who have applied for citizenship, they do not go back to their country of origin. They have the right to stay as a permanent resident as long as they wish, with all the same privileges, except they don't hold a Canadian passport and they don't have the right to vote. Otherwise, they maintain all the same privileges and rights, except for those I mentioned.

Mr. Norman Doyle: I see.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: So when we do not approve an applicant, the only hardship that he or she gets is not to hold a Canadian passport and not to have the right to vote.

Mr. Norman Doyle: So to your knowledge, has a person ever been turned down because they don't have that basic knowledge of English or French?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Yes.

Mr. Norman Doyle: They have.

• 1000

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Presently the criteria under the bill are that one must have very basic knowledge, and we're not talking about elaborate.... For example, some of the questions I ask are: How is the weather today? How did you get here today? Did you come alone? What did you have for breakfast? Do you have children? It's very basic information as far as language knowledge is concerned.

Mr. Norman Doyle: For argument's sake, if the person was able to say, yes, it's a beautiful day outside and I would like bacon and eggs for breakfast, they might be—

Judge Agnès Jaouich: We ask a number of questions and we make a judgment.

Mr. Norman Doyle: I wanted to ask you a question about duties and responsibilities of the judge. I note that you “conduct hearings to ascertain whether knowledge, language and residency requirements have been met or whether any criminal prohibitions apply”. What kind of resources would you need to make that kind of determination? It sounds fairly onerous to me to to have to determine whether an immigrant has engaged in criminal activity. You would need a fair amount of resources to carry out that kind of responsibility, would you not?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Actually the RCMP provides reports that the department makes available to us, and we then apply sections 21 and 22 of the present act to determine if they are eligible. But the material is provided to us by the department via the RCMP.

Mr. Norman Doyle: There's one final point I want to make. I've heard a fair amount of criticism with respect to the citizenship oath. There's no longer any reference to “heirs and successors” in the oath. A reference to the Queen, I believe, still remains in there. I don't know if you're in a position to answer it, but you say the new oath better reflects the kind of modern Canada we're living in today.

What does the removal of “heirs and successors” mean to you? What kind of a message does that send? To me, and from the criticism I've heard so far, it seems that...and I guess it's coming from people who have a strong attachment to the monarchy. But what is the purpose of removing “heirs and successors”? If we're going to have a reference to the Queen, are we saying that after the Queen that's it, there's no more reference to the monarchy at all in the oath? What is the purpose of it? It doesn't seem right to me. We have a strong attachment to the monarchy, in my view, and why shouldn't we continue to reflect that in the oath?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: We have asked that question, but what we have understood is that it is the Queen and whoever replaces her as the monarch, whether it be a queen or a king; it doesn't disappear when she leaves the throne. It will be replaced by whoever will be on the throne. The title will remain there and the name. The explanation we received is it does not affect the monarchy. We're adding “Canada”, which is something that all the judges felt quite comfortable with.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Because my point—

The Chair: Sorry, your time is up.

I would like to pose two quick questions, Judge. We have exceeded our time. I will allow an extension of time. We will go way beyond 11.45 a.m., because there is an active interest. Because of your special expertise and actual hands-on experience, I'm sure the committee would like us to extend the time.

At this point, people have criticized the elimination of the residency credit, whereby a person's stay in Canada prior to their becoming a permanent resident, which counted as a credit for physical residence, is being disallowed. Does your group have any view on this?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: No, it isn't something that came up as an issue.

The Chair: I see. How about extending the denominator in terms of three out of five years being three out of six years? Do you have any view on that?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: It hasn't been discussed either. Four was felt to be acceptable, and five is acceptable as well, but certainly I have heard no comments from the judges that they would like to see the period longer.

• 1005

The Chair: At this point I would like, Mr. Doyle, to talk about the budget. But I will yield the floor to Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, can I ask you how long you've been a citizenship court judge?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: A little over a year.

Mr. John Bryden: Then you're an appointee of this government.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: Did you come before this committee as a witness by your initiative or were you invited specifically by the committee? Do you remember?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: I was invited.

Mr. John Bryden: You mentioned in your testimony that you felt the new oath was a great improvement over the current oath. Can you specify? Can you give me details?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Certainly when the judges read it for the first time they felt is was something that sounded right. It was covering all the topics they felt should be covered.

Mr. John Bryden: What specifically? What specifically are the improvements that you see in the new oath versus the old version?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: The way it reads it's a lot easier and it covers a lot more issues.

Mr. John Bryden: Don't look at, don't look at it; you must know.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: No, I haven't used it yet. We don't use it.

Mr. John Bryden: You've read it, though.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Yes, I have.

Mr. John Bryden: You've said in testimony that this is an improvement. If it's an improvement, then tell me how does it improve on the old oath?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Again, as I speak for all the citizenship judges and not only for myself, it is felt that it is an easier oath for the newcomers to understand and it covers all the values we want it to.

Mr. John Bryden: But what words?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: We haven't gone into this yet.

Mr. John Bryden: Then I will draw to your attention that there are only the two subordinate clauses that make it different from the previous version. Have you not noticed what those two subordinate clauses are?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: No, I'm sorry, we probably haven't.

Mr. John Bryden: I do submit to you then if you're going to come before this committee and say this new oath is an improvement on the old oath, I would have thought you would have been prepared to supply details.

You also in your testimony....

That's fair, is it not, colleagues?

An hon. member: The tone is a little strong.

The Chair: You may proceed.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm sorry, I don't want to put you in a spot, but I will explain my position, if I can, very quickly, Mr. Chairman. The only change to the oath, other than the order of putting “Canada” in, is the insertion of the clause: “I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to defend our democratic values”. Then it goes back into the original version of the oath, which is “to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen”. My concern is that new words actually are a repeat of the thoughts in the old words.

Let me pursue the subject a little bit further. Are you aware or have you studied at all the comparative oaths of citizenship of the United States, Australia, and New Zealand? Are you familiar with them?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: No, I'm not.

Mr. John Bryden: You're not. Then would it surprise you to know that those other oaths include an invocation to God? Are you aware that we dropped the invocation to God from our oath a long time ago? Is that something that...?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: I was aware that this had happened, yes.

Mr. John Bryden: In your testimony you made comments that you felt this act improved the solemnity because of the clause that specifies the citizenship commissioners should make sure the oath is administered with due ceremony and solemnity.

Do you feel that if one had the word “God” in the citizenship oath, it would improve the solemnity of the oath?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: It is not something we discussed, and I'm here to represent the views of all the judges.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay, that's fine.

Finally, you made quite a number of comments about how you felt the citizenship ceremony had been improving over the years, but you concede that you don't have a long memory of this. So do you feel that, for example, changing the word “judge”, which implies dignity, to “commissioner”, erodes some of the solemnity and ceremony of the...?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Let me just correct a couple of things. I did not say that it's improved. I said it is a very solemn occasion, and, again, I'm speaking on behalf of all the judges, not just myself.

Mr. John Bryden: That's fine.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: The title of “judge” was very appropriate when the citizenship judges were independent decision-makers. If that's not the case, then it is not appropriate to be called a judge. A “commissioner” is a very respectable title. Citizenship commissioner also has a lot of respect, so I don't see how that would diminish the importance. The robe will still be worn by the commissioners. The event will take place the same way it's happening now. Although my experience is short, the added experience of all the judges allows me to bring some comments to this table.

• 1010

Mr. John Bryden: I have just one final question. Yesterday we had a former citizenship court judge testify before this committee. She said this bill was the final watering down of the ceremony. Obviously the current judges have not discussed it, but are you aware we used to have Mounties present at the citizenship ceremonies? We used to have the opportunity for people to swear on the Koran or the Bible. We had these various opportunities. Her point was that the bill finally eliminates just about all the ceremonial aspects.

How can you come before this committee—I don't mean to challenge your presence here because you're right to be here—and say the ceremony is okay and we're going to maintain it, because of your experience of the past year, when if we look back over five, ten or fifteen years, there has been an enormous erosion in the quality of the ceremony and the solemnity of the occasion of taking citizenship?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about erosion, because the RCMP officers are still there—

A voice: That's right, yes.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: The same ceremonies are still being held. The robes are there and what was there before. The holy books are still available for individuals to use if they wish, and they're provided by the different associations. They are in the back of the rooms. The receptions are held as often as we can—free receptions provided by organizations. So unless you have a specific—

Mr. John Bryden: Okay—

The Chair: Judge, I will beg your indulgence, as chair. We would like you to stay because there are still members who would like to pose some questions, including the chair.

At this point I would like to interrupt the proceedings—we now have a quorum—to discuss a vital business matter of the committee, that is, the budget on this point.

May I have the attention of the committee?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Why do you want to talk about the budget now, Mr. Chairman, when our witnesses are waiting? Could we not discuss it at 12:15, unless you want to proceed quickly and pass the budget right away?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, and the reason for that is I have received excellent advice from the clerk. Considering that all of us are busy with many other activities, we have to have a particular quorum to consider the budget. So on that basis I have used the chair's discretion to pose it to you for approval.

If I foresee a very lengthy debate, I will interrupt the debate on the budget. But if there is quick concurrence on the budget, I welcome someone to move the budget as presented.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I so move.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I second the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: It's unanimous. Thank you. This is a great committee.

Now we will resume the hearing with Judge Jaouich. Mr. McKay, you have the floor.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you for your testimony. I'm sorry I missed a good part of it, but we all can't be in two places at one time.

I want to go back to the central concept of this bill, which basically changes the role from an independent decision-maker to a hired civil servant—to put it in crass terms—and guts the discretion a commissioner will have. There will be virtually no discretion. You must fall within the parameters of the residency requirements. To my mind—and I'm putting the argument in provocative terms—we're trying to do judging on the cheap, in limiting the discretion.

• 1015

All last night we had testimony after testimony saying we needed flexibility with respect to the residency and language issues. For better or worse, the minister is proposing the elimination of substantial areas of flexibility.

In your experience and in your discussions with your colleagues, is that a realistic approach to this kind of issue? I'd also ask you to comment on subparagraph 31(7)(c)(ii), which seems to be almost a back-door infusion of discretion into the commissioner, which is presently being exercised through the front door of a judicial function.

What is the response of your group and the people you represent who have a lot of experience? When you get to the grey areas, the discretionary areas, how are you going to exercise that?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Let me just answer first by saying independent decision-making versus delegated decision-making still maintains the discretion and flexibility. The difference is if an independent decision needs to be appealed, it must go to the Federal Court, which we're trying to avoid with this bill. Decisions can still be appealed, but only through this convoluted and very expensive process.

The minister will still be able to delegate to us, as well as citizenship officers, the authority to make decisions. In this delegation, there will be flexibility in providing that final decision. It is not going to be a very—

Mr. John McKay: Isn't that—and again I'm pushing you somewhat provocatively—almost a hopeless position for the commissioner? The commissioner will be asked to exercise a discretion that will be contrary to where their department or minister might want to go in terms of the policy direction.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: But I would see that as being something that's delegated to them. If there are instances, as Mr. Doyle was saying, where discretion needs to be used for exempting certain individuals, for example, of learning the language, that would be delegated as well. It would be part of what the role of the new commissioners would be. They would have this all-encompassing role of making decisions, having criteria, but at the same time having—

Mr. John McKay: But you'll have no discretion with respect to paragraph 6(1)(b), which is residency. Paragraph 6(1)(c), which is the knowledge of official language, you can waive on compassionate grounds.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: The residency requirement is going to be a calculated requirement, by all means.

Mr. John McKay: That's right.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: This bill is obviously stressing the importance of physical presence, which the citizenship judges feel is very important. As I was saying earlier, the only negative consequences of not being approved, for an individual who spends a lot of time overseas, are not getting a Canadian passport—obviously it won't prevent him or her from travelling—and not having the right to vote. Otherwise, they maintain all of the same privileges. Do we really want individuals who are not presently in the country to have the impact of voting in our democracy?

Mr. John McKay: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. We have well exhausted our time. I know Ms. Folco still needs some time and I would like to pose a few questions. I will allow Ms. Folco one short question and myself one short question.

Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: If it's going to be a short question, I really have a problem because I have four of them.

Mr. Grant McNally: Take your pick.

Mr. John McKay: Take one-quarter of each one.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Let me make a comment.

• 1020

[Translation]

I would like to make a comment about knowledge of the official languages. I agree with those who believe firmly that in immigration, the long term, not the short term, is what really matters. Even if people come here and ask to become Canadian citizens without knowing the language, their children will learn it and their grandchildren will definitely know it. That disturbs me much less than the fact that some people you see cannot answer questions in French or in English, particularly in light of the fact that more and more people who immigrate to Canada come from third world countries or developing countries, as we call them today, including the rural areas of these countries. These people may not have had an opportunity to learn how to read and write in their country of origin, and may have only a very limited education. I just wanted to raise this point. In my view, the issue as to whether they can take the oath in French or in English is very minor. I think the issue of residence is much more important.

I would like to ask you a question about the oath. I come from Quebec. You know very well that in Quebec, we are able to swear an oath on the Bible or the New Testament, or even to make a solemn declaration. I think that this more realistic approach to the oath would be appropriate, not only for those who believe in God, but also for those who would prefer not to invoke the name of the Lord in such a ceremony. Would you like to make a comment on this, Ms. Jaouich?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: As I said a while ago, citizenship judges believe that the wording of the oath meets a number of objectives and excludes no one. It is quite inclusive. We believe that the words of the oath, "I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and to Her Majesty" suffice to express the commitment of new Canadians.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Am I right in concluding, though, from your testimony and our exchange, that there hasn't been very much debate among you and your citizenship colleagues about the form and content of the new oath of citizenship? Was there really debate?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: There hasn't been extensive debate, but when we've discussed the reaction, the majority, if not all the judges, have said they like the new oath.

Mr. John Bryden: But was there discussion for that?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Can you assure, Judge, with the new act forthcoming, where the judgeship will disappear and the citizenship commissioner will appear, that notwithstanding the laws of the independence of that particular body that we now have to renew, there will be quality in terms of our assessment of citizenship applicants?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: That would certainly be the objective of the citizenship commissioners. They would want to be able to make that decision, and make it based on the highest quality possible, absolutely.

The Chair: And it is the confidence of your group that this can be assured as a condition in this act?

Judge Agnès Jaouich: That's correct.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Judge.

On that note, I would like to thank you on behalf of the committee. Certainly there has been a lot of interest. And I would like to assure the other witnesses who are not in the room that we will consume all the time as well that we have allocated to you, and perhaps extend a few minutes there, as you have seen.

Thank you again, Madam Judge, on behalf of the committee.

Judge Agnès Jaouich: Thank you.

• 1025

The Chair: I would like to welcome Mr. François Auger from la Fédération des parents adoptants du Québec.

On behalf of the committee, please proceed with your opening remarks. If you can help us with time, we would appreciate it, because one member made the very legitimate point that it's very difficult to extend because it becomes a cascade. So please help us. Go ahead.

Mr. François Auger (Member of the Executive, La Fédération des parents adoptants du Québec): Thank you. I'll try to do that, sir.

[Translation]

On behalf of adoptive parents and adopted children of Quebec, I would like to thank the committee for having invited us to appear. I am replacing our president, who is ill at the present time. I did not have much time to prepare, so please excuse my nervousness.

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration is presently reviewing the Citizenship Act, one aspect of which concerns the citizenship of children adopted outside Canada.

At present, the Act states that a person is a citizen if this person was born outside Canada and at the time of his birth, the father or the mother, but not an adoptive parent, was a Canadian citizen.

We believe that this section of the Act discriminates against adopted children who, under the adoption judgment, are to receive the same rights and privileges as a biological child.

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration is proposing that citizenship be granted directly to children adopted abroad, instead of issuing them immigrant visas. At the present time, citizenship is granted automatically to biological children born abroad, with no medical examination or proof or parental solvency.

The Quebec Secrétariat à l'adoption internationale has expressed some objections to the bill, notably with respect to the bill of health issued by Immigration Canada. The Secretariat fears that adopted children may not have complete health records or that the parents may not be informed about adopted children's health status.

What actually happens at present? The children are examined by physicians recognized by the Canadian embassy in the country concerned and the results of the examination are then sent to the Immigration Canada office responsible for that country. No blood tests or X-rays are required. That is why, without the knowledge of the authorities or the adoptive parents, children with hepatitis B, AIDS, tuberculosis, foetal alcohol syndrome and autism have been admitted into Canada.

We consider the proposed reform for the citizenship of children adopted abroad by Canadian parents excellent. However, in order to improve awareness of adopted children's health status, we would like Immigration Canada to encourage medical examinations when a prospective child is proposed to adoptive parents. Would it not be better to request a complete record of the child's health status, including tests for AIDS and hepatitis, particularly in high-risk countries? Parents could then make an enlightened decision about their ability to care for a child with such a handicap. This information must be provided when a prospective child is proposed to adoptive parents, not when the passport is issued, by which time the adoption procedures in the country have been practically completed and the parents are already attached to their child.

We understand that adopting children abroad is an area of provincial jurisdiction. However, the provinces do not have the resources abroad to deal effectively with this aspect of international adoption. It would be important, therefore, for the medical services of Immigration Canada—the only Canadian system organised and available abroad—to cooperate in these medical examinations, in collaboration with international adoption agencies or, in the case of private adoptions, at the parents' request.

Thank you for your attention to these comments.

[English]

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

Mr. McNally.

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

Thanks for coming.

Obviously your main concern then is this whole health issue, and if I've got the gist of what you're saying, you would say it would be beneficial to have these medical exams before a child goes through the adoptive process abroad.

Mr. François Auger: Yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: I guess my question would be, how do you foresee being able to actually operationalize that plan in an effective way?

Mr. François Auger: In most of the countries what happens right now is that the health certificate is given by a doctor who is recommended by the Canadian embassy. That is too far in the process of adoption, we think. We think it should be done earlier.

• 1030

When, let's say, an orphanage offers a child for adoption in Canada, the medical should be done there and not at the end of the process when the parents are obviously in the country, they have met the child, and they have formed links with them. We think it should be a little bit earlier than it is actually.

Furthermore, we think for the actual medicals that are requested, the forms and stuff are old. They should be revamped to adapt to new diseases or things that are going on today—for example, blood samples with tests for AIDS and hepatitis and things like that. So it's just that we think it should be a little bit earlier in the process than what it is now.

Mr. Grant McNally: Is your concern basically then based on the fact that the parents may not know the health background of this potential child whom they're adopting?

Mr. François Auger: Yes, it is.

Mr. Grant McNally: For those individuals, not those who would already know that a particular child might have a serious health concern and brought it over?

Mr. François Auger: Yes. What we say is the parents should be aware of that so they can make a good decision and say yes, they have the capacity to take that child who has a handicap, for example, or any other disease, and say yes, they will take care of it. But in most of the cases it's too far down the road. So that is our concern right now.

Mr. Grant McNally: In your experience, have you found there are quite a few cases of parents who have gone ahead and adopted a child and didn't get that health information until later on, and perhaps would have changed their mind?

Mr. François Auger: Not changed their mind, because that—

Mr. Grant McNally: Well, not changed their mind, but maybe that would have made their decision a different kind of decision, if they would have had the information further ahead in the process. Is that what you're saying? Can you give us an idea of how many individuals you think this might be affecting?

Mr. François Auger: In countries where...for example, in Quebec, half of the adoptions are done from China, and there have been reports of quite high levels of hepatitis B. So we've had cases where parents came here with their child and the tests had been done in China and nothing was found. But when they came here they found their child was sick and had hepatitis.

