CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Friday, May 4, 2001

• 1349

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our guests in Halifax who are making presentations to the committee.

We have the Atlantic Region Association of Immigrant-Serving Agencies, with Kevin Arsenault. As well, we have as individuals, Blair Hodgman, lawyer, Allen and Hodgman, Barristers and Solicitors; and Bruce Allen, a lawyer with the same firm.

I want to take this opportunity to welcome our guests as well as a member of Parliament for the area, Peter Stoffer, for being with us.

I wonder if we could commence by asking Kevin Arsenault for his organization's presentation, please.

[Technical Difficulty—Editor]

Kevin, we're having some difficulty hearing you. Please start again.

• 1350

Mr. Kevin Arsenault (President, Atlantic Regional Association of Immigrant-Serving Agencies): As I was saying, our organization represents all the service providers for the settlement of refugees, government-sponsored refugees for the most part, but other classes of refugee as well.

In the interest of time, I want to start by saying that our whole organization is a member of the Canadian Council for Refugees. They have done a lot of work in analysing and scrutinizing both the former bill, Bill C-31, and the current bill. I want to offer an endorsement of the work they've done and indicate that ARAISA supports their analysis and conclusions. I know it has been a bit of a difficult process to get a lot of input scrutinized and incorporated as possible changes, but I would hope that the full attention that their work deserves is in fact given by the committee in looking at this.

Representing settlement agencies, the primary concerns I have on behalf of ARAISA pertain to, first of all, the fact that the refugee resettlement program is established in the bill, but the guidelines and the various provisions of implementation as far as that program is concerned are not spelled out and are left to regulations. This has been raised before as a concern. It's hard to know exactly what we're talking about until we see the regulations.

I think the minister has indicated that there will be a consultative process. One of the questions I would ask the committee is, what exactly will be provided by way of further opportunity for input and consultation once those regulations are in fact drafted and presented, before they are enacted? That's one concern.

The other point I want to make is that we would hope there is a supporting body of initiatives and policies to go with the intention, at least in some aspects of the bill, with respect to settlement.

For example, it was welcomed to see that the expectation of being able to settle and integrate and to start your own life really under your own steam is currently too low in the legislation. It's something like two years, after which there's an expectation of being settled and on your own. I think it's expanded to three to five years in the new legislation. We welcome that, because that's our experience.

However, if federal support for services and programs, language training, and so on, is not also extended, it will be basically saying that something is necessary but not providing the means to make it more effective in the long-term integration of newcomers to Canada.

We want to see, as well, a clearer distinction being made between the humanitarian refugee program and other classes of immigrants in the rules and criteria pertaining to welcoming different classes of refugees into Canada. We believe a humanitarian program really shouldn't rely on any kind of criteria that require economic stability or even a capacity.

In terms of the provisions in the act for family reunification, we support those, but again, if people are prevented from coming here to reunite with families because of an economic status, it seems to be contrary to the humanitarian principles within Canada's refugee program.

As an introduction, those are a couple of observations on behalf of ARAISA. We'd like to see those regulations that are going to accompany the resettlement program.

There is a national settlement conference, the first of its kind, happening in about a month in Kingston, Ontario. About 400 people will attend that from service organizations across the country as well as from Citizenship and Immigration, and that would be a wonderful forum to work out some of the details perhaps of what settlement aspects of the bill should look like in terms of regulation and programs.

• 1355

Thank you. That's enough for now.

The Chair: Thank you, Kevin.

In answer to your question with regard to the process with regulations, I think the committee's already indicated that we very much want to be part of that particular process. Once the regulations have been developed after a bill is passed, we will have public consultation held before the committee on the specific regulations that have been established.

You should know that we've asked the minister and the department to provide people with a discussion paper of the proposed regulations that have been put in place. I believe that the discussion paper has been most useful so far, not only for the committee but, I would hope, for people in general in getting a little understanding of where the department and the minister are coming from with regard to this particular new bill. Yes, there will be a great opportunity for public consultation on the regulations.

We'll now go to Ms. Blair Hodgman. Welcome, Blair.

Ms. Blair Hodgman (Individual Presentation): Welcome. My name is Blair Hodgman.

[Translation]

I am from the beautiful City of Halifax. I wish you a good afternoon. It is a beautiful day here today.

[English]

My husband and I are U.S. citizens, and we are permanent residents who live in Chester, Nova Scotia. My husband spent his childhood summers in Chester. His paternal grandparents are buried in Chester and his great-grandfather, William Lawrence, built the largest sailing ship ever built in Canada.

I've spent more and more time here in Nova Scotia with my husband since I first visited in 1978. We began to want to make Nova Scotia and Canada a more central part of our lives instead of just a place to spend our leisure time, so we decided to get licensed to practice law there. This process took approximately three years and included having our educational credentials evaluated, writing law school exams, and writing the Nova Scotia bar exam. We were finally called to the bar here in 1994.

We eventually decided that we wanted to live in Nova Scotia, so we applied for immigrant visas. We were thrilled when the visas arrived in the mail on my birthday in January 1998.

Exactly two months to the day after our visas arrived, my mother suffered a stroke. She's a 75-year-old U.S. citizen, and she's lived her entire life in the U.S.A. I'm an only child, and she's widowed. After this stroke, she was no longer able to live on her own in her home in New Jersey. The effects of that stroke and a subsequent one left her totally unable to care for herself, and I had to place her in a nursing home in Cleveland.

Determined to fulfil our dream, my husband and I still landed in Canada. Over the last two and a half years we've made a lot of improvements to our home; we've developed our friendships, our personal ties, and our professional lives here in Canada; and we've opened a law office. We have voluntarily submitted our U.S. income to Canadian taxes, so we've paid tens of thousands of dollars in Canadian income taxes on income that would otherwise be taxable only in the U.S.A.

We've done everything humanly possible to establish our lives in Canada, but we've also spent more time in the U.S.A. than we had planned. So we could have some peace of mind, we got returning resident permits, and we've been able, with those permits, to spend the time we needed to in the U.S.A., providing care and companionship to my mother without jeopardizing our life in Canada. We travelled frequently to the U.S.A. and, with our permits in hand on our return, were secure that we were safe in our status.

Proposed Bill C-11 would jeopardize the lives of people like us, people who make their homes in Canada but have legitimate commitments abroad. Bill C-11 retroactively destroys rights we've already acquired, and it places a dark cloud of uncertainty over our future. Bill C-11 imposes new standards on past conduct. Under the present act, you can get a returning resident permit before you spend the time outside Canada. An officer determines in advance if you have a meritorious reason for your planned absence from Canada. When you return, the permit is proof without other evidence that you did not intend to abandon your permanent resident status. Bill C-11 doesn't grandfather returning resident permits, yet it looks back on the time you've already spent outside Canada and counts this as time against, even if you had a returning resident permit while you were absent.

• 1400

Periods of absence that are motivated only by reasons of economic gain or concern are the only ones that are clearly sanctioned under this bill. If you don't meet the simple numbers test because of time you've already spent out of Canada, your status is at risk unless you were out for these economic considerations. Thus, my status is in jeopardy because I've spent time in the U.S.A. taking care of my mother.

The proponents of this bill claim that it's transparent, yet it also places a murky haze over any future time I need to spend caring for my mother. As I mentioned, only economic concerns are addressed for the periods of absence out of Canada. Only those who leave Canada to work for a Canadian business or a Canadian government agency know their status is safe. There's no provision that credits time out of Canada for family concerns, educational reasons, employment by charitable organizations, or a whole host of other legitimate reasons. People who leave Canada for any of these reasons won't know their fate until after they return, and their fate is placed in the hands of a possible deportation officer, who will rule simply on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

I have friends who are also permanent residents in Canada. James has a Ph.D. in agricultural science, and he works for a UN agency that's dedicated to eliminating world hunger. The constraints of his job necessitate that he live in northern Africa. He and his family landed in Canada two years ago, and they've been out of the country relying on their permits; yet their future is in jeopardy under the provisions of this bill as is it presently written.

How can anyone rationally plan their life around the uncertainty of a provision that leaves your faith in the future based on something as vague as humanitarian and compassionate grounds?

If Bill C-11 is enacted in its present form, people like my friend James and his family will never know in advance if they can safely pursue worthwhile professional endeavours overseas without jeopardizing their status. Students won't ever know in advance if they can safely attend a foreign university like Oxford or the Sorbonne and safely return to Canada. If Bill C-11 is enacted in its present form, until my mother dies, my husband and I will never be certain that our status is safe.