I haven't talked to people or heard of anybody saying if they would have known, they wouldn't have adopted, but....

Mr. Grant McNally: You're suggesting if people have that information ahead of time, they'd be able to make a better informed decision about that particular child.

Mr. François Auger: Exactly.

Mr. Grant McNally: And would you have any idea of how many particular instances of this have come up in your experience?

Mr. François Auger: I don't have any percentages. But in certain countries it's quite high for certain diseases. I haven't seen that many HIVs, but hepatitis is a main concern, and there seems to be a rise in tuberculosis as well in recent years, where we don't have any tests done in other countries. Now we're starting to do the tests here. For example, in Quebec.... I have three kids and only for the third did they order a test for tuberculosis, because there's a rise in that disease.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McNally.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Welcome, Mr. Auger. The point of view you have presented to my colleagues on the committee, is basically the same as that expressed by the Quebec government. As you know, we had two types of concerns.

First of all, we agree with not wanting to make a distinction between natural and adopted children. Your federation has been making representations for a long time to have the process simplified, and we are delighted with your efforts in this regard.

Our colleague Yvan Loubier, the Member of Parliament for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, adopted a little girl from Thailand, and he explained all the difficulties that he encountered to us. Some members of the Bloc Québécois caucus have spoken of their own experience and have recommended that the procedure be simplified.

We are worried that the official status is being determined abroad, whereas, at the present time, this should be up to a Quebec court. However, I understand that negotiations are currently underway with the federal government, and this should not create difficulties.

• 1035

We have to keep your point of view in mind, because the issue was to determine whether the federal government or the government of Quebec would pay for the costs of medical examinations. The Quebec government was not unwilling to pay them, through some form of compensation, but it recognized that the Canadian government had a great deal of expertise in the subject, since this is a regular part of the process.

I fully understand the concerns that you have expressed this morning, and I agree with your point of view. Indeed, you will see this expressed in our report. I don't think that there is any problem with this.

Could you remind us of the number of adoptions? Unless I am mistaken, Quebec has the second highest number among the Canadian provinces.

Mr. François Auger: The most.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's fine.

Mr. François Auger: There are on average approximately 850 adoptions per year in Quebec, approximately 750 in Ontario, and 2,000 in all of Canada if we include all the provinces, including British Columbia, which has the third highest number, if my memory is correct.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Perfect. You can count on us to support representations that you have made this morning.

Mr. François Auger: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I'm looking at paragraph 8(b) and subparagraph 8(b)(i), and there is kind of scheme that is set up here. “The minister shall, on application, grant citizenship to a person who...is a minor”. That's easy. Then “was adopted by a citizen after the coming into force...whose adoption...was in accordance with the laws of the place where the adoption took place and the laws of the country of residence of the adopting citizen”. Then it goes on to talk about genuine relationship, etc.

Is there anything in that clause 8 to which you take objection, particularly with respect to subparagraph 8(b)(ii), “creating a genuine relationship of parent and child”?

Mr. François Auger: We don't have any objections. The thing is we think it's going to be hard to administer in some countries. For example, some countries do not have a judge to put a judgment on the adoption. It's done by a notary or an official, which is different. So I think we'll need to adapt to different types of laws within the country.

When the paragraph says “in accordance with the laws of the country”, I think it's going to be hard in some countries to recognize, especially when we go, I'd say, back to the provincial legislation like Quebec, for example, where we need a judgment to go further and then have the citizenship.

So we think there is some ambiguity there and it needs to be clarified, but as a whole we don't have any objections to the statement itself.

Mr. John McKay: It's going to be a little strange. I had some experience with some Thai adoptions recently, and I was just working through in my mind how this would work with these Thai babies, who apparently are born with the AIDS virus, but apparently in the case of about a third of them they throw it off, which surprised me—I didn't know that. Then they are therefore eligible for adoptions, but the Thais want absolutely nothing to do with these babies, so they all go for foreign adoptions.

So presumably you could have the Thai baby who was in accordance with the laws of Thailand. That would be relatively simple. Then the laws of the country of residence of the adopting citizen—I'm curious as to why that phrasing isn't “in accordance with the laws of Canada”.

Mr. François Auger: I think it was there because it is mainly a provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. John McKay: But you could rephrase it—the laws of Canada, the generic form.

Mr. François Auger: Yes. Maybe in Thailand, if I remember correctly, there is no adoption judgment. The children are put into their parents' care until there is a judgment in the country of the parents, so there is a difference there. There is no judgment in Thailand per se for the adoption, so there is no affiliation that is between the parents, the adoptees, and the child.

Mr. John McKay: So that would leave the prospective adoptive parents in a bit of a dilemma, wouldn't it, if there are no adoption laws in the country where the child was born?

Mr. François Auger: If you have no judgments, there's going to be some....

Mr. John McKay: So there's no certificate you could produce.

• 1040

Mr. François Auger: There's nothing. We haven't seen in the law an article that says, well, in that case this is the process that's going to happen. As I say, depending on the country of origin of the child, there are enormous differences between the laws over there and ours.

Mr. John McKay: Yes, I appreciate that. I guess we can't change the phrasing from “and” to “or”. That wouldn't work, because that would lead to its own difficulties. Okay, that's a good point.

The final point is with respect to “genuine relationship”. I know Quebec is very involved with Chinese adoptions, and my curiosity there is this. Given that the parents are here in Canada or Quebec and the child is over there, and they meet the child, stay a week and go back home, how is that a genuine relationship of parent and child?

Mr. François Auger: It's the same as when your wife gives birth and she sees the baby the first time.

Mr. John McKay: And that's it.

Mr. François Auger: It's the same thing for us. There are instant attachments, that's for sure, even with a picture or a video. There are some that take time and work. It's not always love at first sight.

Mr. John McKay: Yes, I have that difficulty with members of the Reform Party.

An hon. member: We've grown fond of you too.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McKay.

The chair would like to pose a few questions, seeing none from the members.

Do you make a distinction between the legality of adoptions according to law and the genuineness of that parent-child relationship over and above what has been deemed by law as legal? Are they the same?

Mr. François Auger: There is one, because it's a love affair between a parent and child that has nothing to do with any laws. But I think the distinction is hard to make. There are laws we have to follow, and whether we like it or not, we're part of a society and we live together. But I don't think we make that distinction as being a requirement or a specific thing. As I said, it's more feelings versus what's right.

The Chair: In your experience, the genuineness of the relationship is obviously a factor of time. Can it be a factor of other than time?

Mr. François Auger: I don't think so. I think time is something that is given to you to get to know each other.

The Chair: When is the time critical? Earlier than that it cannot be, and beyond that it ought to be.

Mr. François Auger: I don't think you can do that, sir. I don't think you can put a date or a specific amount of time on where that genuine relationship is bound. As I say, you can have that relationship with a photo.

The Chair: Can it be defined by anybody other than the parent and the child?

Mr. François Auger: Personally, I don't think so. It's a personal affair between the parents and the child. Sometimes you even love the baby before you have him.

The Chair: If that is so, a provision requiring that relationship to exist, which cannot be assessed by anybody else except by the proclamation of the child and the parent, could be a very difficult criterion to assess.

Mr. François Auger: Yes.

The Chair: That is your submission?

Mr. François Auger: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. Now, admission to Canada via immigration requires the fulfilment of certain criteria, including medical admissibility. If the admission is via citizenship when there is automatic citizenship, what is your submission to the committee with reference to those conditions now in the immigration law as medically inadmissible, where an adopting parent may deem, notwithstanding these conditions...I have found them to be there, I know they exist, tuberculosis and what have you. Is your group making a submission that the basis for medical inadmissibility in the Immigration Act obviously will be waived if the entry to Canada of a new person is via citizenship?

• 1045

Mr. François Auger: Exactly. That's what we believe.

The Chair: Is that your wish as well?

Mr. François Auger: We don't have objections about going through citizenship instead of going through immigration. We think it's a good thing. But we think at one point you should have medical advice on what the child may or may not have as a disease.

The Chair: I heard you on that. I heard the importance of that in terms of awareness of what exists and therefore you have been forewarned. That's one aspect. The second aspect, of course, is the cost of making that diagnosis, confirming that diagnosis, in Canada. Second, of course, is cost in terms of treatment of that condition, as has been alluded to by the other members on the committee. The third aspect, of course, is the consequence on public health, the community at large.

Do you share sentiments on those issues?

Mr. François Auger: Currently most of the medical exams that are requested or required by Immigration Canada or the embassy in countries are paid for by the adoptees, the parents.

The Chair: No, I am not worried about the cost at this point. My question to you is this: do you believe those medical criteria for admissibility, as they now exist, in the Immigration Act are reasonable criteria to be expected of anyone coming into the country to be a permanent part of Canada?

Mr. François Auger: We don't think they reflect the reality of today. We think some of the tests should be more elaborate, especially with children.

The Chair: Assuming that we have an elaborate test to detect any conceivable condition that people like to detect, do you believe that exclusion based on those medical conditions should stay or not?

Mr. François Auger: If they are accepted, yes, I think they should stay.

The Chair: Is it then your submission that for purposes of adoption, because they can come to Canada via citizenship without passing the immigration law, the same conditions should be reasonably required?

Mr. François Auger: I believe so, yes.

The Chair: It is clearly the submission of your group?

Mr. François Auger: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you on that.

Now, regarding the adoption laws of the residence of the adopting parents, you realize it may be Canada, any province in the country, or it may be any other country in the world where the adopting parents reside, although Canadians, or it may be the same country where the child being adopted is, if in fact the adopting parents—Canadian citizens—are in that country. Do you realize that?

Mr. François Auger: Yes.

The Chair: Do you see any problem with that?

Mr. François Auger: No.

The Chair: None at all? Okay. That is the extent of my questions at this time.

Are there any questions from the committee? Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, going back to paragraph 8(b)(ii), “created a genuine relationship of parent and child”, obviously assuming financial responsibility for an individual, and also paying your lawyer in the process, is very much part of that.

Mr. John McKay: Yes. It's an objective test of the relationship.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I thank you again for your contribution.

Mr. François Auger: Thank you.

The Chair: We would like to invite the next set of witnesses from the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees and the Canadian Council of Churches, as well as the Table de concertation de Montréal au service des réfugiés.

• 1050

I would like to proceed with welcoming the witnesses we have before us. I understand Ms. Janet Somerville will be giving the opening remarks for the Canadian Council of Churches. Mr. Van Eek will be making the opening remarks for the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees. And Ms. Rivka Augenfeld will be giving the opening remarks for her group. I suppose we can proceed in that sequence.

Mr. Clark will make opening remarks too? No.

We also have Madame Mounib before us.

I was referring earlier, Madam Clerk, to those who will be making the opening remarks, but thank you anyway for the reminder.

Ms. Somerville.

Ms. Janet Somerville (General Secretary, Canadian Council of Churches): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for our invitation to this committee.

Arie Van Eek is the chair of the board of the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees. Arie became a Canadian citizen in 1955 when he was in the seminary studying for his ordination.

Tom Clark is the director, the staff person, for the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees. For 19 years he has been doing careful, specialized work around refugee issues and precedents in refugee law on behalf of the many churches that co-sponsor his office.

I'm the general secretary of the Canadian Council of Churches. My presence is to symbolize the general interest of all our churches, but the contents of our brief come particularly from our experience, especially from Tom's and Arie's experience specifically with refugee issues. So we're pretty well confining ourselves to that dimension, to reflections rising from that experience at this time.

I think the word turns to Arie at this point.

Mr. Arie Van Eek (Chair, Inter-Church Committee for Refugees): Mr. Chair, we're walking through Bill C-63 and offering reflections, not specific suggestions on how to incorporate suggestions into law. But we do feel that the faith communities represented in our coalition have a shared concern that the Citizenship Act reflect what is just and good for all who apply and who qualify.

We are proposing to read our brief to you.

A citizenship law, with its process for granting citizenship, is one of the few places that defines what it means to be a Canadian. Potentially, this law and its oath is a place where the best aspirations of Canadians can be found. It's positive that Canada should plan to continue to follow the notion that those who are born within its territory can receive Canadian citizenship. This is normal among modern countries. But it is a matter of concern that even a minimal content for what the meaning of citizenship really is all about is missing from the proposed law before us. So parliamentarians and concerned citizens cannot really comment on the content of that law and on the privileges and responsibilities conferred upon the person who receives that citizenship. So it seems to us inappropriate to pass a law about citizenship when the meaning of citizenship is really not clear from that law.

• 1055

Even in difficult times for constitutional reflection, the whole content of citizenship should not be left to an oath that is attached at the end of this document as a schedule and defined only by the minister. I'm referring to the oath found on page 32 of this document.

Ms. Janet Somerville: Our next point is about due process and full legal recourse around the issue of nationality, citizenship, and statelessness. Refugees and stateless people know best that citizenship, or nationality, is a crucial right. A constitution with all its rights is hollow when someone can be sent away to another country for something he did in this one.

Citizenship defines a place on this globe to which a person can return and remain as a right: to work, to vote, to care and be cared for, and to belong. Citizenship must not lightly be taken away. Whether it's granted or taken away, Canadians deserve to know why it should not be merely an opinion of the federal minister or the governor of the moment. This is a bit thematic for us, that discretion, ministerial discretion, should have publicly available criteria.

If Canadian citizenship is valuable and important, as we think it should be, the granting and removal of citizenship must be objective. The grant or the removal must be predictable on the basis of clear criteria known to all of us.

The grant should be made by a body arm's length from government, a body not susceptible to political pressures from other governments outside Canada, and a body that is insulated from the public passions of the moment. This is the meaning of the rule of law in a modern democratic state.

Mr. Arie Van Eek: Now we go into five major concerns with the proposed law before us this morning. The first one is the concern with granting citizenship under ministerial direction. The proposed process for giving and taking away the defining right of citizenship is to be made by an official “commissioner”, who is, it further states, subject to the minister's pleasure “to provide, on the Minister's request, advice and recommendations”, as found in paragraph 31(7)(c), and to give effect to directions of the minister in subclause 31(7).

The next one is a concern that citizenship can be accelerated by the minister without criteria given in the proposed law. The proposed law allows for political intervention beyond that of the minister in granting every citizenship above the one outlined in clause 31. The minister can accelerate said citizenship for anyone who has resided in Canada for at least 10 years by deeming them “to be or have become a permanent resident as of the day that the Minister specifies”. There is no provision requiring more detailed criteria in the regulation outlined in clause 43, and there is no impartial body to apply those criteria.

Also, the minister may waive various of the standards set for citizenship “If the Minister believes that there are compassionate grounds for doing so”—subclause 6(3). Although no impartial body decides in this case, there may, it is said, be regulations giving precise criteria, but these are not given and not mandatory.

• 1100

Ms. Janet Somerville: The government can strip citizenship if, based on the minister's report, the government is satisfied that

a person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed citizenship by false representation or fraud or by concealing material circumstances.

That's in clause 16.

In this issue, there is some access to the Federal Court—it's a predominantly administrative court—and the decision of that court is final. The text says, “and, despite any other Act of Parliament, not subject to appeal.” That's in clause 17.

We are inclined to think that to protect the individual and to reassure public opinion, to reassure Canadians, there should be determination by a court that there was indeed false representation or fraud. That is, it should not simply be that the government is satisfied; it should be that a court is able to determine whether there indeed has been fraud or misrepresentation. We think the proposed role of the Federal Court is inadequate and the test of the government being satisfied is an inadequate test.

The consequences of the government being satisfied that you were fraudulent can be very serious. Once stripped of citizenship, a person with any criminal record is vulnerable to possible deportation under the minister's broad discretionary powers under the Immigration Act. One has to wonder why the government is not held responsible for failing to detect the false representation or fraud during examination for both landed immigrant status and citizenship and during the years of residence in Canada. Surely the point at which citizenship is granted should mark a final point beyond which Canada must assume responsibility for a person by punishment and rehabilitation under Canadian laws, rather than by status stripping or status regranting.

It is often a serious concern in particular work on this that other innocent members of the person's family, such as children, suffer the consequences of these decisions. We think it's very important not to inflict the loss of a parent, for example, on children who have perhaps been born here, when that parent is stripped of Canadian citizenship.

Tom Clark.

Mr. Tom Clark (Coordinator, Inter-Church Committee for Refugees): Our fourth concern is with the government blocking citizenship, stopping you from getting it, for a rather ill-defined concept called “public interest”. The minister may, or presumably may not, ask the government to block citizenship according to subclause 22(1), if “satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it would not be in the public interest”.

There's no provision for precise criteria about public interest in the regulations clause, which is clause 43. There is no provision for criteria to guide the minister in choosing whether she may, or presumably may not, ask the government to block citizenship if someone qualifies. The proposed law tries to block access to the courts, as has happened elsewhere:

The order is final and, despite any other Act of Parliament, is not subject to appeal to or review by any court.

That's subclause 22(3).

Our fifth and final concern in this package around due process is concern with government blocking for security or crime. According to these proposals, the government can block citizenship if it declares that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person who is the subject of a report has engaged or will engage in” an activity mentioned—and I'll mention those in a minute.

The minister begins this process by deciding to report. Again, this is she may report, and presumably she may not. Also, we have no criteria as to what will influence the decision as to whether a particular person who qualifies may or may not in fact be the subject of a report.

Again, the minister begins the process by deciding to report to a review committee that, in her opinion, the person should not be granted citizenship because “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person has engaged or will engage in”—and then there are the two categories:

(a) an activity that constitutes a threat to the security of Canada; or

(b) an activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activity planned and organized by a number of persons acting together....

• 1105

The review committee shall investigate the grounds—not whether or not they are reasonable—and the individual sees only “a statement summarizing the information available”, subclause 23(5), and may not know the full case against her.

The minister does not have an obligation to prevent citizenship to such people, but she may. The regulations, clause 43, don't make provision for providing criteria to guide the minister in selecting whom she chooses.

Mr. Arie Van Eek: Here again, the proposed law tries to block any access to the courts. Subclause 27(3) says:

The declaration is final and, despite any other Act of Parliament, is not subject to appeal to or review by any court.

So what we see in clause 22 we see again in clause 27.

ICCR, the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees, has had occasion to be aware of the injustice of similar provisions in the Immigration Act. These were applied, for example, to a fairly well-known case, Suresh. Many of the courts have dealt with it and it has hit the news again and again.

The situation in hand reflects an earlier oversight of the government in the granting of landed immigrant status, and one wonders whether it's appropriate to single out the individual at the citizenship stage rather than at the earlier stages referred to.

Mr. Tom Clark: In our reflections, we have a number of items we call “other concerns”. It's a little bit of a grab bag, and we're concerned, in the notion behind some of this, about a possible double standard. Even if the due process and legal remedy concerns we've just been raising are addressed, the prohibition of citizenship to persons who are threats to the security of Canada raises a different concern, and that's the one of double standard.

Citizens who carry out some kinds of activities that are considered a threat to the security of Canada are not subjected to the same penalties. This is illustrated by the case of Suresh, which Arie Van Eek referred to, who is presently under the threat of expulsion under the Immigration Act for activities—fundraising for the LTTE—citizens can carry out without penalty.

The question arises whether these concerns shouldn't be handled in a different way. In other words, if there are serious problems with carrying out these activities, are they better handled through the Criminal Code than by blocking citizenship? That's just part of our reflection.

Second, we have a concern about preventing statelessness. The proposed law doesn't fully protect from the possibility of creating a stateless person, as is required by the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. For example, clause 11 seems to be compatible with article 1, sections 1 and 2, of that convention, but not article 1, sections 4 and 5, of that convention. So we think the commitment to statelessness might be better dealt with in some form of overriding notwithstanding clause or as an aim of the law.

Ms. Janet Somerville: We wonder if the law needs more of a statement of the aims of the law. It doesn't seem to have such a clear statement within the text, and that might make it difficult for courts to balance the rights and freedoms at issue against the aim and purpose of the law. Courts are committed to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and they need to be given clear aims in the texts of law to allow them to apply charter section 1.

A law should aim to honour the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada's international human rights treaty obligations, including the one just mentioned by Tom, which is the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

• 1110

One other concern we are wondering about, which is related to the lack of explicit goals and objectives in this law, is the possibility of links between this law and other concerns of the government. The law may entrench for the future a past response to war criminals, in this case Nazi war criminals, that needs rethinking at this time.

It was reported at a church committee that when prosecution in Canada proved difficult and protracted, Nazi war criminals were stripped of citizenship so they could be deported and brought to trial in other countries. We think it's time to rethink that approach. First, in terms of non-discrimination, if Canada wishes to bring war criminals and torturers to justice, which we think is a good idea, all citizens who commit these acts must be brought to justice, not only naturalized citizens. In principle, there's no need to remove citizenship to achieve the goal of holding people accountable for human rights violations.

Secondly, there's an evident impact on the individual of removal of citizenship and deportation from family, friends, and work, after many years of being in Canada, that should be weighed against the alternatives, including prosecuting the person in Canada according to laws, some of which might not be written but would be Canadian laws.

Third, in terms of fairness among governments, Canada should be able to carry its share of trials of war criminals and its share of the imprisonment of those found guilty here in Canada.

Mr. Arie Van Eek: Finally, on page 24, clauses 47 and 49, there are references to classes of citizenship and property rights of those who are not citizens. On the classes of citizenship, we muse that the proposed creation of a citizenship of the commonwealth is at best puzzling and at worst very disturbing. This citizenship has no defined content in the proposed law, and it appears to be discriminatory to grant special status to some Canadian citizens and not to others. Could you imagine, for example, that there should be such a thing as citizenship of the francophonie?

Finally, on property and legal rights for people who are not citizens, in clauses 49 through 54, it is a very puzzling section of this proposal. The property rights appear to be provisions that are not to be dealt with under citizenship at all. They deal in fact with selected rights for non-citizens, especially with respect to property, and they define the roles for the provinces in clause 50. It's difficult to comment on these provisions without an aim and purpose for the proposed law and an explanation of the problems they seek to address.

Whatever the virtue of these statements, they should logically be part of law about rights of non-citizens and not be included in the Citizenship Act. These clauses detract from the importance of citizenship itself, its meaning, the granting of same, the withholding and removal of same, which one would expect to be central to the law given the name the Citizenship of Canada Act.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes our submission.

The Chair: Madame Augenfeld, as you know I have allowed it to be completed. I have the option of limiting presentations to ten minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld (President, Table de concertation des organismes de Montréal au service des réfugiés): I shall make a very brief statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for having invited us. The Table de concertation des organismes de Montréal au service des réfugiés is an organization that is almost 20 years old. It comprises some 96 member agencies, many of which are involved in the reception and settlement of people who have recently arrived. We sent you a brief description of our activities and our membership list.

This is not our first appearance before this committee, although it is the first time that we are meeting some of the MPs who are here today.

• 1115

Over the years, we have acquired not only expertise, but also a great deal of experience because of our work with people who are directly affected by certain provisions of this Act. We deal particularly with refugees, people who need protection and are vulnerable, and other ordinary immigrants, and we often witness the consequences of certain regulations and Acts, which were not intended to create harm, but which, in everyday life, have unintended consequences and often create difficulties for people whom we claim to wish to protect and help in other instruments.

For some time now, we have witnessed a rather disturbing trend in the Department of Immigration, which has taken a number of steps to remove the rights of persons who are physically present in the country, be it the right of appeal of a refugee claimant or someone who has been refused permanent residence. Now there is a proposal to restrict the right of appeal of permanent residents who have been refused citizenship. But what is even more disturbing is that some people who have already been granted Canadian citizenship will no longer be able to invoke adequate rights of appeal when being stripped of their citizenship.

We agree with our colleagues on many of their points, and we will not repeat them here. We prefer, rather, to focus on two issues. The current provisions in the Act allow for the inclusion—in calculating the time required for getting citizenship—of the time during which the individuals were physically present in the country before being granted permanent resident status. These provisions are particularly important for refugees who are allowed into Canada, for individuals accepted for other humanitarian reasons, for those who would be at risk if they were to return to their country and for those who are sponsored once they are here. In most cases, as you know, these are women sponsored by their husband who are in the country before they become permanent residents.

It often happens that the period preceding the granting of permanent resident status is very long, even though the situation seems to be improving. The long wait is no one's fault, because there were delays in the system. Although the individuals to whom we award refugee status should normally be granted certain rights, for various reasons, the Department of Immigration does not give them permanent resident status for a very long time. We have seen cases where the Department of Immigration made people who had been accepted as refugees but who did not have any documents wait up to five years. These people were often from Somalia and Afghanistan. These individuals who suffered the most, who do not have citizenship, who do not have any documents, who were left waiting, and who urgently need documents and citizenship, are forced to wait even longer. Some individuals can easily spend up to ten years in Canada before they are granted Canadian citizenship.

The provisions in the current Act allowed us at least to count the time spent in Canada waiting for permanent resident status as part of the time required to get citizenship. We understand Parliament's intention very clearly: it would like to require that individuals be present in Canada, that they have become familiar with Canada and that they have expressed the desire to remain here before they become citizens. We were told that in some cases we are targeting specifically individuals who travel a great deal—business people, for example—but the irony is that some individuals cannot move from Canada until they get their permanent residency. Often, permanent residents cannot travel because they do not have the necessary documents. Even though refugees may have spent a great deal of time in a country, they cannot get a passport from that country; they often have to obtain a Canadian travel document, which is hard to get, and not always the best thing for travel purposes.

I will read you the answer the Canadian Council for Refugees received from Ms. Ingrid Hauck, the Director General of the Integration Division, when it asked departmental officials to clarify why this provision had been removed. If you understand the answer better than I do, I would you to explain it to me. It said:

[English]

Many persons live in Canada for a period of time before acquiring permanent resident status. The time spent in Canada under a status other than as a permanent resident will not be counted towards the residence requirement. The purpose of the residence requirement is to allow a prospective Canadian to familiarise him/herself with Canadian life, in order to understand what life in Canada entails and to adapt and become integrated into Canadian society, as quickly as possible. Strengthening the residence requirement means persons acquiring citizenship would have made a personal commitment to Canada.

• 1120

[Translation]

That is exactly what people did who were in the country for a long time before being granted permanent resident status; they did not begin their lives in Canada the day they got their status. I think you see what I am getting at here.

We are very concerned about the provision regarding knowledge of our languages, because the wording is very vague. The Minister has been given some discretionary power in this regard, but the Act takes away the discretion of citizenship judges to make decisions for humanitarian reasons. This was used particularly in cases involving older people or traumatized individuals. Judges could decide to wave the requirement to know one of our official languages in such cases. This discretion has now been given to departmental officials. That means there will be much less flexibility. Although this discretionary power is referred to in paragraph 6(3)(a) of the bill, it is not very clearly defined.

Of course, we're quite perplexed concerning this allusion to a citizen of the Commonwealth. We don't understand what that reference means, why it was put in there and what stems from it. It's a question we have. As we don't understand what it means, I have no comment to make on that.

I'd like to get back to my preliminary comments in my presentation. It's very difficult to conceive that, faced with questions as important as citizenship, ministerial discretion is granted allowing to decide that because of public interest, that is nowhere defined, citizenship can be denied without any right of appeal. If you don't have a right to appeal here, in Canada, you're not being treated in conformity with the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I'll stop here. Thank you for your attention. We're now ready to answer your questions.

[English]

The Chair: We are on time at this point now, and I thank you for that.

Before I yield the floor to Mr. McNally, I would ask for one quick clarification, and the chair seldom does this. You've indicated that you agree with many of what the previous groups have indicated.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: Yes, we agree with it. There's nothing they said that I don't agree with.

The Chair: Good. I wanted a clarification, because “many” does not include everything.

Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'm a little more confused now.

I'm waiting for your comment, John.

Mr. John McKay: I didn't say anything.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks for coming. The depth of your presentation certainly gives reflection to the fact that you've spent a long time thinking about all of these issues—all of you, I believe. Many of the comments are comments that, quite frankly, we have made over a long period of time as well in terms of fixing the system that appears to be at worst broken and at best in need of some fairly serious repairs.

You mentioned this idea of status stripping and the fact that there should perhaps be more accountability towards the front end of the system in terms of when a person comes and claims refugee status at the beginning of the process. I believe that is what you're saying.

Ms. Janet Somerville: The weight of our remarks was really that once a person is a citizen, it should be very rare that citizenship is stripped. It should be that the person is held strictly accountable to Canadian law, and it's possible that we need to develop Canadian law in some new directions around.... Since we are such a multicultural country and we do draw our citizenship from all over the world, and there are horrific things going on in some of the parts of the world from which people come to Canada.... So indeed the struggle of how to hold people to account for what they did in Rwanda is a challenge to us. We really need to grow within that area.

Mr. Grant McNally: I think you made the comment that—-

Ms. Janet Somerville: Preferably not by stripping citizenship, but by holding them to account to what we're all held to account for.

Mr. Grant McNally: What I was asking about specifically was a comment you made about the accountability of those individuals in the system who first review all the information and make that decision, and once it's granted.... Then you're saying if that had been done better at the front end of the system—this is what I understood you to say—on a more consistent basis there wouldn't be a need to do this, as you quoted, status stripping.

• 1125

Ms. Janet Somerville: Yes, but the weight of our remark is not that Canada should be more suspicious at the beginning of the process.

Mr. Grant McNally: No, I'm not suggesting that either. What I'm suggesting is what you have said, that there needs to be more somehow going through this information or getting the determination further to the front end of the system, rather than later on saying we didn't have the information up front or the person misrepresented themselves. That should all be done sooner.

Mr. Clark, I see you nodding your head.

[Translation]

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: Safety checks are done at many stages. Some people, not even having permanent resident status, wait for a very long time because of vague allusions made to matters of security.

Once permanent residency and citizenship have been obtained, whatever time has gone by is enough and you have the possibility of proceeding if the person has committed crimes that should be judged. If, after all these checks, it still happens that we're faced with some people who've committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, then we also have the obligation to judge those criminals. It happened, on occasion, that victims we're protecting, refugees, meet their torturer. They can be judged and we must judge them. All the international conventions we've signed impose this obligation upon us. It would also be a signal for the whole world. If we were to undertake proceedings where we have serious evidence against people, we would be sending a signal about Canada's attitude to people responsible for certain serious crimes and that has not been done to date.

I'd like to say something very personal; I am not now speaking for the organization I represent here. Here, we're all immigrants who have become citizens. We hope this citizenship means something. I belong to a community that suffered much during the Second World War and I don't think we should use the fact that Canada did nothing for so long in the case of the Nazi war criminals to now turn around, targeting other people, and apply unjust measures. We now have provisions and if criminals are to be found in Canada, we can judge them case by case. That is serious and no one wants to see amongst us people who committed war crimes or crimes against humanity. They must be judged and condemned if necessary. We have provisions allowing us to do so, otherwise we must submit those cases to international tribunals.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you. It seems to me that what you're saying—correct me if I'm wrong—is that there needs to be a better process in place to determine all of this ahead of time, closer to the entry of the person to the country, rather than creating stateless individuals or people being held in limbo, as you mentioned, for long periods of time. Is that what you're saying? Just yes or no would be good.

Mr. Tom Clark: No.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay.

Ms. Janet Somerville: It's not the emphasis we were trying to make.

Mr. Tom Clark: The emphasis of what we're saying is that if crimes are committed by persons who are in Canada, they should be prosecuted, convicted, sentenced, and so on. That's what we're saying. And it shouldn't matter whether they're old citizens, new citizens, landed immigrants, or whatever. That's the thrust of what we're saying. That's the key direction.

However, it's true—so this is a small yes—

Mr. Grant McNally: Including the individuals who don't have status in Canada?

Mr. Tom Clark: —that we've certainly alluded in our submission to the fact that if the governments had multiple opportunities to catch a person, in some sense, maybe we should start handling it in a different way—

Mr. Grant McNally: Would you say that should apply to individuals without status in Canada as well? If somebody comes to Canada without status, and they're perhaps a refugee claimant who hasn't even been determined to be a refugee at this point and commits criminal activities—

Mr. Tom Clark: Let me answer your question in a different way.

Mr. Grant McNally: —and is charged and convicted—

Mr. Tom Clark: Canada's obligations, as I understand them, and my only expertise at this point is with the international human rights standards, are with respect to everyone on Canadian territory and under Canada's jurisdiction.

Mr. Grant McNally: Are you saying that someone who comes to Canada, claims refugee status, is not determined to be a refugee yet, commits a criminal act in Canada, is charged and convicted, should then still obtain status in Canada?

Ms. Janet Somerville: No, our point was once that person is a citizen—

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay, so you're talking about—

Ms. Janet Somerville: —it should not be dealt with by stripping his citizenship, but by holding him accountable to the laws to which we're all accountable.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay.

• 1130

Ms. Janet Somerville: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I'm dovetailing with another Canadian Council of Churches delegation that has just finished meeting with the Prime Minister, and I have another obligation at 11.30, so thank you very much.

The Chair: Yes, you may be excused.

Ms. Janet Somerville: I will leave my colleagues here.

Mr. John Bryden: I think they can probably manage.

Mr. Tom Clark: We're now on two cylinders.

The Chair: We'll give Ms. Somerville the report card afterwards.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you again.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you for appearing before us. I have three questions I'd like to raise. The most important one is the one raised by Rivka at the Montreal concertation table for the service of refugees.

Just for our proper understanding and for this to show up in our report on the amendments we'd like to see, do you wish us to take into account, for purposes of granting citizenship, the actual time the people spent on Canadian territory before being granted their permanent resident status? You want that, not for any given clientele, but as a general principle in the legislation.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do I have the proper understanding of your position?

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: Yes. I gave the example of people for whom we have a specific concern, but it should be valid for everyone. When you're physically present in Canada, have come here with the intent to stay and have obtained permission to undertake the immigration process from within the country, the time spent here should count. For the time being, the time spent in Canada only counts for half, up to a maximum of one year; all of the time is not substituted, but at least part of it is. It works rather well and decreases somewhat the waiting time for the people already here.

We don't see why that provision was removed; it was changed without any reason being given. The paragraph I read for you addresses the need to understand our society; if that is the case, the people have done it and sometimes during a longer period of time than what is required to obtain citizenship after permanent residency. No explanation was given to justify the change. We're told about people coming in, travelling, businessmen and women. We're talking about another group of people being penalized.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, with the agreement of my colleagues and for a better understanding of this, would it be possible for you, in the name of the committee, to send a request for an explanation of this amendment to the legislation and also why there's a specific allusion to citizens of the Commonwealth in the legislation? Before getting to the report stage, I'd like to have more information on these two questions being raised unless someone can answer them right now.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, it is the plan of the committee, through the cooperation of the research staff and her recommendation and that of the clerk and myself, that we would re-invite the departmental officials after we have heard all the other witnesses.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Fine, excellent.

[English]

The Chair: It must be on that public basis.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Fine, thank you.

The committee could stay in contact with you and try to get more information on the reason for these provisions in the Act and if ever you're not satisfied, then we'd have to propose an amendment at report stage.

I understand the general direction of the interventions made by the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees. I subscribe to the principle according to which every decision, at the administrative level as well as at the level of regular courts of justice, must be appealable. It is clear that the possibility of reviewing those decisions must exist.

It is also clear, in my mind, that legislation such as the Immigration Act or the Citizenship Act must provide the Minister with some discretionary leeway. Let's take a very frequent example, among others. War criminals are discovered to be in Canada and a public opinion is mobilized. I'm not talking just about Nazi war criminals, but of all circumstances that might lead people to consider that exactions have been committed in some country on this planet. The Minister must have something allowing her to move swiftly to a process implementing redress.

• 1135

Let's not forget that, sometimes, legislation and bureaucrats lead us into a process... I find it healthy for a democracy to elect people to form a government and give ministers the possibility to intervene rapidly with discretionary powers. Let's call things what they are: it's a discretionary power.

I'll give you a recent example that doesn't have anything to do with the Citizenship Act but does illustrate that sometimes you have to ask ministers to intervene when all the doors have been closed by the bureaucrats. That's the case of Ms. Nancy Castilli-Duran. We should congratulate ourselves that the Minister used her discretionary power to get a decision from the officials. I agree that this is an immigration and not a citizenship case, but I'm in agreement with the idea that ministers should be granted discretionary powers. Do you agree with the general principle of discretionary powers? If you find it goes too far in this bill, tell us why and tell us how far you'd be ready to go in the context of the healthy conduct of public affairs. Finally, that's what we're talking about at this point. I'm sure you have comments on this matter, Ms. Augenfeld.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: In the case you've mentioned, the person asked for permanent residency on humanitarian grounds. She was refused by Immigration for the reasons she was given. She listed all the reasons for which she was requesting permanent residency on humanitarian grounds after living 18 years in Canada. Immigration Canada refused for reasons that really had nothing to do with everything she listed. Then she asked the Minister to make use of her humanitarian discretion to consider all the arguments despite the departmental decision.

That is different from a case in which a person applies for citizenship but where the minister has information that he or she decides not to provide to the person. As a result, the minister can act in the public interest—and public interest has not been defined—and decide not to grant citizenship, without the person having the right to appeal the decision. That is very different.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you agree that certain situations may be subject to such a discretion? The thinking behind the immigration process is quite different from that involved in citizenship, but where the conduct of public business is concerned, no matter who the minister is, do you recognize that such discretionary authority may be healthy, or are you against the general principle?

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: I am not against the general principle. There are indeed places where this bill eliminates any discretion. Citizenship judges currently have a certain amount of discretion to provide an exemption from certain requirements, such as language, etc., for elderly people and those who have been traumatized. That discretion is well established and well understood because people know where the discretion can be used. But a minister's discretion to decide to accuse you of something, when you do not really understand what you are being accused of and why you are being rejected and you do not have the possibility of appealing the decision, is a very negative and harmful type of discretion. I see it as a different type of discretion; it takes away a person's rights.

Permanent residency counts for something even if it isn't the same as citizenship. If it is possible later to remove someone's citizenship for reasons that are not very clear, that is very, very dangerous. We do live in a society that is based on the rule of law. I agree that there should be some discretion. In the immigration process, there are fairly exhaustive guidelines on the nature of the discretion to be used to deal with applications for residency based on humanitarian grounds.

[English]

Mr. Tom Clark: The Inter-Church Committee for Refugees is not at a point where it's willing to say that discretion per se should be abandoned, but we are committed to reducing the breadth of discretion from a level that I think approaches arbitrary decision-making.

Now, the principles that are guiding us are the international human rights treaties that, unfortunately, are not very well known, even though we are all, as individuals, supposed to be promoting them. The notion there, and the international concept, which has lagged a bit in Canada, is an aspect of non-discrimination called equal treatment before the law. As soon as you have a considerable breadth of discretion, you lose equal treatment before the law, and that's unfair. It means that people with substantially the same circumstances can't expect the same treatment, and I'm not sure that if that were explained to Canadians they would be very happy with it.