The mere fact that this bill has been tabled has already had a drastic chilling effect on my life. I ask you to please amend this bill to reinstate the returning resident permits. Allow us to present our case in advance of our absence from Canada so we can have the reassurance of the returning resident permit. Don't discourage us from fulfilling our personal, educational, and professional dreams and obligations.

Thank you for your time and attention.

The Chair: Thank you, Blair and Bruce.

Bruce, did you have anything to add?

Mr. Bruce C. Allen (Individual Presentation): Yes. I was going to address a somewhat different topic, if I may.

As you know, I am a lawyer. I practise immigration law exclusively, and I'm licensed to practise in both the United States and Canada. I'm familiar with both U.S. and Canadian immigration law.

My practise is employment-based. Virtually all my clients are highly educated, skilled workers. The majority are in the computer field. Others are doctors and nurses. They are, in other words, exactly the type of immigrants that I think we all agree Canada needs to attract.

There is not a day that goes by that I do not receive a telephone call from a professional worker currently in the United States who has grown frustrated with U.S. immigration processes and has become interested in coming to Canada.

In every one of these discussions this issue invariably arises: Once I come to Canada, may I travel? May I finish my masters program? May I finish the web development project I'm engaged in for a major corporation?

What I tell these people is that this is not a problem. Canada wants you to come to Canada. Canada is looking for reasons for you to come, not for reasons to exclude you. If you have important reasons to be abroad, Canada has a procedure to permit that.

Bill C-11 will drastically undercut my ability to help Canada attract these types of immigrants because Bill C-11 changes the relationship between Canada and its permanent residents in two fundamental ways.

• 1405

First, it imposes a duty on permanent residents that has never existed in Canada's history, and that is not a duty to obey our laws, not a duty to support our families, not a duty to take part in community activities, but a duty not to travel. This is a duty that will prevent people from pursuing higher education, work abroad, charitable activities, and family activities.

Second, the bill imposes a new requirement on permanent residents to renew their status at five-year intervals. This is done under the guise of a convenient plastic card, which must be renewed every five years, at which point, unquestionably, people will be required once again to prove their status in Canada by documenting their presence in their activities for every day of a 1,826-day period.

This is going to create a tremendous burden on permanent residents, both those who travel and those who stay home but have not gone to the trouble to document their whereabouts. It is an intrusive requirement that does not belong in a democratic society and is difficult or impossible to comply with.

I would suggest to you that the present test for retaining permanent residency is the correct one. It is the morally correct one and it is in fact the objective one. That test does not place a duty on the individual to report his whereabouts to the government. That test is based on the intention of the permanent resident to retain Canada as his permanent home. That can be determined readily by objective facts of the type that Blair just mentioned.

In my case, you would look...I have a home in Chester. I have an office in Chester. My family ties are in Chester. My parents are in Chester. My grandfather is in Chester. Those are objective facts, not subjective ones. They're the important inquiry. They're the moral inquiry as to my right to remain in Canada.

This is a test that's used in the United States. It's been used in Canada historically and it should be retained.

The chairman made the point—I believe he used the expression “hallelujah” over the new provision that appears to permit more liberty in terms of travel because there is a longer period of time. I would agree that if there's a defect in the present law, it's the 183-day rule. That rule is a little too short, although it is a presumption and not a duty and it can be overcome with a returning resident permit. I think that period of time should be lengthened. It should be a year, perhaps 18 months. That defect can be corrected without fundamentally altering the relationship between Canada and hundreds of thousands of her people.

Canada just hosted a summit of the Americas, a summit that presaged a new global market in human resources as well as other resources. This is the last time Canada needs to be imposing new restrictions on the best and the brightest that we hope to attract to this nation.

I want to very briefly address three other issues that I think are impediments to employment-related immigration to Canada that this bill either doesn't address or should address.

First of all, it must be easier to come to work in Canada on a temporary basis. The vast majority of immigrants who come to the United States as employment-based immigrants begin by working for a two- or three-year period as professional workers on a temporary basis. It is much harder to immigrate to the United States than it is...it is much easier to come to the United States to work on a temporary basis—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.)): Excuse me, Mr. Allen, can I interrupt you for a minute?