• 1140

The Chair: At this point, Mr. Bryden would have the floor, but I am jumping to Madame Folco on a special request because of another commitment. I hope I have the consent of the committee.

Madame Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Thank you, all of you, for a very, very interesting presentation. I have a question and I have a comment. My question concerns those people who have arrived on Canadian soil, but with whom the process for becoming a citizen has not yet gone into effect. The new bill, if I understand it correctly, says it will apply to all the people who have not yet become citizens. I would think it would be more appropriate, more just, if the new bill applied to those people who have not yet arrived on Canadian soil rather than to those who have not yet become citizens. I would like a comment on that.

Before I hear you on this, I would like to say that I found your point of view on the stripping of citizenship and deportation of people who have not been found guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity extremely interesting. In fact what we would be doing by making sure these people remain in Canada is recognizing as Canadians our moral obligation toward such a principle, and our moral responsibility toward not just the population in Canada but international populations. So I think it's very interesting.

But I can see that we would be very highly criticized at the same time, because it costs money to do all this. So I can see that certain individuals—if not to say certain parties—might possibly say that it costs a lot to go through the process here. Perhaps you could give some kind of reaction to this. There are those two things.

The Chair: Ms. Augenfeld, and then Mr. Clark, briefly, please.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: First of all, I think we haven't really looked at this issue. I think of course if a new law applies there should be some kind of a way for it not to be retroactive to people.... I must admit we haven't really thought about that very much. But I think most people would say the rules of the game should be such that the playing field is level. Once people arrive after the mise en vigueur of the law, it should apply to them.

On the question of how we should be dealing with war criminals or crimes against humanity,

[Translation]

let us take the case of Leon Mugusera, who is currently in Quebec and whose resident status they are trying to take away. There are costs involved in what has been done, but it seems to me that another approach could have been taken and that the resources could have been used—

For those who do not know, Leon Mugusera came to Canada from Rwanda. He applied from outside Canada, from Spain, and was accepted by the Canadian authorities as a refugee. They had time to do their security check, etc., perhaps not the way they should have, but he came to Canada as a permanent resident in the refugee category.

Not long after, people started to realize that Leon Mugusera may have been one of those behind the genocide in Rwanda. Those allegations are hanging over him. This has taken a long time; I can tell you that the main refugee advocates want him to be taken to court.

It took some time for Immigration Canada to get all its evidence together, and instead of charging him with crimes against humanity and inciting genocide, they decided to take the route of withdrawing his resident status. There were some 25 days of hearings before an immigration referee, with testimony from witnesses from different countries, human rights experts and other experts from different parts of the world. After that, it took 35 days for the appeal process by the appeal section of the IRB. That is a total of 60 days and is a costly process. Could the same amount of time not have been invested in a trial to charge Mr. Mugusera directly and allow the court to decide whether he is in fact a war criminal and, if so, to determine what should be done with him? Removing a person's citizenship is an expensive process; it would be more worthwhile investing in a legal process.

• 1145

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Clark, very quickly, and that will be the end for this phase. We'll then go to Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Tom Clark: To address the moral responsibility, I guess our proposal is one of states sharing. I think that's a practical way to go in today's world. There will also be the possibility, I suspect, of international courts coming onstream so that any kind of citizen, naturalized or other, could be extradited to an international court. But the problem that would still remain would be where the people would go when they're sentenced. It seems to me that there's going to have to be some kind of international sharing, so it's not a matter of cost. It's really a matter of the way things are going. In the future, I guess we will pick up our share of the cost for the problems of the world.

The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

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

I'm interested in the content of the oath of citizenship. I agree that this is actually a very central part of the Citizenship of Canada Act, or at least it should be. One of the new changes is to promise to respect our rights and freedoms and to defend our democratic values. However, based on all of your experience with refugees and people coming from the war-torn parts of the world, isn't it true that when they think of coming to Canada or when they think of the haven of Canada, they possibly don't think so much of our laws or our democratic systems? They probably don't know those, but I suggest that they do know that as a nation we have a general respect for human rights. Is that not why we have peacekeepers? Is that not why we're involved in Kosovo right now?

I suggest to you that perhaps just respecting our country's rights and freedoms could be enlarged to respecting human rights in general. Wouldn't that more accurately describe both how we are seen and how we should see ourselves?

Mr. Arie Van Eek: If I may, Mr. Bryden, my MP, my personal reflection on it came to the point where I feel it would be wonderful if, in the legislation, there could be a reference made to the fact that Canada is a signatory to some very significant statements about the rights of people. Our own aspiration that those rights should be applied in our own country would receive some expression if there was some reference made in the law to the fact that we are partners in this world of nations and that we mean to uphold all of these. I personally would love that.

When talking about it in the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees, we almost thought we were catching our tongue in cheek. For declarations that are not yet of a world-body status like the UN human rights declarations, it seemed difficult that to get to a point at which putting them in where they have not yet been incorporated in other relevant sections in Canadian law would not be sufficient to just put them in this act.

One of the last ones we signed was the Universal Declaration on the Rights of the Child document. We don't see it incorporated in our own law, so we're not holding ourselves accountable to something as a Canadian nation. We might make reference to those, as you suggest. In principle we would like to do that, but that principle still has to be incorporated. All these relevant sections have yet to be incorporated in the laws that govern the rights of the child.

For legislation having to do with the rights of migrant workers, there are all sorts of obligations that at this point look good on a declaration to which a signature is attached. In effect, however, they are not yet part of our Canadian legislation. I suppose it would be difficult to apply your suggestion only to one act, that of the Citizenship of Canada Act, but in principle we're for it.

• 1150

Mr. John Bryden: Could one not go a long way towards addressing that concern, and also the concern that you're also expressing that within this act there are certain sanctions involving the stripping of citizenship that you're very concerned about? If I understand you correctly, there's nothing in this act that in fact reflects what we have in the Charter of Rights, which is a blanket respect for rights regardless of citizenship.

Mr. Arie Van Eek: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: So, in your view, I would be correct in saying that you would want to suggest to me that at least in the oath we should acknowledge that we do have a Charter of Rights and that we respect not just our country's rights and freedoms but human rights in general.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: I think that would be a very wonderful thing.

[Translation]

That would be a wonderful thing, provided that the government was prepared to make the same commitment to the person. If I swear to uphold the Charter, etc., I would also like to know that the government of the country in which I am becoming a citizen... For the people that we see every day, Canadian citizenship is the most precious thing because they often do not have any citizenship.

I would just like to add something before I come back to your question, because sometimes we tend to overlook this. This week, a young woman of about 30 that I know was awarded permanent residency after being accepted as a refugee; she does not yet have her citizenship. This is the first time that this young woman, who is 30, has had the status of permanent resident anywhere in the world. She told me that she had finally arrived somewhere. She was in tears. I am not telling you this for effect, but to remind you that we forget how precious resident status is for some people. Because we have been here for a long time, we forget what that represents. I hope that this young woman will be able to obtain her citizenship as quickly as possible, after all the time she has spent here.

To come back to your question, we are always in favour of anything that protects human rights, but the commitment must be mutual and the legislation must specify explicitly what the government's commitment is to upholding all the rights in the Charter and in our international agreements.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. John Bryden: I have a few further questions, but can I make an observation?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: During the election campaign, my first time as a candidate, I remember going along in the pouring rain and meeting a woman who stood out on the sidewalk a block and a half away, waiting to shake my hand. That was because she had come over as a refugee from Russia and she had never seen a politician actually working the street.

A voice: Working the street?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Bryden: I have another question if I can, and it pertains to the same theme. All of you mentioned something about the rule of law. That theme came up several times. In the current oath and in the previous version, we still have the words “faithfully observe our laws”. Is it not true that if you're committed to faithfully observing our laws as a country, that commits you to faithfully observing the laws even when they're bad? If Canada became a dictatorship, became like Nazi Germany, the citizenship oath would still apply to faithfully observing even very bad laws. Wouldn't we be better to do as you suggest implicitly, to change it not to read “faithfully observe our laws” but to “respect the rule of law”? Isn't there an enormous difference between just simply respecting the laws of the country and respecting the rule of law?

The Chair: Mr. Clark.

Mr. Tom Clark: The organization doesn't have a position, but I do: yes.

I just wanted to add the following onto your thoughts from the last question and this one, in regard to the part of the oath that talks about responsibilities and duties. There are human rights responsibilities and duties that we all have but are not told about. I'm one of those weird people who thinks it might be appropriate to tell us about them at this point.

• 1155

For example, the two principal human rights treaties, the international ones that Canada has ratified, of course with the support of all the provinces, begin with these words:

Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs

—sorry about the “he”; it's their writing—

is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant....

So that's a very specific duty and responsibility that we all share, but we don't know about it.

The Chair: Very briefly, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: That seems obvious to me because we live in a society based on law. You said earlier that people do not understand our democratic system. I would submit to you that many people coming here as refugees understand very well what a democratic system is. However, they do not have that type of system in their own country and that is what they are looking for here. Others come as a result of a coup d'état that has overthrown the democratic system in their country; they come here in search of such a system. We try to teach them that we try to minimize arbitrary decisions here: there are the rules of the game, a legal system, etc.

I hope that it never happens here, but if we had the terrible misfortune to live in a dictatorship someday, I hope that we would have the courage, like people in other countries do, to not do just anything, to say that we do not want to comply with certain laws because they are unjust, and to fight against a dictatorial government.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi.

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

First let me say I certainly appreciate your commitment to the concept of citizenship and that it be removed, if it's ever removed, under the very strictest conditions. I guess around the table there are a number of us who are immigrants to this country—in my case a refugee. It's an issue that certainly touches probably about five million Canadians who were born outside of Canada and who are citizens of this country.

The question I have, because I think it's a very difficult issue that was raised by Mr. McNally and was responded to by Mr. Clark, and Ms. Somerville made response to it as well, is this. Prior to someone obtaining citizenship, if they are discovered to be a war criminal, with all the things that war crimes entail, as we can see over in the Balkans, it is so very threatening to the very nature of our country in terms of having that kind of ethnic hatred and violence brought here, surely that is one area that Canada would want to protect itself from becoming a haven to. And if we find out that someone is actually a war criminal, then we should be able to prosecute them or extradite them to the country where they might be held accountable for those actions.

Would you not agree, Mr. Clark?

The Chair: Mr. Clark, yes or no?

Mr. Tom Clark: Well, I must agree. I don't think it's that simple, I'm sorry.

The Chair: Let me remind you that Ms. Somerville indicated that the cases for restricting citizenship should be real. Admittedly there should be occasions for them to be there.

Mr. Tom Clark: Yes.

The Chair: In response to the question, please go ahead.

Mr. Tom Clark: I guess my sense is that even war criminals are going to have to end up somewhere. So insofar as your question is, do we want to be a haven for war criminals, the implication there is that in the processes of dealing with the war criminals of this world, does Canada want to have a disproportionate share? I would say no.

The issue for me is that there should be a fair share, and I don't know how to establish that. But I don't think we can presume that if we are trying to free ourselves of ever seeing war criminals, that's realistic in a world where there are a finite number of countries and a finite number of war criminals, and where we're a relatively small power. I think it's to Canada's advantage, as a middle to small power, to make sure there's a fair way of dealing with the distribution of those kinds of world problems.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi.

• 1200

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: In that particular area I will respectfully disagree. I do believe if we have that situation, we know about it, then one of the ways we deal with it is we don't give citizenship for it.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: He didn't say to give people citizenship. That's not what he said.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Or allow them to stay in the country, if you will, because it could be a haven. That's where I think you differed with Ms. Somerville. I think that's the difference I caught in your discussion. Let me move on to another issue because I think it's also very important. It causes us a lot of difficulty and I hear references to it from you and other delegations that have appeared before us. It pertains to Nazi war criminals, or alleged.

The difficulty is, of course, when you're trying to deal with war crimes that are 50 years old plus, it is very hard to prove guilt under the charge of being a war criminal as such. The new strategy that has been taken by governments is to say that their obtaining of citizenship was done by not disclosing certain relevant information that should have been asked. Whether it was asked or not is a different question.

I think this certainly creates a problem. It's almost in a different category than somebody that would be accused of war crimes in the recent past. Have you ever had discussions with the B'nai B'rith—I'm sure you must have—on this issue? I wonder if it would be worth our while to have the two of you appear on the same question, because you obviously come from different sides of the spectrum as to what you would like to see done.

The Chair: Let me remind my colleague that the B'nai B'rith have appeared before the committee earlier.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Yes.

The Chair: Madame Augenfeld.

[Translation]

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: I will repeat what I said earlier. The fact that Canada did nothing against the Nazi war criminals is a shameful thing for our country, but just because we let the situation go on for a very long time concerning these people who came to Canada under their own identify, when we knew quite well who they were, etc.—at the time, it was the victims of that war who had more trouble coming here, including my family—we must not use that lack of action to justify including provisions in the bill that will be used in the future. I hope that we will never again let such a situation go on for 50 years. I hope that this is not what we are trying to prevent and I hope that, having learned from our past errors, we will do things differently.

Before granting citizenship to someone that we know is a war criminal, we can take him to court to be sentenced and put in prison, or, since Canada has just signed a commitment regarding an international court, it can use its status as one of the countries having created an international court to put provisions in the legislation that will allow for people to be extradited to be dealt with by that court.

We should not use the nazi war criminals' situation as a model for doing things in the future. Ultimately, the situation was the result of an unacceptable failure to act, and that is not what we should be using as our guiding principle. I hope there will be no repetition of this situation. The fact that we did not do our job properly in the past is no reason to now turn to others, and not do things right.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could get Mr. Clark to respond to the discussion they had with B'nai B'rith on this issue.

The Chair: Mr. Clark.

Mr. Tom Clark: My understanding from the discussion I had with the legal person with B'nai B'rith, who happens to be something of a friend, was along the lines that Rivka Augenfeld said, that the Jewish community felt driven to this approach of stripping citizenship because the courts here simply, presumably with some.... Anyway, for whatever reason, the courts seemed incapable of carrying out the prosecution. So it was a desire to prosecute and not having the other tool.

• 1205

What we're saying, and what they agreed with, is the best way to do it is not as a future direction. The best way to do it is to be able to do what they wanted in the first place, which is to get the people prosecuted here in Canada. The world's evolving, so there will likely be a mixture of prosecuting in Canada and prosecuting in international courts within a year or two, I would think. So that's the new way to go. What we're saying in our brief, which really isn't taking hard and fast positions, is that it's a time for reflection about those old ways of doing things that have become entrenched, and thinking again, because the world is changing on us.

The Chair: Now the chair would like to pose a few questions. On your statement that we should have a fair share of refugees, there's no debate, I'm 1,000% with you. As for a fair share of people who have committed crimes against humanity, my position is completely opposite, if that is your position. Are you making a submission that we should have a fair share of even a fraction of a number of war criminals into Canada?

Mr. Tom Clark: We are reflecting on our submission to you. The backdrop to this is that we're moving into a world where there are going to be international tribunals convicting people of war crimes. I'm asking you, where do you think those people are going to go?

The Chair: To the countries where they were born. I think countries must make their position clear. I think they should not be negotiable. But, I'm sorry, I should not be debating you at this point. So at this point, you have no position.

Mr. Tom Clark: No.

The Chair: You're in the process of reflection.

Mr. Tom Clark: Yes, but we're concerned. We think solutions that emerge are likely to be based on some kind of fair distribution process.

The Chair: Are you making a distinction between a privilege and a right? Is there a difference between a privilege and a right?

Mr. Arie Van Eek: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Privileges and rights are to be distinguished, in the sense that there are inalienable rights that should obtain for everyone born in the world, but there are privileges that only Canada can accord to people and that other nations may not be able to.

The Chair: Knowing the difference, would you then agree, and make it clear, that before the granting of the citizenship, to obtain that citizenship is a privilege the person holds?

Mr. Arie Van Eek: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. But after having that citizenship it is a right that must be retained.

Mr. Arie Van Eek: Yes.

The Chair: How then do you reconcile if, before the attainment of a right, if everything had been done, that citizenship should not have been given? Is it still a right to be retained if, to begin with, it ought not to have been given as a privilege, but as a right?

Mr. Arie Van Eek: It seems to me that part of citizenship is having access to a just system that applies the laws of the land. We should not extradite people to another jurisdiction where they may not be able to obtain justice. Therefore, since they are citizens, they should have access, as do other citizens who are born citizens, in respect of seeing that justice be done.

The Chair: There is no debate there. I'm with you on that. But in terms of removing it, annulling it as though it has not happened, because, to begin with, it ought not to have been given, if we agree on the premise that it ought not to have been given, could there not be a basis then to annul what not to have been given? Does it make sense?

Mr. Arie Van Eek: No.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: It could make sense if the rules are very clear, if the reasons are clear, and if the person being a citizen has full access to the courts and to defend him or herself, so that it not be something that is arbitrary and discretionary—

The Chair: Yes, I appreciate that.

• 1210

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: —but nothing prevents us from cooperating with international tribunals. If a Canadian citizen, born in Canada, commits a crime in another country and we have extradition treaties with that country, we can agree to extradite someone to a country with which we have a treaty without stripping them of their citizenship. We allow the fact he committed a crime in that country to be important enough that we extradite based on extradition treaties, but we don't strip citizenship.

The Chair: No, that is another issue. I'm trying to make a distinction, and I can see your point that you do not disagree with the annulment provided due process is in place for the process.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: It's extremely rare, but we would have to talk about what would be the reasons.

The Chair: That would be the next question then. Mr. Telegdi suggested crimes against humanity as a serious offence. Is that a reasonable basis for stripping citizenship? If that were not, then there would be no offence under the sun that can be a basis for stripping citizenship. If the most serious and heinous crimes cannot be a basis for annulment, revocation or the stripping of citizenship, then there would be no offence whatsoever that ought to be a basis thereafter. Would you agree?

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: My concern would be, how will we bring to justice the person who has committed crimes against humanity?

The Chair: No, that is afterwards. I'm trying to clarify for my own clarification. You may have an answer that I may not agree with and that is not important at this point. I am seeking a philosophy and ethics. So what do you say to that question, if I may? I'm not insisting on an answer, but if an answer can be given, I would be very appreciative.

Mr. Arie Van Eek: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if the person has been convicted in a legal system that Canada recognizes in terms of its extradition treaties and so on, then that question comes into focus and I would then agree with you.

The Chair: So you're making a distinction, and that's a good point. This is what I was coming to, that there ought to be a distinction between a person convicted for an offence and a person accused of an offence, with the latter presumed innocent in the Canadian judicial system.

Mr. Arie Van Eek: Yes, very basic.

The Chair: I want to be very clear on that. On international documents, the need to incorporate some treaties and rights and conventions in this particular act...is it not established Canadian jurisprudence that when a particular treaty has been ratified it is automatically a binding basis for judicial interpretation?

Mr. Tom Clark: No, the justice department on March 26 told the UN Human Rights Committee that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and such treaties didn't have effect in Canada unless they were formally incorporated into domestic law.

The Chair: I am assuming it has been ratified?

Mr. Tom Clark: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, you have clarified me on that point.

Mr. Tom Clark: The government clarified, after some time of ambiguity, I might say.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: It happens all the time that international treaties we have signed, international obligations, end up not being respected in our application of law. There are two separate arguments. I think you would find it instructive to look at the testimony that was put before the Supreme Court in November in the Mavis Baker case, which is a case, without going into all the details, of weighing the best interest of the child in the case of deportation of children born in Canada. The interveners in that case quoted Canadian representatives in Geneva appearing before the human rights committee, where they assured the committee that Canada always respected its international obligations and that without being written into law, all of our international treaty obligations are respected. Two breaths later, the representative of the justice department got up to plead that it wasn't obliged to respect the international covenants on rights of the child, that they didn't have this obligation. So we're in a very ridiculous situation where we can quote what we say overseas and the justice department argues before the Supreme Court that we're not actually obliged to.