Mr. Bruce Allen: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): I'm sorry. My name's John McCallum, by the way. My colleague had to go, so I am now chairing the meeting. We have a technology-driven limit that we have to shut off at 2:30 p.m., and we have a number of people wanting to ask questions, so I'd ask you if you could summarize your points rather quickly.

Mr. Bruce Allen: It will take me 10 seconds.

I believe the new net worth requirement that would be put in the regulations would eliminate Bill Gates and Henry Ford as possible entrepreneurs were they to apply today. I think that's a mistake, and I think we have to find a better way to allow medical personnel, especially doctors, to immigrate to Canada. We cannot continue to live with the fifty-to-one ratio of doctors leaving Canada.

Those are all my points.

[Translation]

I thank you for your time and your attention.

• 1410

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much for what struck me as quite a compelling argument.

We have 20 minutes, so we don't have very much time. I'll ask my colleagues to introduce themselves to you as it becomes their turn to ask questions. I'll start with Inky Mark.

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

My name is Inky Mark. I'm the chief opposition critic for this standing committee. Thank you for taking time to communicate your concerns to us today.

I want to dwell on the whole issue of permanent residency. Like most of us, I don't agree that permanent residents should be referred to as foreign nationals. I've always had the position that if you have status, you should retain that status. Either you're a resident or you're not a resident. You can't be both at the same time.

I have two questions. Would moving the time period to ten years be an advantage? I personally don't like the whole issue of physical time period requirements at all because of the shrinking globe, the global community, the way people move around the world. You'd say returning resident permits are the way to go.

In the United States, what happens for those who leave the country for more than a year?

Those are three areas you can respond to.

Mr. Bruce Allen: If I could respond to the last point, currently the United States has no fixed residency requirement for its permanent residents. It does have a requirement that kicks in when you apply for citizenship. Permanent residents can come and go freely on the strength of their green card if they have been absent from the United States for no more than one year. You can obtain a two-year returning resident permit before you leave, which is very similar to Canada's system, and you can renew that. There is no outer limit on the number of times you can renew that.

It is striking indeed that a country that in my view tends to have much more restrictive and punitive immigration laws than Canada—the United States—nevertheless does not impose significant barriers on its permanent residents. There is a card. The current card, the so-called green card, lasts for ten years, and you renew it simply by paying a fee and providing a new photograph. You are not required to make any kind of showing as to your whereabouts and your activities during the preceding period.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Allen, what happens in the United States if you leave the country and stay beyond one year but you don't have a permit to come back?

Mr. Bruce Allen: You must then go to a United States consulate abroad and apply for a returning resident visa, at which point the issue becomes whether or not you intended to abandon your foreign residency in the United States. But at no point are you required to make the same sort of count of 700 or 800 or 900 days. In theory, you can be absent for many years. Again, that's not necessarily saying that that would result in that visa being issued. Every case is considered on its merit.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you, and if your French isn't very good, I suggest you put on your translation devices.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I thank you Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Blair Hodgman: We do not hear the interpretation.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Let us try again. My name is Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral. I am the Member for Laval-Centre in the province of Quebec. Thank you for coming to speak to us. I have two questions. The first one is for Mr. Arsenault.

In your presentation, you mentioned family reunification and, of course, the travel costs of family members sponsored by a refugee. How do you think that we might solve that problem? Obviously, if three or four members of the family must travel from their country of origin to Canada, the cost is enormous.

• 1415

As concerns refugees, we know that only a few countries are accepting them. Are you suggesting that Canada should pay for those costs or do you see other solutions?

[English]

Mr. Kevin Arsenault: There are all kinds of possibilities. Joint assisted sponsorship programs have been quite effective. If you take a look at the Kosovo situation, for example, I know in my home province of Prince Edward Island the success rate has been significant in terms of having a much higher percentage of Kosovars actually stay in Prince Edward Island—and become gainfully employed—in comparison with the normal stream of government-sponsored refugees we receive.

I think community involvement is one factor, but there was a focused attempt to make it happen. Goodwill in settling and integrating refugees can't be underestimated, but it has to be goodwill that takes shape in concrete programs and supports.

I want to add another point that I didn't make before, that as much as the new bill does expand the number—I think parents are included in terms of family reunification—we'd also like to see brothers, sisters, and siblings included. I think the fear that it's going to cost Canada a lot of money to do this is perhaps not documented by research, because our experience is that a reunited family is a happier family, a family that is healthier and more able to become more involved in the community and make long-standing economic and cultural contributions to Canada.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: My question is for Ms. Hodgman.

You told us about your personal situation. It is obvious that under Bill C-11 as it is presently written, there could be other cases like yours. Do you have a solution? Do you think that the existing law should be maintained as concerns the right of permanent residents to return? Are you also worried about the authority given to immigration officers?

[English]

Ms. Blair Hodgman: I think the current standard is fine. It looks to your intent on leaving Canada, whether you intended to abandon your residence in Canada, what your ties are to Canada. I think it's well suited. It protects permanent residents by giving them the knowledge, in advance of leaving, that the legitimacy of their absence will be recognized by Canada. I think it protects Canada's interest in making sure that people maintain ties to Canada if they wish to remain permanent residents.

I think the powers of an officer under the proposed legislation are far too great. They're greatly enhanced. By delineating just a couple of circumstances under which it's clearly permissible to leave Canada, all the other circumstances of leaving Canada are left securely to the discretion of an officer. As well, I think the examinations conducted by officers under this proposed legislation could be very burdensome and unfair.

So I'm happy with and have comfort in the current legislation. I have my returning resident permit and I show it when I re-enter Canada. I explain the reasons for my absence and explain that I'm returning to Canada. I haven't encountered a difficulty, but I live in fear of the day that this bill is enacted. I have to spend a lot of time with my mother. If I'm away too long caring for her, I might not be welcomed on my return to Canada. I think that's a very unfair thing to do to permanent residents who are contributing to Canadian society.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

• 1420

I'd like to give some time to our two members of Parliament from the Maritimes, John Herron and also, if he wishes to comment or question, Peter Stoffer. Then I'd like to make a brief comment. I'm told this machine automatically shuts off at 2:30 p.m., so I'd ask both those commenting and those answering to be quite concise.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question will be very brief and it will be related to refugee protection. We've heard throughout this week that there is a myriad of witnesses concerned with the fact that the final appeal to removal for a refugee may actually be a paper review as opposed to an oral interview by the IRB. We're intending to table amendments that would reinstate it being an oral interview as opposed to a paper review. Would you concur with that approach? I think this question would go to Mr. Arsenault.

Mr. Kevin Arsenault: Yes, I would think so. As well, I believe the new legislation makes provision for video-conferencing hearings rather than having in-person hearings.

Whenever you separate people physically—and psychologists have shown this in all kinds of experiments—the possibility of treating them in a less humane way is a part of that process, and it's because of the lack of proximity. When you hear people and you look in their eyes, it's a completely different experience from when you look at a piece of paper with writing on it, especially when there are cultural considerations such as language, different interpretations of various words. Refugees are, by definition, fleeing for protection, so in many instances it's a life and death decision the IRB makes, in many cases when they don't have the full facts and there isn't an opportunity to question in a much more dynamic way. So I would support you 100% in that amendment. I think it should be a new requirement of the new act.

Mr. John Herron: That's my question, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you.

Would Peter like to make a comment?

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Yes. Thank you, John, and welcome to all my colleagues.

I wanted to ask the gentleman who spoke last here in Halifax...if there are no changes in terms of the employment opportunities for people who come here and who have the difficulties of travelling or maintaining their education, if the legislation passes and stays there, is it possible to have a constitutional challenge of this, in your legal opinion?

Mr. Bruce Allen: I'm sure there will be constitutional challenges. Residents are recognized under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as having rights. On the other hand, I think that no professional person is going to come to Canada in order to launch a constitutional challenge against restrictions on their travel. This is the point I think at which we have to take action to prevent that situation from arising.

Canada is at a disadvantage, I think, more through perception than anything else, in trying to compete with countries such as the United States for the types of skilled immigrants we want. The greatest advantage I believe Canada has is the swiftness and fairness of its immigration process. That is a lure we have, and I think we should do everything we can to enhance it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Secondly, you talked about your mother being in Cleveland. Is it difficult...? For example, would it be possible for you to move her up to Canada?