The Chair: Has the Supreme Court made its decision?

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: Not yet.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: It's just an example, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes. I would like to comment on this point. I have my own views on it. In all modesty, I developed the argument even before it was a case before a court, but that's just common sense, logic—not being a lawyer.

I am persuaded by your suggestion that time spent may well be a basis for physical residency, if in fact the time spent has proven to be the very essence of attachment and commitment. I find it difficult to think otherwise, so I wanted to clarify something. You have indicated that the present act allows for a maximum credit of one year and no more. With that one year, you're already satisfied.

• 1215

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: The actual act gives half-time to the time spent before, going back to a certain period. You can accumulate a maximum of one year of the three years towards citizenship, but in order to accumulate that one year you have to have had at least two years of physical presence, which counts for half. The two previous years count for one, and then two more years of permanent residence are required. After two years of permanent residence, you can have accumulated three years and be able to apply for citizenship.

The Chair: And you feel that is a reasonable, middle-ground approach.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Are there any other questions from the committee? Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I just want to follow up on Mr. Telegdi's line of questioning a little bit, as well as that of the chairman, and this pertains to dual citizenship. I think you will all appreciate that there have been instances in which a person has come to Canada, has taken out Canadian citizenship, has then gone back to his homeland, and has even become president of that country. That has actually occurred. A person has become the leader of his country.

I draw your attention to the oath of citizenship as now revised, and indeed as it was. Part of it says:

I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to defend our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and to fulfil my duties and obligations....

It's given that an oath of citizenship is a kind of contract, perhaps legal but certainly spiritual. Now, suppose this person who had dual citizenship left to become the president of another country and then engaged in the massive human rights violations that you now see in the former Yugoslavia. Is it not true that, as the oath currently stands, that person would not be in breech of the oath of citizenship even though he may be carrying out ethnic cleansing in the land that he has returned to as a leading politician? Is it not true that he would still be an honest, correct Canadian citizen according to the oath as it stands?

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: But he would have committed a crime against humanity. If we could prove it and convict him of it, he would serve time. The fact that he is a citizen of this country doesn't preclude us from bringing him to justice.

Mr. John Bryden: That's not my question.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: I see what you're saying.

Mr. John Bryden: If I can read it again, my point is that the citizenship oath speaks of our laws, our rights and freedoms. Consequently, it does not preclude a Canadian citizen going back to his or her country of origin, taking up a position of military or political responsibility and carrying out human rights violations. Is that not so?

Mr. Arie Van Eek: I think it is not, Mr. Bryden, but I'm out of my depth, that's for sure. It seems to me that no matter where in the world I am, as a Canadian citizen, I will be accountable under Canadian law for all my conduct to the extent that the state has a right and an interest in it.

Mr. John Bryden: Then perhaps we can approach it this way. If we define in the oath of citizenship that being a Canadian requires a general respect for human rights and a general respect for the rule of law, rather than “our” rights and freedoms or “my” democracy, would we not go a long way toward avoiding this possible difficulty? Indeed, would we not stress to any new Canadians who do come from countries of conflict that once they take the oath of citizenship, they have to put those conflicts aside, at least in the term of acting them out in a violent way? Is that reasonable?

Mr. Arie Van Eek: It's an extremely important point.

Mr. John Bryden: I just have one other line of questioning, very briefly. I would just conclude here, as it is a concluding line of questioning.

One of the other aspects of the old oath and the current oath is that there is no invocation to God in the oath at all. The fact that it's missing is quite unusual in a sense that the other major democracies that receive new citizens do have an invocation to God. In your experience with refugees, people who are coming in from countries of conflict and who may be tempted when they come to Canada to retain active participation in those conflicts...if we amended the oath along the line I just suggested, with a general respect for human rights, and if we included some sort of invocation of God, would that, for the majority coming from these other countries of the world, these refugees, be a way of, shall we say, impressing upon these people that this oath is a solemn oath and it is an oath that they are to respect?

• 1220

Mr. Arie Van Eek: I'll be glad to answer. We did face the question some time ago when the reference to God was dropped. We thought about making an intervention and drew back from it for the reason that respect for God has to be within the person before that constitutes any binding authority. Whereas the majority of the people you've identified as coming to Canada do not self-consciously hold that conviction, the oath itself is emptied of the thing it means to import into that declaration of allegiance the person is making.

Mr. John Bryden: I have to pick up on that. Are you saying that the majority of refugees no longer believe in God or are no longer associated with organized religions?

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: I think the issue is that many people have all kinds of different faiths. They belong to different faith communities, and here we represent several of them. I don't think putting God in the oath makes it a more important or impressive act.

Now I'm going to make a personal comment because I don't have a consensus from my group on this, but I have a feeling that my group would agree that it's not that useful to put God in. People have come here who have been persecuted in the name of somebody's understanding of God's will, and we have so many people who have suffered so much that maybe it's better to leave people's personal beliefs and religions private. If we can make sure of the loyalty they pledge to this country and to all the laws and rights and freedoms, that should be enough. I don't think putting God in is going to be necessarily useful. I think it might even be refreshing to say that here we are a country where we respect the rule of law, where we have done away with arbitrariness, and where everyone is subject and equal irrespective of their belief in God or not.

The Chair: Last question, John.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm sorry, but they are a very important group to pursue this line with, and I'd like comments from others on that very issue. I'm concerned about the solemnity of the oath. I don't understand how one can have a solemn oath without at least the option of the invocation of a deity. I find it difficult.

Now I will ask Madame Mounib something. Surely when one thinks of God, as a person coming from another land, it could be the God of the Koran. Indeed, in our citizenship courts—since removed—it used to be possible; it used to be expected that you would have the option of swearing the oath of citizenship on the Koran or the Bible. These were all removed. That's not to say that we shouldn't have the option not to invoke the deity, but wouldn't it be better, in the interests of creating an environment of solemnity and an environment of commitment, if you are religious when you come from another land, if we put back into the oath some sort of invocation to God? It doesn't have to be “in the name of God”. It can be done in other ways. But shouldn't we put it back in some way so that the default, if you will, will be to simply affirm and not swear, but at least when new Canadians come they would realize that we still are—at least the last time I noticed—a God-fearing country in most of the denominations we participate in?

The Chair: Madame Mounib, would you like to comment on that?

[Translation]

Ms. Khadija Mounib (Table de concertation de Montréal au service des réfugiés): That is a personal position. All questions of belief are individual matters. I am part of the Arab Study Centre for Development. Our client is a practising Muslim woman, but that should not conflict with the fact that she is a citizen. I think this is a personal matter.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: One last point, if anyone would like to answer. Perhaps the way to get around the problem is instead of saying “so help me God”, which is the normal style in oaths, we could refer to Canadians, that Canadians are a people united before God, so that the person taking the citizenship oath isn't directly affirming their belief in God but is acknowledging that Canadians, by and large, are people who are united before God in various interests. Is that a way around the problem?

• 1225

Mr. Arie Van Eek: It isn't for me, Mr. Chairman. It still sounds too much like an attempt to retain something that we don't all subscribe to any more. I'm in the evangelical tradition, and there's nothing I would sooner see than that everybody recognizes deity, of whatever description.

The Chair: On that note, Mr. Van Eek and any one else, the chair would like to have the last word—

Mr. John Bryden: Always.

The Chair: Would you agree that we should “pledge” instead of “uphold” the Constitution of Canada? Yes or no?

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: In the oath?

The Chair: In the oath.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: If you're talking about the rights and freedoms, then you have a problem in Quebec, and you're going to start all over again.

The Chair: The Constitution of Canada is the Constitution of Canada. Are you objecting to that?

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: No, I'm saying that by having in the oath “upholding the rights and freedoms” that we dealt with—

The Chair: The rights and freedoms are part of the Constitution, but are you telling me that we only have to uphold the rights and freedoms but not the other parts of the Constitution of Canada?

Mr. Arie Van Eek: I'm not.

The Chair: Is it your understanding that if we uphold the laws it means including the Constitution of Canada? I want to get an understanding.

Mr. Arie Van Eek: Yes.

The Chair: Do you realize that the Constitution of Canada includes “invoking the supremacy of God and the rule of law”?

Mr. Arie Van Eek: As a preamble.

The Chair: As a preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Arie Van Eek: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you. On that note, I thank you all for appearing before our committee.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: Mr. Chair, that was one of the most skilful demonstrations I have ever seen.

The Chair: The meeting is suspended until 6 p.m.

EVENING SITTING

• 1808

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)): I think we will call the meeting to order. We do have some members here, and this meeting is an extension of the meeting that was adjourned earlier today. We have three deputations this evening.

Our first presenter is Michelle Williams, a policy and research lawyer with the African Canadian Legal Clinic. Welcome, and thanks for your patience this evening. We have about 30 to 45 minutes for your presentation and for questions from members. We'd invite you to make your presentation, and then we'll go into Q and A after that.

Ms. Michelle Williams (Policy and Research Lawyer, African Canadian Legal Clinic): Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair and committee members. I represent the African Canadian Legal Clinic. You should have before you a summary of the recommendations of the African Canadian Legal Clinic. I've also brought with me tonight a more detailed written brief, which I understand will be translated and made available to all committee members following tonight's meeting.

The African Canadian Legal Clinic is an Ontario Legal Aid clinic with a province-wide mandate to deal with issues of systemic racism and race discrimination through test case litigation, advocacy, law reform and community legal education. As a legal clinic, we have appeared before all levels of court, including the Supreme Court of Canada, and we have appeared before municipal councils and provincial and federal standing committees.

Just to let you know a bit about the community we represent, there are over 570,000 black people in Canada, 42% of whom are Canadian-born, according to the last census. African Canadians comprise approximately 18% of Canada's visible minority population.

In light of the above, it's clear that African Canadians, as a significant segment of Canadian society, are principal stakeholders in changes to immigration, refugee, and citizenship policy.

• 1810

We are extremely concerned about the approach of immigration in citizenship initiatives in recent years, particularly when the increased harshness of immigration policy parallels the increased number of newcomers who come from racialized groups. Three-quarters of the immigrant population who have arrived since the 1990s are members of visible minorities.

I wanted to just briefly highlight a few points that we've made in our recommendations.

First of all, the African Canadian Legal Clinic recommends that further consultation actually be undertaken prior to finalizing and passing this legislation. There was no consultation prior to Bill C-63 being introduced, particularly in the sense that consultation has been undertaken with immigration and refugee policies. Citizenship, immigration, and refugee issues are intricately intertwined, and it's really difficult to undertake changes in legislation in this area without considering everything together. We certainly would suggest that be considered by the committee as a recommendation.

I next want to touch briefly upon the power of revocation that's indicated in Bill C-63. The existing Citizenship Act refers specifically to intentional, deceitful acts as a basis for revocation of citizenship. With this new bill that intent requirement has been removed from the provisions. Our concern is that if the government is indeed concerned about people who have obtained citizenship fraudulently, then it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to also have that provision apply to people who have mistakenly done something on their application.

It's also interesting to note that this revocation provision may apply to other people—names in the revocation order whose citizenship was acquired through the first person. That could easily result in the stripping of children's citizenship without any minimal protection for the people who are the secondary ones named in the revocation orders, and that's of grave concern to us.

Along the same lines, clause 18 of the bill enables the minister to revoke citizenship of his/her own volition with minimal notice requirements, no requirement for reasons, and no appeal mechanism. Again, this clause is of great concern, and at minimum, we are recommending that the same procedural requirements that have been written in for the use of revocation orders apply to the minister's annulment power under Bill C-63.

I'll briefly move on to another area of concern, which is the new provision that deals with denying citizenship where it's deemed to be in the public interest to do so. As you are aware, clause 21 of the bill provides that if there are reasonable grounds to believe it's not in the public interest for a person to become a citizen, then they will not be allowed to take the oath or become a citizen.

It's our position that this provision is actually unbelievable and unacceptable in a free and democratic society. Such complete and unfettered discretion to deny citizenship to a person is not in keeping with principles of fairness and justice. Further, it should be pointed out, if it hasn't been already, that the concept of public interest as proposed in Bill C-63 is extremely vague and highly unlikely to pass charter scrutiny.

Finally, there appears to be absolutely no appeal mechanism if a person is denied citizenship under this provision, and for these reasons we are recommending the entire public interest section be removed from Bill C-63.

Moving on to the issue of citizenship judges and the administration of the new Citizenship Act, it's interesting to note that at the same time it's becoming more difficult to become a citizen and easier to have your citizenship revoked, the government has decided to remove procedural protections by moving from a judicial to an administrative scheme. That is the replacement of citizenship judges with commissioners, which we believe is extremely problematic. It is not clear that this approach will result in cost savings. The minister is increasing a bureaucracy while maintaining commissioners and removing the guaranteed efficiency in the current act, which requires that applications be processed within 60 days.

Not only is the 60-day guarantee removed, but to make matters worse the check and balance that was provided by the right to appeal has also been replaced now by judicial review. And as you probably know, judicial review is not the equivalent of an appeal. It deals more with procedural rights and requirements than the merits of any given application.

• 1815

I think some people think the citizenship commissioners will actually continue in the role of citizenship judges, and this is clearly not the case. In fact, paragraph 31(7)(c) states that a commissioner will only provide advice and recommendations about citizenship applications and will do so only on the request of the minister. Therefore the minister has to invite the commissioner to become involved in this process, which we think is problematic.

Finally, I wanted to make a brief note about the oath of allegiance. The ACLC is pleased that the oath of allegiance was considered as part of Bill C-63.

We believe it's important to realize that some African Canadians feel they cannot swear allegiance to the Queen as a matter of conscience. This is because of the enslavement of African peoples by the British government, including here in Canada. As such, some people of African descent are unable to swear allegiance to a monarchy that has enslaved their foremothers and forefathers.

The ACLC asks that the committee consider this historical situation as a matter of conscience and recognize that the oath does pose a barrier to some people becoming citizens.

These are people who have contributed immensely to Canada, many of whom have been here since childhood, some of whom are precluded from taking the oath due to historical fact and conscience.

In conclusion, the changes proposed by Bill C-63 are extremely severe. It makes it more difficult to become a citizen and easier to have citizenship revoked or annulled, and it imposes increased penalties and offences.

At the same time as it is becoming harsher on potential citizens, the procedural protections and appeal mechanisms have been severely eroded or entirely removed. This includes the replacement, as I mentioned, of judges with ministerial power and discretion.

The government claims this is a time to strengthen the value of citizenship with little or no explanation as to why that value needs to be strengthened now or why it needs to be done in such a punitive manner.

In answer to the question of why now, we must critically interrogate whether these changes have anything to do with the fact that the majority of immigrants who have come to Canada in the last decade are members of visible minority groups.

Unfortunately, the government and this committee have not had the benefit of real consultation on these crucial issues, as they have with other immigration and refugee issues.

It would be a complete disservice to the people of Canada, the future of Canada, and the value of citizenship itself to proceed with this legislation without further consultation. This is a perfect opportunity to engage in real dialogue with the people of Canada about our future. Let's not sacrifice future citizens at the altar of political expediency. Instead, let's move together into the new millennium.

Thank you. Those are my comments.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. McNally for 10 minutes.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for your presentation and for being here this evening.

I'd like to start with your comment about there being no consultation, because I anticipate my colleagues on the government side might mention the LRAG report and the consultations that were made there, and that the minister travelled to different cities across the country, which indeed she did. I'm certainly not debating that point.

Did your group have an opportunity to make a submission there or not?

Ms. Michelle Williams: I'll just let you know that's actually a very helpful question. We did make a written submission. Not one African Canadian community organization was given the opportunity to participate in the national consultations despite formal requests to do so. There were numerous organizations that made that request.

So particularly from the perspective of this community, we did not have full participation in those consultations.

Also, obviously, those consultations did not include the specifics of the Citizenship Act in the way, again, the proposals on immigration refugees have been set out with the new white paper, as it's been called, in January of this year.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay, thank you. One of the reasons I raised that question is that I've heard similar comments from other individuals and representatives of other groups who found that process difficult for the LRAG, let alone those recommendations that went into the white paper, to have an opportunity to consult with the minister. That was one thing we suggested, that there be some more open consultation process. I know there is a limitation on time and how you get to see so many different groups of people, but it was very unclear and it's never even been explained to all the members here what exactly the process was to determine who came and who made submissions. Thank you for that.

• 1820

I also agree with your comment about the interconnectedness of refugee policy and immigration policy as it relates to citizenship, because of course people have to get here from somewhere before they can become citizens.

Turning to some of the comments you made in regard to discretionary powers, these were some concerns noted by other individuals that have appeared before our committee too. Could I ask you to expand a little more on the problematic areas? We've laid them out here, but maybe expand on the key issues in terms of discretionary powers.

Ms. Michelle Williams: Okay. I will just highlight some of them. Again, the discretionary power found in the annulment provisions, as they're called...I mean, they are essentially a revocation power; it's the power to remove citizenship. We're concerned about the minister's discretion in that area and don't see a reason why at minimum the procedural protections that are offered for when citizenship may be revoked should not also apply under the annulment provision. So you would have some sort of appeal mechanism that way, some more accountability along with the requirement for reasons.

Another big area where you have ministerial discretion is obviously the public interest provisions. It's even difficult to comment on how those will be implemented because the idea of public interest is very vague, and as you probably heard in the case, for example, of Morales before the Supreme Court of Canada, there were provisions that included public interests that were actually struck down for that reason.

Finally, in the whole administration of this act, it's an extreme concern that where the provisions are becoming more stringent, you are eroding the procedural and fairness protections that currently exist. It does not seem to be justified in terms of cost or other measures. What is the cost of justice? What is the cost of fair assessment, of whether or not you can become a Canadian citizen? I think in terms of the process that's in place now, to remain with a judicial approach makes a lot more sense. The notice guarantees are eroded in here and it's really something that, if we're talking about the value of citizenship, warrants a fair, open, transparent procedure, not a bureaucratic one.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you. And you're suggesting that clause 21 be deleted altogether? Was that the one you mentioned?

Ms. Michelle Williams: Yes, that clause 21 be removed, on the basis of the way it's framed now, yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'll pass my time on to someone else, if I can come back later.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I can't help but notice, with me in the chair, that you're even more kind and gentle. It's going to be a love-in of a meeting.

Mr. Grant McNally: It's the way I always am, Mr. Mahoney.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): You've certainly got me calmed down.

Mr. Bryden, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. John Bryden: How long has your organization been in existence?

Ms. Michelle Williams: It's been in existence since late 1994.

Mr. John Bryden: The reason I ask is I was first elected in 1993 and my first two years as an MP I spent on the citizenship and immigration committee doing broad consultations across the country with the aim in mind of renewing the Citizenship Act. In other words, I don't know why your organization wouldn't have been aware of it between 1993 and 1996, or whenever we finally stopped and I moved on to something else, but I can assure you that extensive consultation was done, at least for two years, six years ago. Then it was resumed for the preparation of this bill. If you're ever interested in that, I have a file about that deep of just the deliberations I participated in, and there's a lot of Hansard.

I guess what that all means is that no matter how hard we try when we do consultations for new legislation, eventually that consultation has to come to an end, and groups sometimes don't get an opportunity, aren't informed, or for whatever reason don't participate. I will say, though, I'm very glad that one way or another you are here, because you have said some things that resonate very well with me.