Ms. Blair Hodgman: In order to come to Canada as a permanent resident, you'd have to pass a medical exam, and because of all her physical conditions she wouldn't pass the medical exam. She has health care in the United States and she's in a nursing home. The nursing home in the United States is not part of the health care plan the way it is here, so it would be virtually impossible to bring her here without a minister's permit or some other kind of leeway. She's lived her whole life in the United States, so it would be very difficult, virtually impossible, to bring her up here to take care of her.

• 1425

Mr. Peter Stoffer: In other words, you're really between a rock and a hard place?

Ms. Blair Hodgman: I am. There's very little choice. She has a large number of other medical problems that I haven't detailed here due to the time, but it would be very difficult and virtually impossible because of the Canadian structure to do that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

That's it, John.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

I don't know if Inky would like the last word, but I wanted to make a very brief comment, and I'll just say one thing. I think you made rather a compelling case on the right to return of a landed immigrant. I don't know exactly what can be done, but I want to say I'll look into it. I thought you made a very strong argument.

Ms. Blair Hodgman: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, John.

The discussion leads me to raise the question, why do people not take out citizenship? Wouldn't that alleviate a lot of the problems you told us about today?

Ms. Blair Hodgman: You have to meet many of the same tests in getting citizenship, and I'm not eligible for citizenship yet. So there are—

A voice: It takes years.

Ms. Blair Hodgman: Yes, it takes several years before you are eligible for citizenship, so it really doesn't alleviate all the problems. There are also some countries where you can't have dual citizenship. For example, you can't have dual citizenship in Canada and the United States. A citizen of India can't have dual citizenship with the U.S. I'm not sure about the law of Canada; it's something I'd have to look into. I have a friend who is a naturalized U.S. citizen and she has to get a visa if she wants to return to India to visit her family.

So there are reasons why people might not choose to become a citizen. I can't see any benefit to Canada. I can see reasons in the citizenship law to restrict the time you are out of the country, but I can't see the reasons under the immigration law to apply standards against people to maintain their residence in Canada.

Mr. Inky Mark: In making that one change and extending it to a ten-year period, rather than five, would you be satisfied if only that occurred?

Ms. Blair Hodgman: You mean extending the length of the card or—

Mr. Inky Mark: Lengthen it to ten years, just like your green card in the United States.

Ms. Blair Hodgman: The problem is that wouldn't change the substance of the law. What I object to is the physical presence test versus the objective factors. When you're forcing me to count and worry about the number of days I'm going to spend at my mother's bedside, are you going to force a student to worry if they're spending too much time pursuing higher education, when their intention is to live in Canada and they have substantial ties to Canada? I think how many actual, physical days you spend in Canada is an unfair and not really relevant question. The idea is, what are your ties to Canada, what is your relationship with Canada? That's what I think. That's what the present law looks to, and I don't see a reason to change this. I don't see any advantage.

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes, but surely after a ten-year period you should be able to manage the conditions to receive citizenship.

Ms. Blair Hodgman: Yes, but are you saying you're going to have to prove four years of physical presence in the ten-year period? Is that what your proposal would be? I'm not clear.

Mr. Inky Mark: As long as you're not out of the country any more than two years.

Ms. Blair Hodgman: Two years in ten years?

Mr. Inky Mark: Out of the ten.

Ms. Blair Hodgman: That would certainly be an improvement over the current standard. But I still think the person's intent should be the critical thing and not the actual counting of days. But certainly, if it was just two out of ten, that would be an improvement.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to draw this discussion to a close because we're about to be cut off. I would like to thank you all very much for coming to speak to us. I'm sorry I can't be more personal, but thank you very much for taking the time. We certainly registered your points and we'll see what can be done about them.

Thank you very much. Have a good day.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): I rise on a point of order.

Do not worry. Before we say goodbye for the weekend, I only wish to give notice of my intent to ask for leave, next week, to table three amendments to Section 3 concerning the purpose of the law. If you need more details...

• 1430

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): I had a similar point. We don't have a quorum, but just for purposes of information I'd like to table with the clerk four amendments to clauses 5, 15, 16, and 44. There they are. Consider them sent in.

Are there any further items for discussion? Thank you all very much. The meeting is adjourned.