But let me just deal with some of the issues that are a little bit difficult in which I have some questions. You raised the point that in the event there's a revocation of citizenship of a parent, you object to the fact that this revocation might be applicable to a child. How would you otherwise deal with the situation where, if you revoke citizenship for just cause of a parent, that parent might be facing deportation? Isn't it appropriate that the children would be required to be deported with that parent? Don't you put the government and even human rights considerations in an impossible dilemma if you don't link citizenship that was originally linked with the parental applicant, if you don't link them together? How do you solve that?

• 1825

Ms. Michelle Williams: First of all it's not clear from these provisions that you would be revoking citizenship for just cause. If you remove the intent requirement and the part that says “knowingly concealing material circumstances”, if you take out “knowingly”, that's the first concern we have, that you may actually not have a just cause.

But to put that aside, in terms of the pointed question you have about the relationship between a child's citizenship and a parent, we have seen that issue running through our courts right now. The Supreme Court is still deliberating on the case of Baker. There are extreme issues that arise, international human rights issues included, about the fact that a child's citizenship is the child's citizenship and, first of all, that is very much separate from the parent. If you are granting citizenship and you are granting it to a child, you could end up in a situation very easily where a child could end up stateless, depending on how the citizenship was acquired in the first place, if it's been stripped.

I would also add that according to these provisions this child would not even necessarily have notice—it's not written in here—that these proceedings could be undertaken and of the possible result of that, which would be a minimal procedural requirement.

Mr. John Bryden: Put yourself in my place as a legislator and remember that we are above the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only rules on existing law. When the Supreme Court runs up against a problem, the Supreme Court only considers it in terms of existing law. I have to consider it in terms of what happens to people.

So I go back at my question again and ask you how you resolve a situation where somebody has come into this country perhaps with four or five children and they have obtained citizenship and then suddenly it's discovered that the citizenship was obtained in a false manner, in a manner that would justify revocation, and indeed you might very much want to expel that person. How can you sever the children from that parent who is going back to his or her homeland?

Ms. Michelle Williams: The children have their own rights at some level to citizenship. So in that sense it's not a given that what happens to the parent the children should follow. I think that's something this government has to really think about.

If I can back up to the point about the Supreme Court, obviously the Supreme Court has to interpret the laws, as you said, that exist in accordance both with our charter, but also with international human rights obligations to which Canada is a signatory as a Canadian government. There have been, as you are probably aware, concerns that have been raised by international committees about, for example, the number of expulsions that have been taking place, about the fact that expulsions of Canadian citizens, particularly women, have raised these issues of severing the children and the parents and what rights do the children have.

Mr. John Bryden: Let me put it another way then. If we don't address this problem as legislators, do we not run the risk that, say, people will deliberately misrepresent themselves coming into this country and deliberately bring in children, or even have children or do whatever is necessary, to use children as a tool to maintain their citizenship under false representation? Is there not a problem there? How can you suggest that I shouldn't address what is a very human and very probable situation?

Ms. Michelle Williams: It goes back to my general point. Why is this suddenly a problem now? Our real concern is people have been coming to Canada for a long time, except for aboriginal peoples. If these laws applied at the time that some of us had come to Canada, we might not be allowed in based on how we came in.

I think we should be looking at what is the need for these laws to begin with. What statistical information do you have that this misrepresentation is taking place? Where is the problem?

Mr. John Bryden: I'm sorry, I have to object a little bit.

Ms. Michelle Williams: But for the sake of argument, to say there is a problem that exists—

Mr. John Bryden: I can assure you that we didn't create this legislation out of a vacuum; the legislation reflects that a problem exists. The reason why I'm stating to you that a problem exists—and I suppose we could go back if you wanted to satisfy yourself, but I can assure you that it does exist. In fairness to the minister, she doesn't bring forth legislation and recommendations for trivial reasons. There's something wrong here and she's trying to address it.

• 1830

I can see that we're obviously going to disagree a little bit on this, because you haven't, although you've tried, found a way to satisfy me that there is an easy way out, other than what she's trying to do here.

Ms. Michelle Williams: If I can make two last points, it may help this.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, go ahead, please. This is your forum.

Ms. Michelle Williams: First of all, quite honestly, I feel it a bit problematic for people to make the statement that women would come and have—

Mr. John Bryden: Not just necessarily women.

Ms. Michelle Williams: —children or bring children for the sake of gaining citizenship. Giving birth to children, or adopting and raising children, is a huge choice. It's a huge life commitment. I think it's a little bit difficult to hear that this is what women are running around doing, or to hear, what do we do if this happens? Again, I think what at a minimum you would have to look at to meet the international and other guarantees that exist is to ensure there is a procedure to deal with precisely the problem you're talking about. If this may have an impact on children, the children should have access to a procedure, an appeal mechanism, in the same way as the parent—

Mr. John Bryden: I know.

Ms. Michelle Williams: —who may be under a revocation order, so that those very issues could be sorted out. This is actually a minimal requirement that would be needed to meet the obligations under the convention on children's rights. I hope that's helpful.

Mr. John Bryden: That's helpful. It's a good comment. Let me go into ground that may be a little easier for us.

Ms. Michelle Williams: Okay.

Mr. John Bryden: You're doing very well. You complained that the term “public interest” was vague, that there could be revocation or denial of citizenship in the public interest. I can tell you that where this is coming from is we do have a severe problem on our borders. An awful lot of people want to get into Canada and some of those people are quite undesirable. I will tell you that it's very hard to describe the public interest because it's hard to anticipate whether you're dealing with war criminals or what you're dealing with. So the “public interest” term, I believe, is deliberately vague because it's hard to anticipate exactly what we're dealing with.

However, you alluded several times to human rights legislation. Have you noticed that in the bill there is nowhere a reference to respect for human rights as a general principle? Have you noticed that?

Ms. Michelle Williams: I haven't seen it, that's for sure.

Mr. John Bryden: That's right. It is not there. What I would ask you is can we go, at least a little bit, towards answering some of your concerns about defining “public interest” if we were to place in the bill that the bill actually stands for the respect for human rights in general? What I'm trying to get at is if you look at the oath, and you raised the issue of the oath, what you'll see is throughout the amended version of the oath, it says that it calls on the new Canadian, the person taking the oath, to respect our rights and freedoms—it says “our rights and freedoms”—and it says “respect the duties and obligations of Canada”.

But nowhere in that oath does it stand for the principle that I believe all Canadians stand for, and that is the respect for human rights everywhere. If that were in the legislation, would that, do you think, put some parameters around such a vague term as “public interest”, so that the minister, in her discretion, would have to always have an eye towards human rights when she implements something like denial on the basis of the public interest?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you. I'm going to allow an answer, but you're done.

Mr. John Bryden: It's just a fact that I'm not done.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Maybe later.

Mr. John Bryden: Ten minutes is fast.

Ms. Michelle Williams: Thank you. I think certainly any sort of statement that reiterates Canada's commitment to human rights would be helpful, particularly in this sort of legislation dealing with people coming in and out of borders. It certainly is not sufficient to deal with the problems raised by the public interest section. That is too vague on a number of grounds. I believe legally it's too vague, but furthermore, as a Canadian I do not endorse giving the government that power to say where we think it's in the public interest, we're not going to let somebody else become a citizen. I don't think it's asking too much to specify, to give some guideline, to have some indication in the legislation of who we're talking about. How do we know how that's going to be exercised? How do we know who's going to be stopped at any given point from becoming a citizen because today this government thinks that's not in the public interest? If you say something like “proven war criminals satisfy this provision”, then that says to me, okay, you're looking at proven war criminals. But the way it currently exists is far too vague.

• 1835

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Ms. Augustine, five minutes.

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

Ms. Williams, I am really sorry I missed the thrust of your presentation, but around here emergencies occur, and when you think you should be somewhere, something happens.

I've been looking at the summary of recommendations you've put before us and there were a couple of things I wanted to ask about. One was addressed, the whole issue of public interest. I want to go back to the issue of discretion, because whether we're talking about immigration or this present piece of legislation, the issue of discretion is in there. There are some people who would argue that leaving some latitude can be both positive and negative in terms of arguments one can present. How would you deal with this aspect of discretion both in immigration law and in this present bill?

Ms. Michelle Williams: Do you mean in a general sense?

Ms. Jean Augustine: Yes, in a general sense.

Ms. Michelle Williams: Generally speaking, certainly discretion is necessary in every situation. You need discretion in order to implement things, in order to administer a particular thing. What you also need is parameters on that discussion so that everybody is clear, so that people have notice as to what is required of them, but also so they can ensure that the discretion is exercised fairly.

In this particular proposal in Bill C-63, there are areas in which we have moved from judicial consideration of issues into discretion that we don't think are warranted, particularly when the government is saying...we're concerned about the value of citizenship, the importance of it, and making it a more stringent act. We think that actually calls for more independent review of what's going on rather than more power on the ministerial side.

The other point I'd like to make in terms of discretion exercised in the immigration context—and in the supplementary brief I have provided to the committee I go into some detail about it—is this. Discretion as it has been historically exercised in immigration policy has been exercised in a racist manner. We know that through historical documentation. So I think we have quite a reason, particularly in this context, to fear, to be concerned, to be overly cautious about increased discretion that we give in the immigration context, in light of how it has been used, for example, against African Canadians, Japanese Canadians, Chinese Canadians, and so on, in the past.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Chairman, I want also to look at point 6, simply because this is the only document I have before me...that Bill C-63 be amended to provide for restoration of citizenship under prescribed conditions. It's in your summary of recommendations. Maybe if we can go to the act we can talk a little more specifically about where a person's citizenship has been revoked or annulled. You're suggesting we remove from this bill subclause 19(1).

Ms. Michelle Williams: Right. The reason is this, and this was my reading of the bill and I certainly would like to be corrected if I'm wrong. The way I read paragraph 19(1)(a) is that if your citizenship has been revoked or annulled, you'll never, ever have a chance of becoming a citizen again. What came to mind were some examples of where that might be an unduly harsh situation.

Where, for example, you have an undocumented refugee who had been fleeing a war-torn country and under the current regulations may have to wait up to eight years to become a citizen.... Then they become a citizen and it gets revoked because somewhere along the way, in trying to flee their country, they had perhaps used some sort of false identity to get out of the situation they were in. That could, conceivably under these provisions, result in having their citizenship stripped after their having been here, say, eight years, with particularly the Somali situation. I think that is unduly harsh.

Is there some way in which you could have a provision or a condition that says where there are unduly harsh circumstances, citizenship could be reapplied for where it has been revoked or annulled, or something to that effect? At least then you have some residual space to deal with perhaps very extreme situations that weren't really what the government was trying to get at in the first place.

• 1840

Ms. Jean Augustine: Would that come under the category of discretionary?

Ms. Michelle Williams: That could be discretionary or that could be done again through a citizenship judge. You could have a provision where you could apply, in the same way you apply for citizenship.

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

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thanks very much.

Mr. McNally, you go ahead.

Mr. Grant McNally: I just wanted to follow up a bit more on this discretion issue because I think I'm getting from you that it is perhaps one of the key issues you have with this bill, the minister's use of discretion or ability to use discretion. It seems to me—correct me if I'm wrong—that one of your main issues with that is there are no provisions to counteract that discretion in particular instances. So, as it says in the bill—I think it's clause 21 you refer to—if the minister makes a decision, there's no appeal process. Is that right?

Ms. Michelle Williams: Right, and that leads to the general point. If you have discretion that is necessary in a general sense—

Mr. Grant McNally: I agree.

Ms. Michelle Williams: —then how do you put a check and balance on that discretion? It doesn't seem to be justified that the existing checks and balances we have right now in terms of how things operate be removed, when in fact you're making it more difficult to become a citizen or easier to have your citizenship revoked. That would seem to me to suggest that's precisely the point where you want to keep your existing checks and balances, if not strengthen them.

Mr. Grant McNally: So you're suggesting that in your opinion those checks and balances are being removed from this bill—

Ms. Michelle Williams: That's right.

Mr. Grant McNally: —and extra discretionary power is being given to the minister—

Ms. Michelle Williams: Yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: —thereby creating a major problem that you see with this bill.

Ms. Michelle Williams: Yes. That's part of it, yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Bryden.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Do I understand you to somehow leave the impression, if it ain't broke, don't fix it?

Ms. Michelle Williams: Quite honestly, in terms of where Bill C-63 is going, yes, that's the bottom-line conclusion, that in terms of the harshness of the bill, the removal of the checks and balances and some of the problematic areas like the public interest and so on, in fact the existing legislation is superior to Bill C-63.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: For all that I was on the committee and we did two years of consultation, the issue that never came up was one you alluded to, which my colleague says if I'd asked her she would have told me. That was the fact that some people can't take the oath because of the Queen and because of the record of the crown and slavery.

Can you elaborate on that? What countries does it apply to? Where does that come from, and do you have examples?

Ms. Michelle Williams: At a very simple level it comes from the fact that African peoples were enslaved and dominated through colonial power in Africa as well as in the Caribbean colonies. As well, we had slavery here in Canada. So for some people, and I'm talking about this from experience, speaking to people who, because of that awful and horrific history of what happened to their ancestors, in good conscience cannot swear an oath to the Queen and the monarchy, but they are perfectly prepared to swear an oath to Canada. Many people, for example, if they're permanent residents who've been here for decades, have contributed immensely to Canada, but again, because of that conscience, because of that historical situation, just cannot swear to the monarchy.

Mr. John Bryden: Does that mean they're foregoing the opportunity to become citizens because they cannot take the oath?

Ms. Michelle Williams: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: Can I make the observation, Mr. Chairman, that we have had for many years the opportunity to not invoke God in the oath. People have had the opportunity to affirm without actually citing God, so they can still take the oath even if they don't say “so help me God”.

I had not realized, however, that the Queen being structured in the oath as it was and as it is now, if you cannot in good conscience, in all conscience, pledge allegiance to the Queen, who in my view is a foreign monarch...it never occurred to me that we are denying.... Is this correct? You'll have to confirm this for me—we are in effect denying citizenship to people who would otherwise be citizens if only they could swear the oath without having to swear allegiance to the Queen?

Ms. Michelle Williams: Yes, effectively.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you very much.

• 1845

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): On that point, I had a question. I wonder if you've examined subclause 6(3) on page 4 of the bill, and the subsequent subclauses, where it says:

If the Minister believes that there are compassionate grounds for doing so, the Minister may waive and then it gives a number of examples. Subparagraph 6(3)(b)(iii) says “to take the oath of citizenship”. It's not exactly worded to the point where it might cover someone such as you've described, but I wonder if either a change or an amendment in there to give the minister the ability to waive the requirement for the oath in order to deal with someone who couldn't take the oath for other compelling reasons would satisfy your concerns. Maybe you haven't thought about it, but—

Ms. Michelle Williams: Yes, I actually had thought about that as an option. I think it would help. I think the difficulty is that, as has been suggested, people are aware of the option to affirm or to take the oath. I think that in order for people, for example, to have notice of this, to really understand that it's a clear option, it should somehow be included in the oath section, because I'm not sure everyone would understand. It would be more of an educational difficulty for the government to have everybody become aware of that other option you suggested.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I'd like to ask you about item 3.b in your summary of recommendations, that the term “resident” or “residence” be maintained. Could you be more explicit about what you mean by that?

Ms. Michelle Williams: Yes, and again, that's expanded in this supplementary brief that I'll give you.

That is the issue—and I understand that some of the other witnesses might touch upon this—of the physical requirement to be in Canada to satisfy your timeframe prior to getting a grant of citizenship. That may cause, for example, undue hardship where a person has to be out of the country for compelling family reasons, business reasons, and so on. That's why the flexibility provided with the current term seems to be more appropriate.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): So the status quo is your stand?

Ms. Michelle Williams: Right.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I had one other question on the issue of citizenship judges being replaced with commissioners.

The implication I take from your recommendation number 9, where you refer to the replacement of citizenship judges with bureaucrats...that's not my interpretation of what this bill does. I stand to be corrected, but I was of the impression that the commissioners would be appointees as well, in the same way as the judges are. In fact, they're patronage appointments, and whatever government of the day is in place—well, that's what they are—appoints people to various positions. So there would be an appointment, as opposed to hiring a bureaucrat to fill that role, and those commissioners would then do very much the ceremonial work that the judges currently do on Canada Day and at other times of the year when they have large groups of new Canadian citizens taking the oath.

So I don't see it as a bureaucrat. Maybe you can help me.

Ms. Michelle Williams: Sure. If I can just point out a couple of things, whether it's the term “bureaucrat” or whether it's the “ministerial delegate”, there are some problems here. The first is that applications will be made not, as they are, to citizenship judges but to the minister through the ministry. That's why I'm talking about a bureaucratic process, which has been stated as being helpful to efficiency. However, in terms of the particular role of the commissioner, it's not the ceremonial role that is of concern, it's the erosion of the independent mechanism in which they are responsible for reviewing applications.

I point out paragraph 31(7)(c), which states that instead of going directly, as we do now, to judges to make the application and their overseeing the process, the commissioner will only provide advice and recommendations about citizenship applications and, further, will only do so on the request of the minister. So you don't even invoke the commissioner's duties, as they are now, in terms of independent arbiters of applications unless you have the minister or her delegate actually asking the commissioner, “Can we have advice and recommendations on this?” Again, that is not enough independence in light of the issues at stake now with the new legislation and the value of citizenship as it's been expressed.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much for your presentation. It was very clear and very thorough.

• 1850

Ms. Michelle Williams: Thank you.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes. I can say informally that you may have missed the consultation process before, but you scored much better here anyway. This is the better forum.

Ms. Michelle Williams: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Our next presenters are the Council of Agencies Serving South Asians, Latha Sukumar, secretary of the board of directors, and Ram Selvarajah. Welcome.

Ms. Latha Sukumar (Secretary, Board of Directors, Council of Agencies Serving South Asians): Good evening, members.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): We would appreciate it if you would make your presentation, and then we'll have a question and answer session.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: That's going to be a tough act to follow. We'll do our best.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I'm sure you will.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: The Council of Agencies Serving South Asians came into existence in 1988, and it was incorporated in 1991. It is an umbrella organization with a current membership of over 40 agencies serving the needs of the South Asian community in the city of Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area.

CASSA is a community-driven organization whose mandate is to provide advocacy and other support for its member agencies to ensure the social service needs of the South Asian community are met and to play an active role in eliminating all forms of racism and discrimination in Canadian society.

The term “South Asian” includes any person with origins in the Indian subcontinent—typically people from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan. People from the Caribbean and other parts of the world originally from the Indian subcontinent are also classified as South Asians. Immigration from South Asia, as you all probably know, has continued to be very high over the past few years.

The proposed bill will have a significant impact on future Canadians from South Asia. Many South Asians, for one, are unaware of the bill and its implications. We feel there is need for more community education and feedback. Without a full process of consultation within our community, we have just prepared a brief summary of comments based on informal feedback we've received. This brief highlights concerns about certain changes and offers recommendations regarding some of the specific changes.

The first concern we have is with respect to the applicants having to take the citizenship test in English or French and the fact that they will not be able to use interpreters. I'm sure you've heard this before. It's one thing to ask citizens to pass a test of basic English. It's another to test their knowledge of Canada using the same criteria. The citizenship test requires a much more advanced knowledge of either English or French.

This will affect non-English-speaking persons, especially members of the family class who have come in as family class applicants, and will contribute to their further marginalization. It will have the effect of discriminating against this class of individuals and therefore could be in violation of section 15 of the charter, which provides that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and benefits of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

Under the proposed act, to qualify—this is my second point—as a citizen an immigrant has to have been physically present in Canada for three out of five years, which is a change from three out of four years, and is a good thing. Interestingly, we note that Australia requires only two years of physical presence and the U.S. two and a half years out of the same period. It appears that Canada is the more restrictive of these countries.

The current legislation, as the earlier speaker pointed out, does not include the term “physical presence”, and has led to several inconsistencies in interpretation, or that seems to be the rationale put forth by the government. CASSA recognizes the need to correct misuse and any other inconsistencies with regard to the length of residence. Even though the length of time has been increased, there are several concerns we would like to have addressed.

For one, this three-year requirement could be a significant hurdle for two groups within our communities. One is students. The brightest and the best in our communities travel overseas to study in undergrad or graduate programs. Previously they could have applied and received citizenship upon their return to Canada. Under the proposed act, they will not qualify.

• 1855

Professional and business immigrants will have second thoughts about applying for immigration, thereby depriving Canada of the large amount of financial resources they would normally bring and the jobs they would create for other Canadians. These immigrants have worldwide business interests and are required to be constantly on the move outside of Canada. They will therefore find the physical-presence requirement unduly onerous and may choose not to bring their resources here. We also find that professionals, especially those who offer technical consulting and frequently travel outside to provide support, will have a hard time keeping track of the days they have spent out of the country and will find the requirement of physical presence particularly hard to fulfil. How, for example, would we count a day trip to the United States? I have several acquaintances who routinely travel three days a week to the United States every week.

We recognize the need to protect against abuse of the system and in fact applaud that. However, we have concerns about the evidentiary requirements that will determine physical presence. Often, in our communities the most disadvantaged groups have access to the least documentation, such as leases or employers letters, that can prove their physical presence. For example, in a South Asian extended family setting, it is entirely possible that there is absolutely no official or quasi-official document in a senior citizen's name.

My next point is that the act will affect not just future immigrants but also those immigrants who are already here. These persons will suddenly find themselves caught in a game where the rules have changed midstream. Many are not even aware such legislation is being considered.

The other concern pertains to children born overseas. Second-generation children born abroad to Canadian parents will continue to have up to 28 years to exercise their right to Canadian citizenship. The requirement for retention is proposed to be changed—I think for residence—from one year of residence in Canada to the proposed new residency requirement, which is three years of physical presence out of five years. We approve of the fact that this option continues to be available to second-generation Canadians. We would, however, like to point out that the increase in time in terms of the residency requirement may hinder the process for some.

In terms of the adoption provision, the proposed change to reduce distinction between children born abroad to Canadian citizens and foreign children is applauded. This change hastens the process of adoption. However, the proposed legislation states that the adoption must not take place for the main purpose of gaining admission to Canada or obtaining Canadian citizenship. This is a good thing. The process of how this determination would be made has not been specified. That's leaving room for misinterpretation by citizenship officers who may not be familiar with cultural norms of the country that the adopted child is originally from. India is a case in point, and I could elaborate on that.

On the decision-making process, current legislation, as was already pointed out by my previous speaker, requires that citizenship judges must review all applications and make decisions on cases. The proposed legislation changes the roles of judges and puts the decision-making process in the hands of citizenship officers. This process, for all the reasons that have already been stated and discussed at length here, would be largely administrative in nature and not allow for humanitarian considerations of individual situations. The only recourse for applicants who are denied citizenship will be to go through the federal court system, and this process could be an onerous one for individuals who don't have resources and therefore are not able to access the system.

I wholly, once again, endorse the views expressed by the previous speaker on refusal and revocation of citizenship provisions. This process drives a clear line of distinction between those born in Canada and those born abroad. This inherent discrimination in the right to refuse or revoke citizenship has been a bone of contention for immigrant groups for many years, and if children of citizens whose citizenship is revoked face revocation of citizenship, then we have the creation of a group of second-class citizens who, through no fault of their own, would face this threat of being disenfranchised at any point in their lives.

• 1900

We are of the opinion that the power to annul citizenship should not be with the minister but with the judiciary, and we ask in conclusion that the standing committee conduct further and in-depth public education and have whole discussion sessions to address these issues.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.

We'll go to questions. Mr. McNally.

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

I'll start first with your issue on the residency requirements, which we've heard from other groups as well. Other groups have said to us that really we're in competition with other countries in terms of having individuals choose Canada as a place to come to, and that this residency requirement will hinder us in being able to attract individuals to come to our country who would make a positive contribution, which seems to be what you're indicating as well.

I wonder what changes you would suggest to that—practical changes. You touched on that a bit here.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: I think we should be in keeping with or do better than other countries. So if Australia requires two years' physical presence...I know Australia is a relatively new country that is also attracting immigrants from South Asia especially, and if we are competing with a country like Australia to bring the best into our country, then we should be on a par with them, if not do better than them.

Mr. Ram Selvarajah (Vice-Chair, Council of Agencies Serving South Asians): If I may just elaborate a bit on that—

Mr. Grant McNally: Sure.

Mr. Ram Selvarajah: —for example, Canada is experiencing a shortage of technical workers. We hire a lot of people from Europe and other parts of the world to come and work in Canada. Of course, our main exports are to the United States, and with ITAR regulations in place, certain individuals cannot work on certain defence projects and stuff like that when they are not Canadian citizens. So companies find that they hire these people hoping they will get their citizenship, and in the meantime they have them working on the non-ITAR issues and on Canadian-type projects.

They're travelling around the world making money for the Canadian company they work for, but then they have difficulty keeping track of how many days they have stayed out of Canada, and then, in the end, after two years, when there is an opening for them to be transferred into a project where they may be the only source, they can't go on it because they have to be turned back.

I worked for a Canadian space equipment manufacturer and we had this case in point. We sent in an engineer. He was the only qualified person we could hire—from France, actually. We sent him in and the U.S. company turned him back, saying he was not a Canadian citizen, and he couldn't even see any of the documentation.

Therefore, for the individual, his professionalism is being questioned. He's not being allowed to exercise his expertise in that area.

The company is losing money because we are not processing the applications faster and we're setting unnecessary restrictions on it.

I think maybe a simple way of doing a residence requirement would be to use our tax-filing system. If the individual has filed for taxes in Canada, it means, for tax purposes, we're considering the individual a resident of Canada. So we can easily apply the same rule in citizenship.

Mr. Grant McNally: We know that would be a good way to keep track of people, because of course the government likes to make sure everybody is paying taxes.

Mr. Ram Selvarajah: For an individual, being away from Canada doesn't mean the individual has no interest in Canada. We all travel outside Canada. It doesn't mean we're not thinking about Canada or we don't consider ourselves Canadians.

Mr. Grant McNally: Turning to your first point here about the testing in English and French, we had a citizenship judge before us earlier today talking a little bit about this. In one of her comments, if I remember correctly—and maybe some of my colleagues can correct me if I don't get it right—

Mr. John Bryden: I'll help.

Mr. Grant McNally: —on the issue of using interpreters for the test and whatnot, she gave an example of “What province is Toronto in?” as one question, the individual saying something in another language, and then the interpreter saying it in.... She seemed to have an issue with the fact that the person could not even say “Ontario”. She had a bit of an issue with that. You go on to say that you think that could marginalize individuals.

• 1905

Ms. Latha Sukumar: I think we're confusing two things. I think it's important to know about the country.

Mr. Grant McNally: Right.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: I'm not saying it's not. That could be a requirement. But then to test them—

Mr. Grant McNally: You said English is where you have an issue.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: Yes. To test them in English or French could be very onerous, because if my father came here at the age of 65, he would not learn English in a hurry. It would take him a long time before he became proficient. It could be 15 years before he applied for citizenship and became a citizen.

Ms. Ram Selvarajah: For an ordinary individual, explaining responsible government is difficult enough in your own language, but to explain it in another—

Mr. Grant McNally: Absolutely. I totally agree with that. I was a teacher for a number of years, and man, I thought I knew a lot about government until I got here in Ottawa.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Not to cut into your time, but on your father, anyone over 60 years of age is exempted from that, by the way.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: Okay. I stand corrected then.

Mr. Grant McNally: Others have made the comment that of course by learning one of the official languages, whether it be French or English, that will help individuals acclimatize themselves to Canada and fit into the community, rather than the opposite, being marginalized because they don't know—

Ms. Latha Sukumar: I couldn't agree with you more, but the reality is that it takes a long time. They don't have sufficient exposure and they're not able to do it.

Mr. Grant McNally: Right. I guess the trick is to find a balance.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: It shouldn't be a mandatory requirement. If they want to do it out of choice, which they are in all likelihood going to do so they can experience this country better....

My father very poignantly put to me that this was a deaf-mute world, and they don't want to exist in a world like that. So you're right, but it's very onerous if it's mandatory.

Mr. Ram Selvarajah: Language for the purpose of doing everyday things is different from writing a citizenship test. That's all we want to bring to—

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay, I understand your concern with that and the differentiation between the two.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: There is a distinction.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: You use the expression here that there's discrimination between those who are born here as citizens and those who seek citizenship here, because they might be refused citizenship.

I submit to you, surely, with the exception of refugees, the majority of people who seek application for citizenship in Canada are already citizens. In fact, if I had my citizenship revoked, and I do not have dual citizenship, I truly would be stateless. But if you revoke the citizenship or refuse the citizenship of someone who is a dual national, how do you explain the fact that this person still has citizenship and yet is being discriminated against, according to what you say here?

Ms. Latha Sukumar: For one thing, India—

Mr. John Bryden: I know India.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: —which I guess is our largest constituency, doesn't allow dual citizenship.

Mr. John Bryden: It's one of the only countries in the world that doesn't. But talk about other countries for a minute.

Mr. Ram Selvarajah: Sri Lanka doesn't allow it.

Mr. John Bryden: No?

Ms. Latha Sukumar: We represent the South Asian community, and to my knowledge, India and Sri Lanka don't allow it, and I doubt that some of the other countries do.

However, to address your question, you asked how that is going to be discriminating. The point being made is that this person who was born of a Canadian citizen should enjoy the same rights as someone who was born to a person whose citizenship could not be revoked.

I'm not really sure I understand your question.

Mr. John Bryden: Let me rephrase it, and I'll put it in the context of India and Sri Lanka. I didn't realize Sri Lanka didn't, but they're quite exceptional, because the majority of the world accepts dual citizenship. But even in the case of India and Sri Lanka, a person applying for citizenship in Canada doesn't have the revocation of their citizenship of origin until they take the citizenship of Canada.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: That's true.

• 1910

Mr. John Bryden: So I have genuine difficulty. You're suggesting that persons are discriminated against because they're not allowed—for cause, we presume, it has to be for cause—to have something they already possess, which is a citizenship.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: No, that's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm trying to make the point that they could lose their Canadian citizenship for the very reason that this legislation says that if there was either an intentional misrepresentation or if there was a mistake, a person could lose their citizenship. By virtue of that, a child born to that person could lose citizenship. But if I were born here, then my child is not going to lose citizenship.

We're comparing two classes of people who live here vis-à-vis their right to Canadian citizenship, and not vis-à-vis their right to any citizenship.

Mr. John Bryden: Let me be precise then. You admit that you don't mean to include the right to refuse citizenship, because surely any nation has the right to refuse citizenship if the applicant already has citizenship.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: I agree with that.

Mr. John Bryden: I would concede that if it was stateless—

Ms. Latha Sukumar: Yes, yes.

Mr. John Bryden: All right. And I would accept your explanation on the revocation.

Let me just explore that idea. We're thinking out loud on this issue. My concern is that if a nation like Canada doesn't retain some power with respect to revocation of citizenship, when new people come and it's discovered that they misrepresented themselves, if we don't have some control then do we not destroy the very value of our citizenship? It's true that the Charter of Rights is exceptional in the world, I think, for according full human rights, the rights under the law, to anyone who sets foot on Canadian soil. Shouldn't we be trying to at least retain something, some value in becoming a citizen?

I'm just afraid that when you suggest that we should take away the right of the minister, which is really the government, to revoke citizenship that's obtained under false pretences, then the meaning of even having Canadian citizenship disappears, it seems to me, because everyone who sets foot on our soil is protected under the charter anyway.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: Right, but I did not specifically talk about.... Maybe it wasn't elaborated very clearly here. I was referring more to the children born of persons whose citizenship would be revoked. I made the comparison between your child, if you were born here, and my child if I come here as an immigrant. Clearly these are two different kinds of citizenship that have been awarded, because my child stands to lose it at any point, just because I may have made a misrepresentation.

Mr. John Bryden: Can I go a bit further, Mr. Chair?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: I would like to just turn the subject a little. The previous witness made comments about the monarchy, which took me quite by surprise, although—

Ms. Latha Sukumar: We echo her sentiments, actually.

Mr. John Bryden: Can you elaborate?

Ms. Latha Sukumar: The reason is that we come from years of colonial rule. Speaking from the point of view of someone who's coming from India, and Ram from Sri Lanka, our ancestors were subjected to years of colonial rule. It conjures up very harsh realities for us. We lived through 300 years of oppression, and we still have a legacy of that system persisting in our societies. We have a feudal system, tremendously graduated in hierarchical set-ups, which are a clear remnant of that. We do not want to perpetuate it. We don't have any fond associations with that. We really feel quite strongly about it.

Mr. John Bryden: Do you know any instances, just in your own range of experience, of people who have not taken the oath of citizenship because of its requirement that one swear allegiance to the Queen or the Queen requirement? Do you know anyone who has actually refused to take it?

Ms. Latha Sukumar: I don't personally know anyone, but from my own experience of the citizenship ceremony, I kept quiet. I really felt that it went against my grain to pledge allegiance. That may mean that I'm not a citizen now, and you can take my citizenship away, but I'll tell you that it was very revolting for me to do it. But who was I? I was there, and I just went through the process in a very mute fashion.

I've heard the sentiment being expressed. I don't know of anyone who actually didn't do it.

Mr. John Bryden: So for your personal experience, it significantly eroded the value of the oath.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: It did.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you very much.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Ms. Augustine.

• 1915

Ms. Jean Augustine: I thought maybe my colleague would have continued on with the question that seemed to have been his favourite this morning, and that is the inclusion of “God” in the oath.

Could you speak to this? What was your particular question?

Mr. John Bryden: If I may, Mr. Chairman—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): You really needed to stir him up?

Mr. John Bryden: No, that's all right.

Ms. Jean Augustine: No, but I think this is important.

Mr. John Bryden: Let me give you a little bit of background—

Ms. Jean Augustine: No, no, you just—

Mr. John Bryden: Okay. All right.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): You know you're using her time, but go ahead.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Exactly.

Mr. John Bryden: The oath does not currently contain any invocation to a deity. It was removed years and years ago and hasn't been there since.

I wonder, in your view, for persons coming from your part of the world, whether the oath would achieve an increased sense of solemnity if there were some invocation to God, provided that it was understood that it's the God of all people, of all humankind, not anyone's particular God. I wonder if you think it would be a positive thing to return to. We're the only nation in the world that accepts new citizens that doesn't have an invocation to God. Would it be something that would be positive, in your mind?

Ms. Latha Sukumar: In my mind? I'm an agnostic. For me it wouldn't make a difference.

Mr. Ram Selvarajah: I would say that, no, it's not a good thing to bring God in there, especially in an age when the reference to God is being moved away and the individual character or the individual personality is put in front. Affirmation is good enough.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Okay, you've had it.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm sorry now I took the question.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Okay, go ahead.

Mr. John Bryden: It's an important line of thought.

Now, you're spoken for yourselves, but please speak in a larger sense for the people from your part of the world. Is it significant? The reason it's so interesting to us is remember what my question was: would it add to the solemnity? The reason the solemnity is important.... And maybe you don't feel this, so let me put it another way. Do you feel that the oath of citizenship you take is any kind of contract, or does it represent any kind of commitment?

Ms. Latha Sukumar: It definitely does. I think this is a difficult one for me because of my own personal beliefs. However, on the whole idea of religion, because God is associated with religion, and religion has been used to oppress in countries like India through the caste system and so forth, and we also have fundamental religious groups that rule and discriminate against other religious minorities, it's conceivable that people really don't have a very positive association and that it could add value. It's conceivable.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): You have two minutes left, so if Ms. Augustine wants any of it—

Mr. John Bryden: Okay, I'll take the second round to finish it.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): That was the second round.

Mr. Ram Selvarajah: I'll comment on your question. When we take the citizenship oath, it's a contract between us and the community, not a contract between us and God.

Mr. John Bryden: May I just make an observation, Jean? You have to let me finish.

Having said that, I hope you realize that the invocation to God is in Canada's Constitution. Can we satisfy your concerns by rather than requiring that one swear to God, we simply say that you are joining a people who are united before God, who are a people of God? Would it be acceptable to you, as an agnostic from a foreign land, coming into Canada to join a group of people who see themselves as united before God?

Mr. Ram Selvarajah: United, yes, but not before God, because who is God?

Mr. Grant McNally: Oh, boy, let's get into that one.

Mr. Ram Selvarajah: That's right. United, yes, but God, no.

Mr. John Bryden: That's so interesting.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: I really have to poll my community before I can answer this question.

Ms. Jean Augustine: We have been dwelling with a lot of the negative aspects of the bill, and I'd just like for my one question to see if we can get from you the one or two or three different things within the bill that somehow you see as an improvement on the present.

Mr. Ram Selvarajah: We would be happy about citizenship being continued for children born in Canada, regardless of their parents' citizenship. We are also very happy about the adoption clause, although we have some concerns about the way it works. Adoption has been a major thing, especially for immigrants from war-torn countries, where they want to adopt children and bring them over...those are great things. The concern you often hear from communities is when there is something negative, because we probably don't praise the government enough. I know that's what you guys would like to hear, that the Liberal government is doing great things, but unfortunately, we'd rather pay attention to the things that are not being done.

• 1920

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): You and a few others.

Mr. McNally, do you have a question?

Mr. Grant McNally: Isn't that a good lead-in? It sounds like an opposition member over there.

I just have a quick comment and then one quick question. I can understand your bit of an issue there with the oath. I was a school teacher in the United States for a year, and every morning I had to lead the pledge of allegiance to the flag. I was the one reading it off the piece of paper as the kids were saying it every day. It didn't have the same meaning for me as it did for them.

I just want to ask you about your last comment, where you ask in your submission that the standing committee conduct further and in-depth public education, which I think honestly is beyond our ability to do. But what kinds of things, maybe just briefly, would you suggest in order to address these issues?

Ms. Latha Sukumar: For one thing, I'm sure you'll have the community up in arms if they're all aware of the fact that the citizenship test should be taken in English and French. Also, this issue has to be canvassed some more within our communities. I wear several hats. I'm a practising lawyer as well as managing an interpreter service, and I see a number of senior—slightly older, but under 60—people who are applying for citizenship who have to take these intensive classes and go through tremendous months of trauma before they can take a citizenship test, even under the present circumstances. If they are going to have to do it in English or French, it's absolutely going to make it very difficult for them.

My sense is that the community is really not aware of some of these proposed changes, and what processes you have in mind, I don't know. Even with respect to this whole physical presence requirement, we have a number of immigrants who have come in from South Asia who are technical consultants or financial consultants who do a lot of work in the United States and so on. We find that if they were aware of that they would have a lot to say and inform this process much more than has been done at the moment.

Mr. Ram Selvarajah: I think the need is to just distinguish between the Citizenship Act and the Immigration Act, which is also undergoing changes at the same time. It's difficult for people to know which is which because it's often considered...one is interwoven with the other anyway.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much, and thank you. By the way, you did a great job following the previous deputation.

Ms. Latha Sukumar: I didn't, really.

Mr. John Bryden: We didn't get the answers we wanted, though.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): That doesn't mean they didn't do a good job. We often don't get the answers we want. Thank you for coming.

Our final presenter this evening is Avvy Yao-Yao Go, Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic. Welcome.

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go (Barrister and Solicitor, Clinic Director, Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic): Thanks. My name is Avvy Go and I'm the current director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic.

Our clinic was one of the few legal clinics and Chinese and Southeast Asian community groups that was involved in the consultation both before and after the LRAG. I was actually also involved in the consultation, perhaps the one you mentioned. I'm not sure if it's the same one. It was during the time when Mr. Marchi was the minister. I remember coming to Ottawa and I spoke to a crowd of 200 people on that. But I don't recall citizenship being one of the issues being discussed.

In any event, I would like to thank the standing committee for allowing me to speak to you about an issue that is very dear to my heart. As a lawyer who has worked with the immigrant and refugee community for the last—I don't want to say how long—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): It couldn't have been very long.

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: Longer than you would think—I believe the proposed Citizenship Act is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation this government has introduced in recent years. It's therefore very important that you really carefully consider the impact of the bill on the immigrant and refugee communities before the bill reaches its final passage.

• 1925

I have submitted a written document outlining our major concerns and making some recommendations as to how we can improve the bill.

I would invite members to review them. I'm not going to read them, but instead I would like to begin my presentation by sharing with you a personal story, which took place in an event that happened several years ago shortly after the Liberals defeated the Conservatives to become the ruling party of the day.

At that time there was an event that was held to honour several women members of Parliament who had longstanding community involvement—and Ms. Augustine was there. That evening I remember hearing one of the new members of the government talking in a very eloquent manner about the struggles that her mother, a first-generation immigrant, had gone through to raise her children and see them achieve their success. Throughout the time she was making her speech, the mother of the member of Parliament was there shedding tears of joy, and beside this proud mother was an interpreter who was translating every single word this MP was speaking, because she didn't speak a word of English herself, even though she had lived here for 20, 30 years and had worked in a factory raising the children.

Of course, on that day her lack of command of English probably didn't matter much. What mattered most was the fact that she had made herself and her family very proud Canadians. This proud Canadian would never have become one if Bill C-63, in particular clause 6 of the bill, was in place at the time when she came to Canada. Why? Because clause 6 in particular prohibits the use of an interpreter at a citizenship test for anyone who applies for citizenship.

You may want to ask me why am I telling this story. What happened to this mother of the member of Parliament was something that happened a long time ago, and today immigrants have the chance to learn English. Unfortunately, the struggles faced by this individual are the same struggles faced by thousands of immigrants and refugees today, and just as it was 20, 30 years ago, many immigrants are still being ghettoized in low-wage jobs earning minimum and sometimes even less than minimum wages. As a result, they have to work extremely long hours just to make ends meet. Immigrant women are still doing double duty as they were 20, 30 years ago, working outside of home and then looking after their children at home.

These individuals do not have time for themselves, let alone taking time to do the ESL classes. Even if they do want to take English as a second language or otherwise participate in community activities to integrate themselves in a larger society, they may not have been given the chance to do so because at all levels of government we are seeing tremendous cutbacks to funding for settlement services, including ESL classes. There are simply not enough services and funding to ensure that immigrants today are well integrated and have the chance to acquire the English language skills they sorely need.

So in denying the use of an interpreter at a citizenship test the government is really sending two messages out to the public. First, it's saying to the Canadian public that people who do not speak English or French are not real Canadians; they're second-class citizens. Secondly, as has been pointed out, it effectively denies citizenship, one of the most important defining rights of a person in Canada, to non-English-speaking immigrants and this is just wrong.

We think, as the previous speaker has pointed out, that this law violates these immigrants' rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to equality before and under the law, and it breaches the principles of multiculturalism, which is also part of the charter that makes Canada what it is today.

But clause 6 is not the only thing that's wrong with Bill C-63. Another fundamental problem with the bill, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, is the power it gives to the Minister of Citizenship and her delegates to decide who can be a citizen, when citizenship can be denied to someone, and when citizenship can be revoked. The sweeping powers given to the minister in the name of public interest or national security, with no real recourse to review by the judiciary, have the effect of granting the executive branch of the government almost unchecked powers over a matter of fundamental importance. Such an approach would be fine if we were living in some kind of dictatorial regime, but Canada is a democratic country, and as such it is founded upon some very important concepts, such as the separation of power and checks and balances among different branches of power. Bill C-63, in granting the minister a whole new host of non-reviewable powers, violates these important concepts.

• 1930

Last but not the least of our concerns—we have others in the written submission I'm not going to go through—is the proposal to redefine the physical residency test so that the time spent by an individual in Canada before he or she acquires permanent resident status would not be counted. There is absolutely no reason for imposing such a new requirement, and it discriminates against many convention refugees and others who are in limbo for years before they become permanent residents, often due to no fault of their own and at times due to the delay caused by Immigration Canada itself.

Let me end by quoting what is included in the actual citizenship test materials as the list of citizenship responsibilities this government is teaching immigrants to adopt. It says:

As Canadian citizens, we share the responsibility to:

Vote in elections.

—which I'm sure is good news to you—

Work to help others in the community.

Care for Canada's heritage.

Obey Canada's laws.

Express opinions freely while respecting the rights and freedoms of others.

Eliminate discrimination and injustice.

I urge this committee to ensure that the government will do what it preaches. I ask you to ensure that the government will really obey Canada's laws, which include the highest law of the land; that it will truly respect the rights and freedoms of immigrants and refugees; and that it will eliminate the discrimination and injustice found in this bill.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.

We will go to Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your submission.

You've given us a lot to think about, and some of the same themes are coming up again. This issue of discretionary power seems to be coming up over and over again, and as you mentioned towards the end of your presentation, it's your belief that this bill, in effect, gives the executive branch of government almost, I think your phrase was—

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: Non-reviewable.

Mr. Grant McNally: —non-reviewable powers. I would submit to you that there are already several areas of discretion where the minister has those powers, one of them being in the current Immigration Act rather than the Citizenship Act—although, as you and others have mentioned, they are woven together in so many different ways—in the removal of suspected war criminals, subsection 19(1.1). An individual who's deemed to be inadmissible under that class has no right of appeal, no judicial right of appeal, and in particular no re-examination of where that evidence is coming from or a whole judicial process for that, which is already a concern. From what you're saying, I'm getting the feeling that you're suggesting the same thing is going to happen in this area.

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: Yes, and also, when you make a case, I guess you can arguably make a case for war criminals. But how can you lump war criminals with people who come into Canada and have lived here for years, and the only reason you're going to revoke their citizenship is because, for instance, in some of the cases I've seen, they have come as a dependant and in fact they got married just shortly before they arrived in Canada, so there was a change in circumstances that somehow removed them artificially from the definition of family class immigrant? All these statutory requirements create a result of misrepresentation. I cannot see how you can put these people in the same bag as a war criminal.

Mr. Grant McNally: Right. I understand your point, and we're not entirely sure of the thinking behind how this got into the bill. I would submit that it was the minister's idea to try to exclude individuals who could be of concern here, but in doing so—

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: I think it's the bureaucrats' idea.

• 1935

Mr. Grant McNally: Yes, well, I'm not going to argue with you on that point, but in doing so, perhaps unintentionally, it created a whole realm of technicalities for people who are going to be liable to exclusion through no fault of their own. That's what you're submitting.

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: Yes, and even in cases where you could argue there was some fault, the hardship, the result, the consequence, simply so much more outweighs the sin, if you will, that they have committed, and they will be treated the same as the war criminals who will lose their citizenship.

Mr. Grant McNally: To go back to one of your first points, as a former ESL teacher in the Vancouver area, I saw a lot of different kids—and I talked to older individuals as well—from all different backgrounds, all different countries, and I understand your concern in terms of services and how that affects them. I certainly saw how that affected individuals firsthand. What are the specific needs, as you see it, in that area of services?

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: Well, there should have been a lot more funding just in terms of settlement funding. Unfortunately, because of the downloading that started a number of years ago at the federal level, all the way down to the municipal level.... And of course in Ontario we also have the additional concern about who is in government right now and that they don't really care about servicing the immigrants. So you see an erosion of all kinds of services to immigrants, both in terms of language classes and other settlement services.

How can you on the one hand say you have to integrate, you have to learn English...? That's all fine and dandy, but you should put your money where your mouth is. If you want people to integrate, if you want people to really learn the language, then you invest in those areas to make sure that happens. When you don't put in the money, you cannot really blame and question why someone doesn't speak a word of English after living here for 5 years, 10 years, or whatever. The reality is that without the subsidy, without support, without the services, some people, like my mother, for instance, would never learn.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Regarding clause 6 and the adequate knowledge of the official languages of Canada, I wonder if your concerns about that are a little bit unwarranted in the sense that it all turns around the interpretation of “adequate” knowledge. I would point out to you that the minister would certainly have the opportunity to define “adequate” in the regulations, such as knowing what the word “stop” or “arrêt” means on a sign, or the basic words that any newcomer to this country might need in order to move around safely without having to be confined in his or her residence, to actually be able to go out and know that right is right and left is left in English and French. So I'm not so sure you have a lot to worry about there.

However, in paragraph 6(1)(d), I think there is a bit more to be concerned about, because it's very specific. It says you have to have an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges and be able to express these in the official languages without the benefit of an interpreter. However, I suggest to you that if we could hone down those responsibilities and privileges into an expression that might be contained in one paragraph that defines the responsibilities and privileges of a Canadian for a newcomer, wouldn't it be fair that the newcomer be able to recite those, say 25 words, in English or French, if they summarized the rights and privileges?

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: Well, okay, before I address your question I want to point out that paragraph 6(1)(c) is the same as is in the current act, so I wasn't addressing that particular provision. I was just talking about the use of an interpreter. Right now you allow people to bring in interpreters when they have some difficulties talking to the—

Mr. John Bryden: It's still the same thing. You should have an adequate knowledge of certain words.

• 1940

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: Under this new proposal you would not be able to use an interpreter. I have a case, a client who was 58, just under the 60-year mark, so she is not automatically exempt from that provision. But she's illiterate, even in her own language. She was not able to acquire English language skills. She tried for citizenship three times. All her children and grandchildren are Canadian citizens. She just could not pass the test.

In that case...she brought in her own daughter to speak to the judge and act as an interpreter. The final time, the citizenship judge said yes. She was able to pass the test. The minister's representative turned around and overruled that decision.

So that's why I'm very concerned, not only about the lack of use of interpreters, but about the issue around having the bureaucrats making decisions.

Mr. John Bryden: We accept your concern about the bureaucrats. But I do have difficulty not requiring new Canadians to be able to recognize the words “stop”, “arrêt”, “right”, and “droit”. At least, there must be a lexicon of maybe 20 words you should be able to recognize. Whether you can read or not is immaterial. You should be able to recognize the words of safety to move around in the community without an interpreter.

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: I think that's a good thing, which we would try to achieve. But I'm trying to say... First of all, I'm not a linguistic expert, so I don't know how difficult or how easy it is for someone to acquire or just recite a sentence of 25 or 30 words in a language they are not familiar with. So I'm not even sure how realistic that kind of test would be.

But the real concern is—

Mr. John Bryden: But actually, putting the hurdle far too low, surely at the very least we can expect people who are coming to become new Canadians to be able to recite 25 or 30 words that may contain the definitions of rights and privileges.

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: Again, I don't know how realistic that is and I don't think that.... Well, it's not a fair question in a sense that you are looking at designing a test without looking into the way people acquire language.

I think what may happen is that they may, because in ESL, the language training level.... You may know a bit better that they have different levels you can pass and whatever. I guess, theoretically speaking, they could, in order to make it a bit more objective, require that you be able to complete LINC stage one, or something like that. But I don't know. I have no idea what regulations will be put in.

Mr. John Bryden: Let me finish up then. Following your line of reasoning then, you would not propose a new Canadian be required to take the oath of citizenship in either of the official languages. Of course, the oath of citizenship, if it were suitably written—and I don't think it's suitably written now—should contain a description of what it is to be Canadian.

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: Even right now, just thinking of my mother as an example, I don't think the day she swore allegiance under the oath that she was actually reciting the oath. I think she was just sort of—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Hoping nobody was watching?

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: Well, I was watching.

I think in reality that's what happens already on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. John Bryden: But is that a good thing?

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: No, that's not a.... That's not a good or bad thing. But I think that—

Mr. John Bryden: It has to be one or the other. It's the—

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: I think it's to their benefit that they should be able to speak English. But I think again it goes to the question of how you ensure that happens. You can just say, look, here's the law, you learn English. You have to put in place services—

Mr. John Bryden: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I'll just finish and be done with it here.

The point is that somehow in this process of citizenship we have to have the right, as a country, to convey what it means to be ourselves as a country. I admit that the oath of citizenship, both as it was and as it was revised, is not at all useful, because it doesn't actually describe what it is to be Canadian. It says nothing about the rule of law. It says nothing about respect for human rights. And I believe it should. But if you put that type of thing in the oath of citizenship, it has to be in an oath of citizenship in a meaningful way, or the oath of citizenship has to be delivered in a meaningful way so the person can understand what's in it.

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: Yes, and the most meaningful way to understand is in the language they understand.

• 1945

Mr. John Bryden: All I was suggesting to you is you could fully meet the requirements of paragraph 6(1)(d) if simply there were 25 words in the oath of citizenship that actually did cover what the rights and responsibilities and privileges of being a Canadian are, and that was taken in one of the official languages. But you tell me that is still too high a barrier to climb.

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: As someone who is not a linguistic expert, I don't know how realistic it is.

Mr. John Bryden: You don't need to be linguistic. The 25 words are 25 words in any language, I would submit.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): You should probably allow her to answer.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, I'm sorry. Steve's a good guy.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): This is not a debate.

Mr. John Bryden: Excuse me. Anyway, thank you very much. You've been very forthright.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Do you have a further answer for Mr. Bryden?

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: No, I think we will continue to debate on this same issue.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you very much.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine: There is something called rote, and that is mouthing words without really...and I think we have to recognize that you couldn't have 25 words and memorize them and just pass them out.

I want to say how much I think this committee is aware of your reputation and the reputation of the clinic and the people you do serve. So we take very seriously this submission you've made, and I'm sure we'll be getting back to you as we progress on this work.

I want to go back to the issue of the citizenship commissioners. It seems to me our understanding as a committee of the role of the commissioner and what we've heard in the three presentations one after the other are different. My understanding of the commissioner is not a bureaucrat that's going to be pulled from a certain level of the civil service and be promoted to do this work, but that it's very similar to the previous role, taking out the confusion of judge and putting certain other kinds of educational awareness, public community worker, to that. That's my understanding of what is in the act in terms of the role of the commissioner.

Could you speak to what you understand that role to be? There seems to be some confusion here.

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: Right. My understanding is that these commissioners are the judges minus their role to make decisions on the actual applications, similar to what Ms. Williams talked about earlier. They will have whatever educational role and so on, going to school, talking about rights and responsibilities of citizenship, but they are not going to be the ones who make the actual decisions on the actual cases on a day-to-day basis.

What happens right now is that there are many cases that are decided by citizenship judges, because right now you can choose between a written test, which is, I believe, multiple-choice questions and whatever, or you go before a citizenship judge. Usually people who go before citizenship judges are people who don't speak English very well. They bring in their interpreters, and the citizenship judge talks to them and decides, okay, it's good enough, I'll let you pass as a citizen.

That will be taken away, because what I think the bill envisions is that most of the cases will be just determined like written exams. We let it pass, we don't let it pass. Only in some particular circumstances would those decisions be reviewed. So the decisions will not be made by these commissioners who are out there doing educational work. It's not that we think the commissioners are bureaucrats making decisions, but that they are not making decisions, and the ones who are making decisions are the bureaucrats.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Okay. It seems to me that subclause 31(7) spells out a whole series of duties—to preside at citizenship ceremonies; to promote active citizenship; to provide, on the minister's request, advice and recommendations about applications, the exercise of the minister's discretion, and appropriate methods to evaluate citizenship applicants about their knowledge of an official language.

• 1950

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: I'm trying to find in the old act, which Ms. Williams has kindly provided me with.... Sorry, I keep calling it the old act; it's the current act.

Ms. Jean Augustine: The current act, yes.

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: I can compare or point out to you the role of the citizenship judges. Maybe that would highlight the difference.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Actually, I'm just trying to find out what you see as the misunderstanding, it seemed to me, that it is going to be a bureaucratic operation.

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: Because it's what is missing from that list.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Okay. We can look into this. What we need to do is maybe the committee would line up the two oppositions and look at this.

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: Yes.

Ms. Jean Augustine: The other point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is to get from Ms. Go that whole discretionary discussion that we had earlier. I think that's an important issue for us as we get into discussion on this bill.

Do you agree with the parts Ms. Williams spoke to? What parts of it would you like to highlight for us in terms of discretionary?

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: I certainly agree with Ms. Williams' position. Putting aside the concerns I raised earlier around the whole fundamental concept of who should be the one who makes a decision and after a decision is made whether there should be checks and balances put in place in the system, the whole issue of discretion is particularly important in the context of immigration and citizenship.

We have already seen in the immigration context that it is one area of the laws—and some people said it is really not a law because of so much discretion that is given to the individual immigration officers. A lot of the time you will see different officers making different kinds of decisions, and because officers are human beings, without parameters and without very clear legislative guidelines you tend to bring your own biases and experiences into play when you make decisions. That's part of the problem with giving discretionary power. It's not just giving discretionary power to anyone; it's giving discretionary power to individual officers, who are not directly accountable to anyone but the minister herself, ultimately.

It's those kinds of factors, plus the additional concern from the perspective of the communities of colour. We have seen many examples or cases where discretionary power is being exercised in a way that has a disproportionate impact on people of colour. Example one would be the deportation, the danger-to-public certificates, where you see that 99.9% of the people who are subject to that provision are people of colour. That's not an accident. We've seen many cases in other contexts of immigration as to how officers exercise discretionary power on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds and other areas. You see a lot of systemic problems in place as well.

With this bill in particular you have big words—public interest, national security—none of which are being defined. At the same time, you give a lot of power to these officers, who are human beings. This is a recipe for problems.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Against my better judgment, I'm going to allow Mr. Bryden one small question.

Mr. John Bryden: As a result of our conversation, as a former editor I have attempted to boil down the principles of being Canadian into as tight an oath as I possibly can. I have boiled it down to 34 words. I'd like to recite them, with the chairman's permission, and then ask you whether this would be something people could learn in either official language. It would be:

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

Is that too high a hurdle to ask people to learn, in either English or French?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): There's nothing about Tim Horton's doughnuts in there?

Mr. John Bryden: No, nothing about that.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Nothing about God either.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Roll up the rim to win.

Mr. John Bryden: Nor the Queen—the Queen's gone.

• 1955

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: I think this is a far better oath than what we have right now. On that basis, I think that's a good thing to add. Again, I'm not sure it is that easy for someone to just learn it.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I think it's fitting that we end the hearings with a positive remark with regard to one of Mr. Bryden's suggestions.

Mr. John Bryden: Obviously I'm not going to get the last word.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): With that, I'm going to thank you for your presentation. We appreciate the hard work you and all the others have put in to come before us. Thank you for your advice.

Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): This committee is adjourned until 3.30 on Wednesday, April 21, year of our Lord 1999. I had to get Him in there somehow.